HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080401AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, April 1, 2008
4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing
SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners ~ ~~
B. Planning Staff ---~`'~ ~JG~ ~~5
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 404 Park Ave./414 Park Circle (Aspenwalk), Conceptual PUD,
Resolution No.~(continue to 4/15)
B. 604 W. Main, Growth Management Reviews
Resolution No.
C. 1450 Crystal Lake Road (Aspen Club), Conceptual SPA and
other associated reviews, Resolution No. 09 (Continued from
3/18)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Reconsideration of 300 Puppy Smith Resolution
B. Appointment of Member to Lift 1 taskforce
C. Former Chair Commendation
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directc+rr
~P1
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
RE: - Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Mixed Use Development and Growth
Management Review for Affordable Housing- Resolution No15, Series 2008 -
PublieHearine (Parce12735-124-44-008)
DATE: April 1, 2008
APPLICANT /OWNER: squaze feet). The Historic Preservation Commission
604 West LLC, owned and operated adopted Resolution 43 Series of 2007, which approved
by Neil Kazbank. the demolition of two existing buildings on the site and
the relocation of an existing historic shed to an adjacent
REPRESENTATIVE: pioperty.
Alan Richman Planning Services and
Stryker Brown Architects.
LOCATION:
Lots Q, R and S, Block 24 City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly
known as 604 West Main Street.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Mixed Use (MLl) zone
district containing two existing office
buildings with approximately 1,360
square feet of net leasable commercial
space. A total of five structures exist
on the property comprising
approximately 2,651 gross square feet.
The entire 9,000 square foot pazcel is a
designated historic landmazk that
contributes to the Main Street Historic
District azchitectural inventory.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant requests approval to
enlazge the historic landmazk property
by adding two new commercial
buildings (2,975 squaze feet of new net
leasable in addition to the existing
1,360 squaze feet of net leasable area)
and a three bedroom affordable
housine oral (approximately 1,200
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the project, with conditions.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the enlazgement of a Historic
Landmazk for a Mixed Use Development and Growth
Management for one (1) affordable housing unit as part
of the mixed use redevelopment.
Page 1 of 5
G:\city\Saraa\604_612W estMain\604 WMainPZ.doc
P2
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the,Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
• Enlazgement of an Historic Landmazk for Mixed Use Development pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470.070.1. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authori who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
Growth Management Review for Affordable Housine pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040.4 (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who
may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The subject property is a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District.
There are currently five buildings on the property: a circa 1880s historic miner's cabin that fronts
Main Street (the Rebecca Wylie house) and an 1880s outbuilding/bam located along the alley
and Fifth Street, a 19`s century shed straddling the property line between 604 and 612 West Main
Street, and two 1950s structures located in the northwestern portion of the pazcel. The three 19`~
century structures contribute to the historic chazacter of the Main Street Historic District.
The applicant is interested in developing the property to include Commercial and Affordable
Housing uses, no free mazket residential units are proposed. The proposed design is
approximately .87:1 or 7,800 square feet, where 1:1 is the maximum cumulative FAR for the
Mixed Use zone district. HPC adopted Resolution 43 Series of 2007 (Exhibit E), which granted
the following approvals:
^ Major Development Conceptual Review
^ Commercial Design Standard Review
^ Demolition of two 1950s buildings
^ Relocation of the historic Rebecca Wylie House forward on the property toward
Main Street and Fifth Street
^ Relocation of the 19u' century shed to the adjacent property
^ Dimensional Variances for setbacks
Commercial use comprises the majority of the proposed development with a total of 4,335
squaze feet of net leasable space located on the first and second floors. The applicant proposes to
increase the existing 1,360 squaze feet of net leasable commercial by adding 2,975 squaze feet of
new net leasable space. The proposed basement azea contains a workout azea, media room,
lounge and other ancillary operations for the commercial spaces on the property.
A three bedroom 1,200 squaze feet affordable housing unit is proposed at the rear of the property
on the second floor along the alley. No free market residential component is proposed. "
604 West Main Street Staff Memo
G:\city\Saraa\604_612WestMain\604 WMainPZ.doc
Page 2 of 5
P3
Table 1: Dimensional
. __ __
Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq.
Size
Minimum Lot 90 ft. 30 ft.
Width
Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Front
Yard Setback 10 ft. 10 ft., which may be reduced to 5 ft. pursuant
to Special Review Section 26.430
Minimum Side 1 ft. (east side, HPC granted 6 ft. 8 in. (east side, comer)
Yard Setback variance) 5 ft. (west side)
5 ft. (west side)
Minimum Reaz 0 ft.(for Historic Bam and AHU, 5 ft.
Yard Setback HPC granted variance)
Maximum Height 25 ft or less 28 ft. for Commercial, which maybe increased
to 32 ft. by Commercial Design Review
25 ft. for Residential
Minimum
Distance between 10 ft. 10 ft.
Buildin son Lot
PPCIectrian minimum of 35% 25% (pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public
Maximurn Approximately 7,800 or Maximum cumulative is 9,000 sq. fr. or 1:1,
allowable floor 0.87:1 which may be increase to 1:1.25 through
azea S ecial Review
Minimum 6 spaces (5 spaces for the A total of 6 spaces for the proposed
Number of 4,390 sq. ft. of net leasable, development- 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable
Parkin¢ Snaces and 1 space for the AH unit) area, and one per dwelling unit.
STAFF COMMENTS:
ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
The applicant proposes to enlazge the historic landmazk property located at 604 West Main
Street. The program includes increasing net leasable commercial and a new affordable housing
unit. No free mazket residential is proposed.
Aspen, similaz to preservation programs throughout the country, offers incentives to historic
property owners to encourage. rehabilitation, preservation and high quality design projects.
Among other developmental benefits, historic properties calculate the number of employees
generated by commercial development based on a specific formula that reduces the standard
mitigation number. The first four employees generated do not require mitigation and the next
four employees require 30% mitigation. Over eight employees generated require the standazd
604 West Main Street Staff Memo
G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604 WMainPZ.doc
Page 3 of 5
P4
mitigation. The applicant is required to mitigate for 3.0 employees and proposes a three
bedroom onsite Category 4 rental unit to fulfill this obligation. The calculation for this project,
based on a generation rate of 3.7 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable azea of
commercial space in the MU zone district, is as follows:
Number of employees generated: 2;975 sq. ft. new net leasable x 3.7/1,000 =11 employees
First 4 employees = 0 mitigation
Next 4 employees = 4 x 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated
Next 3 employees = 3 x 60% = 1.8 employees to be mitigated
11 employees generated by 2,975 sq. ft. of new net leasable
1.2 + 1.8 = 3.0 total employees to be mitigated
A three bedroom affordable housing unit houses three employees. Staff finds that the review
standards for the Enlargement of a Historic Landmark, Section 26.470.070.0.2 of the Land Use
Code, are met and recommends approval of the project.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
The Applicant is requesting growth management approval to obtain sufficient development
allotments to construct the proposed project. The project's compliance with the applicable
review standazds aze discussed below:
1) Growth Management Apnroval for the Development of Affordable Housinli. The Housing
Boazd reviewed the proposal at their meeting held February 27, 2008 and recommended
approval with conditions (Exhibit D). The Board prefers the unit be "for sale" and sold
through the lottery system; however, since the applicant proposes a Category 4 rental unit,
the Boazd proposes that the units be deed restricted as a Category 4 rental with the capability
of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or APCHA deems
the units out of compliance for a period of more than one yeaz. Staff includes two options in
Section 6 of the Resolution: Option 6. B(1) approves a for sale unit and Option 6. B(2)
approves a rental unit.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision making body as to the unit being for
sale or rental: Based on the preference of the Housing Board and the language in the Land Use
Code, Stajj' recommends that the unit be listed as for sale. Staff finds that the Growth
Management Standards are met and recommends approval of the project.
The following land dedication and impact fees aze applicable to this development:
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION:
Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either
dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the
Applicant pay the School Lands Dedication cash in lieu requirement prior to issuance of a
604 West Main Street Staff Memo
G:\city\Saraa\604_612W estMain\604 WMainPZ.doc
Page4of5
P5
building permit for the proposed development and that the fee shall be calculated at building
permit submittal.
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE & TDM/ AIR QUALITY IMPACT FEE:
The Applicant is required to pay the Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)/ Air Quality Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and
additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees. These
fees only apply to the new buildings on the site; the designated historic buildings aze exempt (i.e.
the historic Wylie House and the historic barn along the alley). The fees associated with this
project shall be calculated at the time of building permit submittal.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Impact
Fees be paid prior to building permit issuance.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, .Building
Department, Zoning and the Pazks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and
their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of
the AACP, as well as, the applicable review standazds in the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff
recommends approval of the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No.j~ Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the
Enlazgement of a Historic Landmazk for Mixed Use Development and Growth Management
Review for a three bedroom Affordable Housing Unit."
ATTACHMENTS:'
E~cI-ItBIT A Review Criteria for Enlazgement of a Historic Landmazk and Staff
Findings
Eta-IIBIT B Review Criteria for Growth Management and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT C Development Review Committee meeting minutes dated February 14, 2007
EXHIBIT D Housing Referral dated February 27, 2008
EXHIBIT E HPC Resolution 43, Series 2007, approving HPC Conceptual, Demolition,
Relocation, Commercial Design Standazds and Variances.
EXI-IIBIT F HPC Minutes dated October 10, 2007 and November 14, 2007.
604 West Main Street Staff Memo
G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainPZ.doc
Page 5 of 5
P6
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
THE ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24 CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2735-124-44-008.
RESOLUTION NO. f ~ (SERIES OF 2008)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from 604 West LLC, owned and operated by Neil Kazbank and represented by Alan
Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects, requesting approval of
Growth Management Review for the Enlazgement of a Historic Landmark for a Mixed
Use Development and Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing to enlazge
the historic landmazk by adding 2,975 of new net leasable commercial azea and an
affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Standazd approval from
the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Major Development Conceptual, Relocation
and Demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12,
2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted setback variances by the Historic
Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU (Mixed Use); and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmazk Sites and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds,
the Community Development Depaztment recommended approval with conditions, of the
land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2008, the Plazuung
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. j~, Series of 2008, by a to - ( - )
vote, approving Growth Management Review: the Enlazgement of a Historic Landmazk
for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing,
for the development of two new commercial buildings and an affordable housing unit
consisting of a total of 4,335 square feet of net leasable azea and approximately 1,200
square feet of affordable housing located on the property at 604 West Main Street, Lots
Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 1 of 7
P7
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning. Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent. with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a
Growth Management Review for the enlazgement of a historic landmark for mixed use
development and a Growth Management Review for the development of affordable
housing for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24,
City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional requirements shall
comply with the MU zone district, as included in the chart below. Specific square
footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the MU zone
district.
Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq.
Minimum Lot
Width 90 ft. 30 ft.
Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Area/Dwellin
Minimum Front 10 ft. 10 ft., which may be reduced to 5 ft. pursuant
Yazd Setback to S ecial Review Section 26.430
Minimum Side 1 ft. (east side, HPC granted 6 ft. 8 in. (east side, corner)
Yazd Setback variance) 5 ft. (west side)
5 ft. (west side)
Minimum Reaz 0 ft.(for Historic Barn and AHO, 5 ft.
Yatd Setback HPC granted vaziance)
Maximum Height 25 ft or less 28 ft. for Commercial, which may be increased
to 32 ft. by Commercial Design Review
25 ft. for Residential
Minimum
Distance between 10 ft. ~ 10 ft.
Buildin son Lot
Pr~iactrian Minimum of 35% 25% (pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public
Mav;,n„ro Annroximately 7 800 or Maximum cumulative is 9,000 sq. ft. or 1:1, ~
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 2 of 7
P8
allowable f
may be increase to 1:1.25 through
azea S ecial Review
Minimum 6 spaces (5 spaces for the A total of 6 spaces for the proposed
Number of 4,390 sq. ft. of net leasable, development- 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable
Parking S aces and 1 s ace for the AH unit .azea, and one er dwellin unit.
Section 2• Building Permit Aaplication
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the HPC conceptual and final Resolution and a copy of the P&Z
Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval by HPC and P&Z printed on the cover page of the
building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal. Improvements to the Main Street right of way will require over site by
the City Forester. Detail root zones of trees in the right of way that may be
impacted by the_improvements.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and pazking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 3• Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, with the exception of the
setback variances granted by the Historic Preservation Commission via Resolution #43
Series of 2007. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of
Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal.
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 3 of 7
P9
Section 4• Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 5• Sidewalks Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds, HPC
recommendations and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the
applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such
improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units
within the development.
Section 6: Affordable Housine
A. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of one
unit. The Applicant shall provide a three bedroom, Category 4, 1,200 squaze feet unit as
represented in their application.
B(1) The affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit
and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines.
B(2) The unit is permitted to be rental with the following conditions:
a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and
finalized at time of Final approval.
b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such
time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems
the unit out of compliance over a period of one yeaz. If the unit is found to be out
of compliance for one yeaz, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be
listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the
unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the sales price will be based upon the
price from the day the non-compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non-
compliance, the unit will be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to
sell the unit, the owner may choose the first buyer only the household qualifies
under the top priority for that specific unit.
c. An agreement will be established between the owners of the commercial space and
APCHA regazding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the
tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employer. If the owner cannot find a
qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled
through APCHA's normal advertising process.
d. Two reserved parking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit;
however, one pazking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one
pazking space for the affordable housing unit.
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 4 of 7
P10
e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association;
however, the applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of
maintaining and managing said unit.
£ Each tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a
yearly basis.
g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of
three consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for
sale" unit, the top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a
dependent as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
h. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit
to become an ownership unit. These governing documents shall be reviewed and
approved by APCHA.
i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen
can elect to purchase the unit for rental to qualified households in accordance with
the APCHA Housing Guidelines.
As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the
applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided
1/l0a' of 1 percent interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in
perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the
unit becomes an ownership unit; or the applicant may propose any other means
that the Housing Authority determines acceptable.
k. Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's
assessments upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be
based on the value of the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the
value of the deed-restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and
in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting
representation commercial space if the unit becomes a "for sale" unit. No changes to
this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval.
C. The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the
same time as the newly developed commercial space. A deed restriction shall be
recorded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and, if applicable, at the same time as the
recordation of the Condominium Plat.
Section 7• Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable sandazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 8• Sanitation District Reauirements
a. Service is contingent. upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 5 of 7
P11
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Sand sepazators are required for pazking gazages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
d. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements before any and all sol stabilization
measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below
grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed
for each building. Shazed service line agreements may be required where more than
one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in
sewer easements or right of ways.
e. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
£ All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
g. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage azeas must have approved containment facilities.
h. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ACSD main sewer lines.
Section 9: Exterior Liehtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 10: Landscaaine
a. Proposed on grade improvements need to be designed with the maximum protection
of the root zones azound the cottonwood trees. Plans shall identify impacts to water
and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts.
b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Pazks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection, and the location of trees
and the drip line of the trees in relationship to the existing structure and proposed
structures, will be required for the building permit set.
~lel'LIVLI 11. 1 R~ l~ Yu. ~.v .---.-
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a par
development impact fee and a TDM/Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
Page 6 of 7
P12
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the mazket value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 13:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and
the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 14:
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 15:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unwnstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1 ~` day
of April, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
James R True, Special Counsel
LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008
. Page 7 of 7
P13
Exhibit A
DEVELOPMENT
Section 26.470.070.1 of the Aspen Land Use Code Enlazgement of an historic landmazk for
commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. The enlazgement of an historic landmazk building
for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not
require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation
above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation above
eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu
thereof.
For example: A project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a
total of 5.4 employees, as follows:
First 4 em loyees = 0 em loyee mitigation
Second 4 employees mitigated at 30% = 1.2 employees
7 employees mitigated at
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of
this Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation.
Staff Findin¢: The development proposes 2,975 sq. ft. of new net leasable commercial
space. Approximately 1,360 sq. ft. of net leasable currently exist on the property;
therefore, an estimated total of 4,335. sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space (2,975 +
1,360) is projected for the property.
Based on an employee generation rate of 3.7 employees per 1,000 squaze feet of net
leasable, the development generates 11 employees. According to the calculation above,
the applicant is required to mitigate for 3.0 employees. An onsite 1,200 squaze feet three
bedroom affordable housing unit is proposed for the site. The Housing Board has
reviewed the proposal and finds that the housing requirements aze met.
b. Up to one (1) free-mazket residence may be created pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlazgement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQ~ approvals granted prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market units (beyond one [1])
shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-mazket residential units within a
multi-family or mixed-use project.
Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmazk GMQS
G:\city\S azaa\604_612 W estMain\604 W MainExhibitA. doc
Page 1 of 3
P14
Staff Findine: N/A. The applicant does not propose free mazket residential units in this
development.
26.470.050. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management
review shall comply with the following standazds. The reviewing body shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D.
Staff Findine: The applicant requests 2,975 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial out of the
total quota. Adequate development allotments aze available for this proposal. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding: The proposed new development meets the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines. The azchitecture is sensitive to the context and proportions of the Main
Street Historic District. It includes rehabilitation and restoration of the Wylie House,
historic barn and the dilapidated shed, which are important goals in the AACP. The
project is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, which is a goal of the managing
growth section of the AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals regarding transportation by developing a
building that supports a variety of transportation modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -
and adds accessible office/commercial space along Main Street. The development
provides a three bedroom affordable housing rental unit, which meets affordable housing
requirements.
The project is consistent with the Pazks and Open Space section of the AACP. It includes
improvements along the sidewalk on Main Street and the construction of a sidewalk
along Fifth Street. The proposed pedestrian amenity exceeds the requirement. Staff finds
that the goals of the AACP aze met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findine: The development conforms to the requirements in the Mixed Use Zone
District. HPC granted reaz yard and east side yazd setback vaziances to mitigate an adverse
impact on the historic resource.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual
Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmazk GMQS
G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604 WMainExhibitA.doc
Page 2 of 3
P15
Staff Finding: The proposal is generally consistent with the HPC Conceptual approval and
Commercial Design Review approval.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by
the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.IOO.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower category designation.
Staff Findine: N/A. Please refer to Section 26.470.070.1.a for a discussion on affordable
housing generation.
6. Affordable housing net livable azea, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty
percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable azea, for which the finished
floor level is at or above natural or fmished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing,
and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose. to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary
units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied,
Staff Findine: N/A. Please refer to Section 26.470.070.1.a for a discussion on affordable
housing generation.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional
demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure
includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication
utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, pazking and road and
transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
Staff Finding: The project is located within the Aspen Infill azea and represents minimal
additional demand on public infrastructure. The applicant attended a Design Review
Committee meeting in February and already incorporated some changes into the project
based on the comments at the meeting. Referral comments aze included in Exhibit C.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmazk GMQS
G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604 WMainExhibitA.doc
Page 3 of 3
P16
EXHIBIT B
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
26.470.070.4 The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following
criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standazd. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public heazing with the Boatd of Directors.
Staff Findin¢: The Housing Boazd considered the proposed three bedroom 1,200
sq. ft. affordable housing unit and found compliance with the APCHA Guidelines.
APCHA recommends approval of the unit with conditions.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,
pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full
unit, acash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitltin County Housing Authority. If the
mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, acash-in-lieu payment shall require City
Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may
be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Findine: The affordable housing unit is in the form of an actual newly built
unit located onsite. This criterion is met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable azea is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
Staff Findine: The entire unit is located on the second floor of the development
above the pazlting spaces. This criterion is met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitlcin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
Exhibit B/ Affordable Housing GMQS
G:\city\Sazaa\604_612WestMain\604 WMainExhibitB.doc
Page 1 of 2
P17
City Attomey ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitltin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitlcin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Finding: The proposed unit is requested to be a Category 4deed-restricted
rental unit owned by the applicant. Based on the recommendation of the Housing
Boazd and criterion d above which prefer for sale units, staff finds that the unit
should be for sale. The applicant intends to rent the unit to an employee of the
commercial space and meet with the City Attorney for approval of an acceptable
legal instrument to ensure the permanent affordability of the unit. The Housing
Board recommends that if the owner cannot find a qualified employee to rent the
space, the owner will contact APCHA and the units will be filled through
APCHA's normal advertising process.
Exhibit B/Affordable Housing GMQS
G:\city\S azaa\604_612 W estMain\604 W MainE~chibitB. doc
Page 2 of 2
P18
Development Review Committee Referral Comments/ 604 West Main Street:
Building Department:
Preliminary plan review comment for DRC of 604 W Main
1) Applicant should be awaze of CDOT requirements for ROW improvements and or
access.
2) Questions about type of construction, occupancy sepazations, exiting from lower
and upper levels will best be worked out prior to permit submittal.
Zonine:
1. Net leasable had two different #'s 1360 and 1426 sq. ft. in the document. I think
that 1360 was the correct #.
2. List type of AH unit on plan set, list net livable on FAR page and also FAR for
AH to total with the rest of the FAR for the property. To verify the .87:1
3. Need to resolve setback in between the two pazcels.
4. Fees: Will include School Land (26.620), TDM, and Parks (26.610). Applicant
will provide current "Mazket Value". To calculate your fees there is a fee matrix
on our website for your convenience.
Below is the definition of mazket value. This term comes up when calculating your
"School Land" fees.
1. Current mazket value. Current market value means the value of the land
at the time of the cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets
and utilities, but excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other
structures on the property.
2. Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented
purchase price (if anarms-length transaction no more than two [2] yeazs old) or
other mutually agreed-upon recognized means:
3. Appraisal. In the event the developer and the City fail to agree on mazket
value, such value shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable
to both parties. The developer shall pay for the appraisal.
Fire Denartment:
^ Sprinkler the development/fire alarms
^ Hydraulic calculations
P19
Date: February 20, 2008
Project: 604 West Main Street
City of Aspen
Engineering Department DRC Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Transportatton
Driveways -Specify all driveway locations and widths. Standards depend on zoning
district.
Draina e
General -Project packet must include a discussion of anticipated and proposed
drainage patterns, detention storage and outlet concepts.
Storm Sewer System -Project drainage requirements may include construction of new
storm sewer line, minimum lateral I S" RCP and mainline 18'.' RCP to connect to
existing storm sewer system. A Stormwater System Development Fee shall be
assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment of the
property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious area of the
development, not simply the increased impervious azea. Detention as required by
code.
Pedestrian Improvements
General - In accordance with the City's Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Master Plan,
property owners are required to replace and/or install and maintain sidewalk, curb
and gutter along the street frontage adjacent to their properties. Properties within
certain areas of the City aze not required to install sidewalk, curb and gutter. These
locations are shown on the "Sidewalk Free Zones" and the "No Curb and Gutter
Zones" maps dated February 22, 2002. These maps are kept in the City
Engineering Department.
Sidewalks -Sidewalks must be replaced and/or installed along the property line.
Project must depict ALL sidewalk locations and widths. Sidewalk width is based
on the land use.
Residential: 5'
High density and multi-family aeeas: 6'
Commercial areas 8'.
Warning Pads -detectable warning pads shall be installed at all curb ramps. Curb ramps
shall be directional and not diagonal.
Construction Management
General - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the
building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of
construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall
P20 describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust,
and erosion/sediment pollution.
Miscellaneous
Utilities -All above ground structures shall be located outside the public rights-of--way.
Sight Distances -Project shall comply with proper sight distances at
intersections/driveways.
Detailed plans are required prior to council -please see engineering department for
specific details.
Additional Project Specific Comments
The Engineering Department Checklist will need to be followed, especially with regard
to: Site Grading Plan, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan & Excavation Stabilization
Plan.
Sidewalk will be required along 5`h Street. The sidewalk must be designed in such a way
as to minimize the impact to the existing trees. In order to achieve this, an alternate
design, material and installation may be required. The Engineering Dept must review
and approve the design prior to building permit submittal.
It is unclear as to what happens to the irrigation ditch to the north and south. Plans must
clearly show this ditch.
Only one driveway cut will be permitted. The maximum width of this cut is 10 feet.
Depending on how the detention is designed, as new storm sewer system may be required
for the project. See comment above.
P21
ACSD Requirements-604 West Main Street
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which
are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
The old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are
attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will
be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order
to fund the improvements needed.
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts
prior to building permit.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved
containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
P22
DRC Comments
Parks Department
2/20/08
Project: 604 W Main Street
Over the past several years the Pazks Department has worked with multiple Main Street
redevelopment projects in order to protect the chazacter of the existing urban forest. This has
resulted in the successful development of properties that contain historical and important trees.
This property is no exception. The property is encumbered with several lazge and historic
cottonwood trees, which will need to be protected to the fullest extent possible.
Parks cannot support the proposed excavation within the drip line of the cottonwood trees
located in the front yazd setback. The maximum encroachment under the drip line that
will be approved by the Parks Department will be to the front of the existing historical
structure. Anew design for the proposed excavation and location of the structures will be
required in order to receive sign off on the building permit.
2. Proposed on grade improvements will need to be redesigned with the goal of maximum
protection of the root zones azound the cottonwood trees. Current plans identify multiple
impacts, which will impact water and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts.
3. Pazks requires a new plan that shows the location of the trees and the drip line of the trees
in relationship to the existing structures and proposed structures.
4. An approved tree permit will be required before any construction related activities take
place on the property. This includes, demo of structures, house moving, excavation, etc....
Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120.
5. Any landscape plan should detail the mitigation for tree removal with locations and
legends for newly planted trees.
6. Improvements to the ROW, if required by engineering, along Fifth Street aze encouraged.
Improvements may require the removal of the two coniferous trees located within the
City ROW on Fifth Street. These trees aze not sufficient for appropriate pedestrian
movement and vehicular site lines. Removal of these trees for improvements will be
approved without mitigation.
Improvements to the Main Street ROW will require over site by the City Forester or
designee. New curb and gutter, sidewalks and other required improvements will severely
impact the existing trees within the ROW. All improvements should take into
consideration that excavations into the root zones would not be approved. Designs and
the engineering for these improvements should be designed to account for this impact and
will need to be approved by both Parks and Engineering.
P23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Adams, Community Development
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: February 27, 2008
RE; 604 WEST MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
Pazcel ID No. 2735-124-44-007
ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the property at 604 West Main Street.
BACKS D~ The property currently contains five buildings. The applicant is requesting to
preserve. and restore two contributing historic buildings, remove three of the existing buildings that
aze not historic, and replace these three structures with two small office buildings and a carport that
has an affordable housing unit on its second floor. The Historic Preservation Comrnittee has
reviewed and approved the applicant's proposal.
The proposed project would create an office compound with five small buildings (the same number
that is currently on the property, which two would be historic structures and three would be new
structures. No free-mazket component is being proposed on this property. The affordable housing
unit is proposed to contain three bedrooms.
The applicant is proposing to increase the net leasable commercial space by approximately 2,975
squaze feet. The current commercial space is 1,360 squaze feet, thereby providing a total 4,335
square feet of net leasable space.
MITIGATION:
Section 26.470.070.0.2 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to
approve the enlazgement of a historic landmark for mix used development. The Code states the
following standards:
Up to 4 employees generated by the additional commerciaUlodge development
shall not require the provision ojaffordab[e housing: Thirty percent (30%) of the
employee generation above 4 and up to 8 employees shall be mitigated through
the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%)
of the employee generation above 8 employees shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing arcash-in-lieu thereof.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4,
Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/
~~~it b.
P24
Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
According to Section 26.470.100 A.1. of the Code, 2.7 employees are generated per 1,000 square
feet of net leasable commercial space in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The net increase in net
leasable commercial space will generate 11 employees (2,975 X 3.7 _ 1,000 = 11). The Code-
specified formula for mitigation of employees on a Historic Landmark property would generate the
following:
• First 4 employees = 0 Employees to be mitigated
• Next 4 employees = 4 X 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated
• Remaining 3 employees = 3 X 60% _ ].8 employees to be mitigated
Based on this calculation, 3.0 employees aze required to be mitigated for the redevelopment of this
property. The applicant is proposing to build athree-bedroom affordable housing unit on-site that
mitigates for 3.0 employees. The applicant is proposing the unit as a Category 4 rental unit and is
proposed to be approximately 1,200 squaze feet in size, which meets the minimum stated size for a
Category 3 and Category 4 3-bedroom unit.
Section 26.470.070.4.d states:
The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the fust purchasers, subject to
the aforementioned qualifications from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the AspenlPitkin County Housing
Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as
defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, as amended
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units
owned by an employer or non Proftt organization, if a legal instrument in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
City encourages affordable housing units for lodge development to be rental units
associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of
the lodge.
As stated above, the applicant is requesting the unit be a rental unit for. employees of the
commercial space.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Boazd reviewed the application at their regular meeting
held Febniary 20, 2008 and although the project does not fulfill the goal that 100% of employee
a- ..., .._ a-.
P25
mitigation should be provided, the project is providing mitigation as currently stipulated in the Land
Use Code and preserving two historic structures. Since the mitigation requirement is being satisfied
as stipulated in the Code by an on-site unit rather than apayment-in-lieu fee, Staff would
recommend approval of the application. "For sale" units aze preferred over rental units, but since
the developer is requesting the unit as a rental, the following conditions should be required as part
of the approval:
Rental Units:
a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and finalized at
time of Final approval.
b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such time the
owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the unit out of
compliance over a period of one year. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for
one year, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be listed for sale with the
Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the unit is being sold due to non-
compliance, the sales price will be based upon the price from the day the non-
compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the unit will be
sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the unit, the owner may
choose the first buyer only the household qualifies under the top priority for that
specific unit.
c. An agreement wil- be established between the owners of the commercial space and
APCHA regarding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the
tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employer. If the owner cannot find a
qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled
through APCHA's normal advertising process.
d. Two reserved pazking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit; however,
one pazking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one parking space for
the affordable housing unit.
e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the
applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and
managing said unit.
£ Each tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly basis.
g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of three
consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for sale" unit, the
3
P26
top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a dependent as defined in
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
h. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit to
become an ownership unit. These governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by
APCHA.
i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can
elect to purchase the unit for rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA
Housing Guidelines.
j. As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the applicant
shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided 1/10' of 1 percent
interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority; or until such time the unit becomes an ownership unit; or the
applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines
acceptable.
k. Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's assessments
upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be based on the value of
the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the value of the deed-restricted unit.
This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the
project and allow for the same voting representation commercial space if the unit becomes a
"for sale" unit. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval.
The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the same time as
the newly developed commercial space. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of
recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
4
___ __ _ ------- P27
APPROUVING AN APPL CATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (~COINCEPTUAL),
DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604
WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, PEi`ND O ORADOZ4, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
RESOLUTION NO.43, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008.
WHEREAS, the applicant 604 West LLC, c/o Neil ICarbank, Manager, represented by Alan
Richman Planning Services, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation,
Demolition, Vaziances, an R and SeBlioc D 4i~ty amend Towns't of Aspen, Colo doCand at 604
West Main Street, Lots Q,
WHEREAS, Section 26.4]5.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authori2e a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. safetyrand the owner/applicant isunable t make the needed repaarsrinta timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d, No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
RECEPTION#: 545190, 1212612007 at
10:15:16 AM,
1 of s, R SS7.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, ~
P28
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the pazcel of historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the
Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following
criteria:
1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the
historic district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the chazacter and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationships
of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followine criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standards, according to Section 26.412.050
Review Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.4]2.060,
Commercial Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-
appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is
proposed and the purpose of the particular standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a
deviation from the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design
Elements, is not required but.may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
,~ .,. _ ._
Design Standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building
may be required to comply with this section. .
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Cormercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standazds and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine
when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although
these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of [he policy objectives might
be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is
still met, albeit through altemative means; and
WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine, per Section 26.415.1 IO.C of
the Municipal Code, that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectwal
character of the historic. property, anadjoining designated historic property or historic
district; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated December 12, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standazds, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 12, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of 6 to l .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Variances, and Commercial Design Standard Review (Conceptual) for the property
located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
1. The applicant shall reduce the overall maximum height of the Affordable Housing unit
and the Fifth Street new building by at least 1 foot.
2. A step shall be added to the roof of the porch element located on the south elevation of
the new building fronting Main Street.
P29
y .~ __. ._
P30
3. HFC recommends against a sidewalk along the Fifth Street side of the parcel to the Parks
and Engineering Departments. If the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan,
pedestrian paths and parking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC.
4. The following setbacks aze granted for the historic Wylie House: 5 foot setback along
Fifth Street, where I foot is provided and 6 feet aze required for a corner lot with two
front yards, as attached in Exhibit A.
5. The following setback is granted for the second floor Affordable Housing Unit on the
alley: 5 feet setback along the alley, where 0 feet are provided and 5 feet are required, as
attached in Exhibit A.
6. The following setback is granted for the Fifth Street Building: a minimum setback from
the Fifth Street property line for the second story deck is 3 feet, as attached in Exhibit A.
7. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyard and 5 feet
reazyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is
provided, as attached in Exhibit A.
8. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Shed: 5 feet rear yard setback to
relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the reaz yard
setback, as attached in Exhibit A.
9. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regarding Pedestrian Amenity Space
and Trash and Utility areas.
]0. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures.
11. Relocation is granted for the historic shed.
12. The historic shed is permitted to be thoroughly documented, dismantled, and
reconstructed in its new location on the adjacent lot.
13. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the
building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not
the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for
review and approval by staff and monitor.
14. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
15. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
16. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) yeaz 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 aone-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.
[signatures on following page[
P31
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December
2007.
Approved as to Form:
w- ~~~1 -----'~-
ames R. True, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTO P S RVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, hair
ATTEST:
Kathy Stri kland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P32
f~~ ,~u~i~~~3
i~~
I~
_ ri~•
SF_~
~ C
-~~~
3
OI
' H _
f~
w ~
i
I
~ _
r
i \
_I_ _~
'
_ ` '
-:~
a
~0 ~~ w.« ,
`
~~J ~ 1
O p7/ t2' ~ Ic~ -J 1 ~ ~ + /
~
E
_ y. „ -__
+_ ~
A ply
i j
~
f,
'
~ ,
~i~
,..- 1
~.
_ r<-
_ ~..----
-
-
-
-
-- -
-
..,w~. € ~
4
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 ~~~
f ~ ~ f ~f f
Kf
E~ ~
a~
2 A
[~ ~ ~m
~~
g9~
~S
~\
I~
~F~
3
i~
~. g
7 ,1i~
~9
S
a
~.a
1.:
_ _ _ _.. .
P33
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2007
435 W. MAIN - ASPEN JEWLSH COMMUNITY CENTER -MAJOR 2
DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................
...................... 6
.......................... . .
PARKING METERS ......................................................
604 W. MAIN -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -RELOCATION -COMMERCIAL
...................... 7
DESIGN REVIEW -VARIANCES - Pl ..................................................
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
P34
ASPEN TITSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2007
Ann said she would prefer a single poll and keep the light polls as clean as
possible from signage etc. This is a great idea. Ann said at some point
someone should look at grouping the newspaper boxes.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Sarah said she would like to see a full plan of where the polls would go.
Tim said they are located in the middle block.
Jeffrey said the locations are specific and we need to see where they are
located.
Brian agreed that we are spreading out the urban clutter and we need to see a
plan. It will be great to get them off the light posts.
Tim said the cost is $17,000 a piece. The decision was to go solar and the
technology is there.
Sarah said she would like an energy analysis.
MOTION.• Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #37 with the condition that
a plan for where the parking meters go be presented to staff and monitor;
second by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah, no; Ann, yes; Alison, yes; Brain,
yes; Nora, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-1.
604 W. MAIN -CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION -RELOCATION -
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW -VARIANCES - PH
Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I
Elevation -Exhibit II
Sara said this is a large project. The size of the lot is 9,000 square feet and it
is within the Main Street historic district. Right now there are five buildings
on the property, three are considered historic. There is a miner's cabin that
fronts Main Street and an 1880's out building/barn located along the alley on
Fifth Street. There is a 19`" century shed that straddles the property line
between 604 and 612 W. Main.
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
P35
The applicant is interested in developing the property to include commercial
and affordable housing. There are no free market uses involved. The design
is welt under the allowable FAR on this property. The ratio proposed is .85
to 1, where 1 to 1 is the maximum allowed for the mixed use zone district.
HPC had a work session and overall staff feels this project is moving in a
very positive direction.
There are five reviews: Major Development, Conceptual; Commercial
Design Standard review; Demolition of 2 195O's buildings; Relocation of
the primary historic residence, the miner's cabin that fronts Main Street and
also relocation of the 19`h century shed. There are also dimensional
variances requested for this application.
Design:
Staff recommends that the parking space proposed along 5th Street be
removed. Removing the curb cut and reducing the hard scape on the historic
property is a positive step. The applicant is asking if the parking space is
removed that there be a reduction in the parking requirement which is
something HPC has the authority to do.
Height:
In terms of what is proposed for the new buildings staff recommends that the
applicant look at lowering the floor plate heights to better relate to the
historic resources, particularly on the 5`h Street side. It is sandwiched
between two historic pieces. We found that the floor plate heights of the 5`h
Street building was a little out of proportion to what the historic resowces
are so we request that the plate heights be dropped. ,
During the work session there was discussion about the elevator shafts and
the stairwells that were adding access to the roof decks. The first issues is
the maximum height. The proposal is roughly 38 feet and that is in violation
of the height requirements for the mixed use zone district. What is allowed
is 28 feet. You are allowed 5 feet for mechanical so that brings you up to 33
feet. Staff feels the height variation needs more study.
Scale and massing:
Sara said the scale and massing is moving in a good direction. The flat roof
keeps the height down. Maybe some material changes would create a better
dialogue with the historic resowces. The alley elevation is broken up which
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
8
P36 _ _...__----__.__
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2007
is positive: Overall staff is recommending continuation of looking at the
massing and the floor plate heights in relationship to the historic resources.
Demolition:
Staff found that the criteria for demolition of the two 1950's buildings were
met.
Relocation criteria:
There is a shed that is straddling the property line. The owner owns both
properties and he is asking to remove the shed onto the 612 property. Staff
is in favor of that. The owner is also rehabbing the shed. The miner's cabin
facing Main Street is proposed to be moved forward and is appropriate for
this site. Right now it is central on the property which makes it difficult to
develop anything on this site.
Setback variances:
Overall the variances requested are appropriate and they help the
development stay spread out and it increases some of the distances between
buildings on this small site and it allows the development to be broken up
into modules. Overall staff is recommending continuation.
Neil Karbank ,owner said he practices law in the main house and has a
tenant in one of the cabins in the back. All the buildings are not energy
efficient and basically dumps. What I would like to do is renovate the
buildings, move a couple of buildings and build new buildings for offices.
We would like to have new and modem energy efficient well built buildings.
We don't anticipate any change in the current uses just more of it. We will
also have the affordable housing unit. We have proposed less FAR than
what is allowed. The flat roof portions of the project are proposed to be
usable, not every day but for an occasional function,
David Brown, architect: David said there is a barn and the historic Rebecca
Wylie house. We are proposing to move the Wylie house forward and move
the shed and demolish the other three structures on the site. Abasement
would be built under the Wylie house and the other 2 buildings as well. We
will be adding another building beside the Wylie house on Main Street and
one behind the Wylie house connected by one roof top. It would be a one
story element that steps up to a two story element. Because we want to
activate the roof we need to have an elevator for wheel chair access. The
third structure is on the alley where the existing garage bam is. We are
EXHIBIT F
9 HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
P37
proposing to have an employee dwelling unit float above the parking spaces
and dumpster/recycling area. At the work session we were asked to break
the building up -and we broke the materials up so that we have vertical siding
and glass in between. There are two means of egress provided.
Models were presented to show the project and elevator. David said there is
a shed over the stairs. Some of the contemporary materials might be a little
jarring but it is intentional not to confuse the community that this is not an
historic building. David explained the concept of the three buildings.
Regarding the parking currently there is a parking space with a shed over it
and we are proposing to remove the shed and keep the parking space as an
historic element.
Height: David said if we have 28 feet as an allowable height and if HPC
grants a 4 foot addition we would be at 32 feet. The predominant portion of
the roof deck is 22 feet. One of the reasons to extend the height is stated in
guideline 7.13, to make a demonstrable contribution to the building's overall
energy efficiency, for instance, by providing improved day lighting. One of
the reasons we want a 9 foot ceiling is so that we can have a light shelf at 8
feet that reflects light into a 9 foot ceiling and bounces light for the interior.
A 9 foot ceiling would also allow for stratification of hot air and reduce the
need for an air conditioner. The shed on the west side has a stair down to
the basement and if we have to cover that we can do a trellis with some kind
of solid material. We might need a variance for that.
Alan Richmond said Nei] owns the property next door and the setback
variance in reality would be in the middle of his two properties. In effect he
is the only neighbor that would be affected by the setback variance.
Ann asked about the use of the art barn. David said Neil's wife is a painter
and is contemplating using it for her studio. Neil said his sister-in-law Judy
Haas has expressed interest in using the studio. Neil said it seems like the
right use for the building. Ann also asked about the existing trees on the
site. David said they feel they can stay out of the critical part of the root
structures of all the trees on Main Street.
Nora asked about the lilac trees on 5`h Street. David said the intention is to
retain the pine tree on 5`h Street and he didn't see any lilacs but if they can
stay out of the way of the lilacs they will do so. If the entire roof is usable it
has to have a guard rail which is solid. David said they are proposing a very
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
t~
-F38
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMNIISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007.
light hand rail. The infent is to meet the code have a guard rail at 42 inches
and have the thinnest possible steel handrail that we can achieve. For the
four inch elements it would be airplane cable. Nora said with the guard rail
we are added 42 inches to the entire height.
Neil said the height of the flat roof buildings is 22 feet and with 42 inches it
is 25 '/: feet and the height limit is 28 feet.
Alison said there are five parkin spaces along the alley and you are
requesting that HPC waive the 6` one.
Alan said there are five for the commercial and one for the affordable
housing. If we loose one we would need HPC to waive one.
David said parking is a premium and keeping one space on the site is the
reasonable thing to do.
Alan said we are willing to provide the six spaces but we recognize that i[ is
visible from 5"' Street and does contradict that aspect of the guidelines.
Alison also asked about curb cuts a]ong 5`h Street. David said right now
there is a continuous curb cut at the barn. Across the street there are a few
curb cuts. The Ullr has a continuous curb cut.
David pointed out that the two story structure echoes the two story structures
across the street.
Alan pointed out that there are variances because we are trying to set the
buildings away from the historic structure.
Nora inquired about the FAR.
David said 7,600 square feet is above grade and there is no FAR below
grade. The space below, the basement is 5,700 square feet. That includes
mechanicals etc.
Jeffrey asked about the elevator tower and what the rationale was to go with
the flat roofs. David said it creates a different identity from the west
building. It creates a very interesting massing to brake up the stair tower and
elevator into three pieces. The flat roofs are neutral and one of the goals of
the two buildings is to be a neutral background to the historic resource.
EXHIBIT F
t~ HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2D07
_ .. _.
__.__ ....... __.. - P39
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
Don Erdman, public said HPC should never approve a variance unless it
proved a true hardship to the applicant. This is a commercial application.
The applicant said that the proposed roof deck will be used for fund raising
and other functions. There is a great space at the Jewish Center that will be
approved that could be used for functions and also there are numerous
patrons who are willing to give much more amenable private spaces for fund
raising than a place right on Main Street with all the traffic going by. If the
roof deck was eliminated there would no railings in the air, no stair tower,
no elevator shaft. There would be a lot less impact on Main Street.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Sarah indicated that she cannot support the height variance given the historic
resources that are single story. It seems inappropriate and contradictory to
our guidelines. In terms of the variances for creating a better site plan the
overall campus feeling needs to be studied regarding the spacing between
the buildings etc. Sarah said she is not sure the mass and scale is appropriate
yet.
Ann said her feeling is that the overall footprint and massing is too lazge for
the site. The site is very crowded and dense compared to the texture and
development on the rest of Main Street. It is commendable to create a
distinction between historic buildings and new buildings.. These buildings
are almost too distinct. The entry to the west building is somewhat screened
and more commonly historic buildings on Main Street have dominant entry
features on the fagade. Ann pointed out that there needs to be enough space
between the five buildings.
Alison also agreed that a height variance should not be granted. Regarding
the parking she feels the 6th space should not be removed. We should be
keeping as much off street parking as we can. Regarding the scale and mass
the applicant has worked hard and the program is not out of scale. A restudy
on the spacing between the historic structures would be helpful.
Brian said the architecture is wonderful and the design. He questions the
context that it is in given the numerous surrounding historic resources.
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
IZ
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007
There is too much of a variation. The historic resource is being absorbed by
the new development. Brian said his suggestion would be to scale back on
the new building being built right behind the historic resource. The elevator
shaft and roof tops aze well above what is appropriate in height in this
particular area. Brian said he cannot support the height variance. We are
dealing with a series of small vernaculars along the streetscape and then you
get to the subject lot and the mass is significantly larger than what is on that
particular lot. The parking variance is Ok because we need to get cars off
the streetscape if we are able to.
Nora pointed out that the addition on the west is appropriate because of the
scale and it is wood. It is unusual to have three historic structures from the
same era on a block. The entire block has a very low profile. It seems as
though the historic resource has become a postage stamp and isn't put into
value. The height variance is not in compliance with guideline 7.l 3. The
scale and mass is very large.
Jeffrey concluded by commending the applicants for their excellent study
materials. The need for office space on Main Street is a significant need.
The height, scale and mass of the structures are fairly well orchestrated. The
elevator and egress tower is the focal point and the difficult part because that
is where the height variance is. The roof top and how it affects Main Street
and the surrounding historic neighborhood is important. The architecture is
being overwhelmed by the elevator towers. Jeffrey can support the parking
variance of one space because it might help the separation between the barn
and the alley on 5'h street and it meets 7.3 and 7.7 of our guidelines
(minimize curb cuts). The height variances requested are somewhat
cumbersome. The alley housing component is an important need and they
are interesting structures and it is an appropriate place for them. The design
proposal of the project is moving forward. The demolition is OK and it
meets our criteria, The relocation of the historic structure forward is
appropriate as it makes the historic house more prominent. With a little
redesign there could be support of the application.
Jeffrey announced that this is his last HPC meeting. He has been on the
board for 12 years. Jeffrey thanked the board and the applicants.
Nett Karbank said he would like to have the roof deck but if it is his life's
work to get it he will give it up. If it makes everyone's life easier lets just
forget the roof deck. If we have to get rid of the diagonals we can do that
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
13
-_---._..~_~___._~...._ __- P41
also. I would like this to be as simple as possible. Neil thanked the board
and he can work with everything else.
MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 604 W. Main, conceptual and public
Izearing until Nov. 14'h; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Brian,
yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn: second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting,ad,}oumed at 9:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT F
HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007
14
P42
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007
435 W. Main St. Substantial Amendment, public hearing .............. ............................... 3
604 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Public Hearing ........................ 5
420 E. Hopkins .................................................................................................................. I 1
Work session -Ordinance #48 - no minutes .................................................................... 14
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 14, 2007
P43
new commercial structure with an affordable housing deed restricted unit
proposed on the alley. There are two other shed type buildings on the alley
that are proposed to be demolished. Staff is comfortable with the Main
Street fapade. With regard to the commercial building the fagade on 5`~
Street has not been quite successfully achieved. One proposal is that the
building has a flat roof and the benefit of that is that it keeps the height low
and allows it to read clearly and it is set back slightly from the fagade of the
historic buildings.
The second alternative puts a gabled roof on the commercial building. That
is staff s preference but it is not successful yet because it doesn't extend far
enough back into the building to read as a true gable. This is the only area
of concern.
Between the art barn and the commercial wing there is currently a parking
space. Staff recommends that the parking space be eliminated. The
applicant is suggesting that they make use of that space. Without a clear
resolution of the commercial building we are not ready to recommend
conceptual approval
Alan Richmond represented the applicant Neil Karbank. David Brown,
project architect. Alan said they reviewed the memo and are pleased that
staff is in support of most if not all the changes that we have made to the.
project. We have tried to give a response to all of the directions that we
received on Oct, 10"' from the HPC.
Alan stated what he thought was right about this project and deserving of
HPC support. There are three historic structures on this house, the Wylie
house, the art barn and the shed. The applicant is totally committed to
restoring all three of the structures. The second point is regarding the
overall mass and scale. The proposed floor area and the height of the project
are below what is allowed in the zone district. The floor area is about .85 to
1 and the mixed use allows 1.1. The height doesn't even approach the 28
height limit in the mixed use zone district. The flat roof elements are all in
the 20 to 22 feet hei ght range. The pitched roof is a little less than 25 feet to
the 1/3 point along the gable. With respect to open space, the pedestrian
amenity the proposal is at 35% and the code allows 25%. All the street trees
remain undisturbed. With respect to uses on this properly they are uses that
support community needs. There could have been a free market unit in the
project because it is an allowed use. It is purposely not part of this proposal.
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 14, 2007
6
starts so far back as a one story. The two story element is not right in front
of you like it is on 5`s Street.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Michael identified the topics or issues of concern by the board.
1. Fifth Street fapade of the new building whether it should have a flat or
gabled roof.
2. The Main Street fapade.
3.. The parking space near the art barn.
4. The relocation of the building and variances.
5. The alley scape and turning radius.
6. Demolition of the two sheds. '
Main Street facade:
Sarah said this is a totally exciting project and she commended the team for
embracing it. The Main Street fagade complies with our guidelines and it is
very successful keeping the one story element on the new construction. The
moving of the Wylie house works well with the overall project.
Ann thanked Alan for going through the benefits of the project. The visuals
presented are excellent as it helps us understand what is happening on the
site. Ann also thanked the team for listening to HPC comments at the last
meeting. As a suggestion maybe the eaves on the new construction could be
deeper to add a shadow. At final maybe the fenestration on the Main Street
facade of the new building could be addressed.
Jay said he was very impressed and all the buildings compliment each other.
The historic Wylie house is definitely the focal point.
Michael pointed out that the applicant has done a fantastic job of working
with the HPC and listening to their recommendations.
Nora said she is concerned about the light at night with the amount of glass
proposed.
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 74, 2007
P45
high. We are being asked to choose from the same spring point for both and
that is not an accurate way to look at a gable vs. a flat roof.
Michael said he agreed with Amy that the problem is that there is a two story
fagade right in your face on 5`h Street. The top floor needs to be stepped
back. The one story volume needs to read well.
David said one of the reasons we feel this works is the differentiation from
Main Street which was brought up at the work session. By eliminating the
gable on 5`h this building became the background building. David said the
building is set back and the second floor is also set back.
Nei] Karbank said they could move the building back into the courtyard if
that would work.
Sarah said there needs to be further development of that facade. There are
three different planes going on the building with a flat front facade. Sarah
said the facade is in conflict with guideline 12.14 and 12.15.
Ann said on Main Street it is very articulated because there is a front porch
etc. On the 5t° Street facade of the commercial building it is very bland so
that it makes. the contrast greater.
Jay said on Main Street the second building sets behind the front building.
Amy said on the 5`h St. streetscape the historic buildings have very simple
flat facades and there is an issue with the variety of setbacks on the wall and
its height given how close it is to the street.
Brian said he likes the flat roof.
Alison said the flat roof is the successful way to go. If it needs developed
further it is a mass and scale issue not a detail issue.
Sarah said the issue is mass and scale of the building.
Parking space:
The majority of board members were in favor of keeping the parking space.
Variances:
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 14, 20D7
tO
P46
Joseph Spears, architect for Studio B
Gilbert said we had previous approvals in order to go to the voters fora 14
million dollar bond election. The program was for the fire truck bays,
museum, fire district room and community rooms and the thrift store. The
]ease is with the city for 40 years.
Gilbert said one of the proposals for tonight is to have the ability to build on
top of the building in the future as need be. It will be built structurallly to
handle another story, about 7,500 squaze feet. What was approved was
22,583 square feet. The approved project was put on the shelf while the
ABC station was built and we could restudy the elevations.
We modulated the design to represent historical qualities of the original
building. We added steel post and beams and glass doors. The second floor
is a brick pattern with punched openings. The parapet rail on top is open
and transparent. The basement will be used for the city IT team which is
about 1,000 square feet. The total square footage will be 23,480 square feet.
The new design will go to the co-op mid December, The building is set
back so that the trucks maneuver in and out. Gilbert when over the changes
in the design. The fire station sets back and the museum steps out somewhat
] 0 '/: feet.
Daryl Grob, fire marshal] said we are trying to provide a legacy and
continued revolution of the fire deparhnent. In ten years we are going to let
the department become what it must become in the future and that will
describe the facility downtown and then we will design the addition. The
fire department services 87 square miles and we aze putting an ambulance in
town.
Gilbert said the Isis stair tower is 33 feet tall, The apparatus bay is 37.6 feet
tall. The entry to the museum component is 39.6 feet. The thrift store is 24
feet. If an additional story is built it would be set back.
Michael asked where the guidelines are being stretched in order to meet the
public purpose part of this application.
Amy said the biggest issue is the setbacks. The board determined that they
had no issues with the setbacks.
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 14, 2D07
12
__ -----__ _ -- P47
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007
with the applicable commercial design standard guidelines given the
programmatic needs of the building. HPC accepts the project as proposed
and all representations are conditions of approval. The approval is good
for one year, motion second by Sarah.
Brian wanted to make sure in the motion that Gilbert would have the
opportunity to make changes on material and height at final.
Amy clarified that once conceptual is approved the shape of the building is
approved and HPC can't change their minds but the applicant can ask HPC
to reconsider at final.
Brian said Gilbert represented that he would study the height for final.
Rnll call vote: Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann,
yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
Work session -Ordinance #48 - no minutes
MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p~./m/-_
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT F
NOV. 74, 2007
14
G.
MEMORANDUM -
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE; 1450 Crystal Lake Road -Conceptual SPA, Conceptual PUD,
Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Commercial Design Review
Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2008 (cont. from February 5, 2008, February 19, 2008, March 4,
2008, and Mazch 18, 2008)
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
1450 Crystal Lake Road -Lot 15 of the
Callahan Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING:
RR/PUD, Rural Residential zone district with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests conceptual PUD,
conceptual SPA, conceptual Timeshaze, and
conceptual Commercial Design Standazd
Review in order to develop 19 timeshaze units,
12 affordable housing units, and 133 pazking
spaces on Lots 15 and 14A (the existing 35
spaces on Lot 14A will not change as part of
this application) of the Callahan Subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission require that the applicant revise
their conceptual plans prior to proceeding to
City Council
Photo: Aspen Club building and
STAFF NOTE: The Application has been
previously provided to the Commission.
Please bring this with you to the meeting.
NOTE TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: This memo addresses the questions
and concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the Mazch 4, 2008 public
P1
1
P2
hearing. The Staff Findings for all reviews in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission aze
attached as Exhibits A-D, but the information provided in the Mazch 4, 2008 packet is not
included. If you need another copy of the Mazch 4, 2008 packet please contact Jessica Garrow
for a new copy.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Planning and Zoning
Commission is asked to grant Conceptual review of an SPA, PUD, Commercial Design
Standards, and Timeshare is a four step review process.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing to add nineteen (19) new timeshare units to Lot 15 of the Callahan
Subdivision/PUD. Thirteen (13) of these units are stand alone units in four groups. Six (6) of the
units aze proposed to be added to the existing Club building. The Applicant also proposes twelve
(12) affordable housing units that are not attached to the existing Club building. A total of 133
parking spaces are proposed for the development. The only dimensional requirement the Applicant
requests to vary is the east side yard and front yazd setbacks to accommodate the affordable housing
units. The dimensional requirements are outlined in the table below:
Underlying Zone District
RR Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Dimensional
Requirement Requirements Re uirements
Minimum Lot Size 4.941 acres, or 215,232 s . ft. 2.0 acres
Minimum Lot Area per N/A Multi-Family: N/A
dwellin unit Lod e: N/A
Minimum Lot Width 370 Feet 200 Feet
Minimum Front Yazd 7.5 Feet for Affordable 30 Feet
Setback Housin Units
3 Feet on east side for
Minimum Side Yazd Setback Affordable Housing Units; 20 Feet
20 Feet on west side.
Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 100 Feet 20 Feet
Maximum Height 28 Feet 28 Feet
Minimum % O en S ace N/A N/A
103,520 sq. ft. total: Single-family: Same as R-
Multi-family (affordable IS zone district
Allowable Floor Area housing units): 12,330 sq. ft. Multi-family: N/A
Lodge: 56,560 sq. ft. Lodge: N/A
Commercial (Club): 34,630 sq. Commercial: N/A
ft.
Lodge:.5 spaces per key
(19 spaces)
133 spaces total: Club and Spa: 1 space per
Minimum Off-Street Pazking Lodge: 19 spaces
Aspen Club and Spa: 97 spaces 1000 sq. ft. of net leasable
(43 spaces)
AH units: 17 spaces AH units: 1 space per unit
12 s aces
P3
U$J1IVAA Ei1~L l.vi~a.avav.v
COMMISSION: At the Mazch 4, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the
Commission raised a number of questions and concerns related to the Aspen Club Living
proposal. These aze summarized below, and include Staff and/or Applicant responses as
appropriate. The Applicant has provided a number of different materials for the Commission to
review. These have been attached as Exhibit F.
1. TRANSPORTATION: The issue of transportation was raised a number of times by the
Commission, staff, and the public..Specifically, questions azose regazding the ability to
include a second sub-grade story in the underground parking garage; the specifics of a
transportation plan; and the nature of the 1996 restrictions on the shuttle service provided
to the club.
Parltins Garaee:
Included in the materials provided by the Applicant (see Exhibit F), is a letter from Jay
Hammond of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer discussing the feasibility of providing a second
story in the sub-grade pazking gazage. The letter indicates that a second level is
problematic on this site due to the groundwater elevations of the Roaring Fork River on
the property.
The information provided in this letter has been reviewed by the Engineering
Department, who has indicated that Jay Hammond's analysis appeazs to be correct.
Based on this information, Staff believes that a second story in the sub-grade parking
garage is not an appropriate solution for relocating the surface pazking spaces. Staff
believes it is important to ensure the surface pazking is appropriately screened, as is
required by the Cornmercial Design Standazds. Screening the pazking lot should be
addressed in the Landscape Plan that is required as part of the Final PUD Application.
New Transportation Plan:
Also included in the Applicant's materials is an outline of proposed transportation
improvements along Ute Avenue and a brief explanation of the components of the
proposed Traffic Management Plan.
The Applicant proposed providing foul new speed bumps and crosswalks along Ute
Avenue between the Club and Original. These have not been reviewed by the
Engineering or Streets Departments for compliance with City Standazds, but this can be
addressed as part of the Final PUD Application. The construction of the speed bumps
(when they are constructed, how they aze paid for, etc) should also be addressed in the
Final PUD Application. This has been included as a condition of approval.
The Applicant's proposed Transportation Management Plan has been reviewed by
Community Development and Transportation staff The Plan outlines eight (8) potential
pieces of a detailed Transportation Management Plan as well as a monitoring program.
Staffs comments regarding this initial proposal are below. These comments should be
addressed as part of the Transportation Management Plan that is submitted as part of the
Final PUD Application. This has been included as a condition of approval. Overall, staff
believes this initial proposal aims to address the concerns raised by the staff and the
3
P4
neighbors, and that including the comments below in the Resolution moves the
Application towazd meeting transportation-related review criteria.
• "The Aspen Club will provide shuttle service to and from the Club at
intervals of up to 3 round-trips per hour." Staff would like the Applicant to
examine the feasibility of utilizing the existing Cross-Town Shuttle service rather
than adding additional vans as part of the Transportation Management Plan.
• "Car sharing vehicles will be available, on site, for employees and registered
guests." The Transportation Management Plan should examine ways to
maximize transit use. The Plan should also address the feasibility of a corporate
membership with the City's cazshaze program. If the Aspen Club develops its
own cazshaze program, the Transportation Management Plan should address all
operational chazacteristics, including who manages the program, and any chazges
for using the program.
• "Shared bicycles for employee or guest trips to town will be available at the
Club." The Transportation Management Plan should address all operational
characteristics, including the types and sizes of bikes available, all safety
measures taken (i.e. helmet availability, posted safety information, etc), any
chazges for bicycle use, and who manages the program.
• "Either car share vehicles will be available for longer trips for employees
living on site so that they do not need to own cars themselves or
arrangements will be made with a local car rental company for discounted
car rentals." The Applicant should articulate the operational characteristics of
this program in more detail.
• "Aspen Club Shuttle service to and from the Airport will be provided for
owners and guests." The Transportation Management Plan should address how
existing services could be utilized, and how the Club would coordinate pick-ups
to minimize the number of total trips taken.
• "Club employees will be required to carpool, use our shuttles or take public
transportation to the Club in order to get their cars off of Ute Avenue and
Crystal Lake Road." The Transportation Management Plan should address the
operational chazacteristics of this proposal in more detail. This should include
how carpool pazking will be enforced, how assistance for carpool formation will
be managed and run, if carpools would be restricted to Aspen Club employees or
if other businesses would be part of the carpool program, if the carpools would be
subject to the proposed paid pazking, and if there is a cost for Aspen Club carpool
permits. The Plan should also outline any incentives provided by the Club for
employees to take public transportation. For instance, would discounted bus
passes be provided for those interested in using public transportation. Finally, the
Plan should outline how many staff members aze exempt from the rules, and if
those employees are paying for parking or aze parking for free. The
4
P5
Transportation Management Plan should also address how this program is
managed.
• "Institute paid parking at the Aspen Club as an auto disincentive." The
Transportation Management Plan should articulate the operational characteristics
of this program, including if this is a permit-based program or a daily fee
program, who manages the program, what the fee structure is and how is it
divided, and if the affordable housing units and timeshaze owners/guests aze
required to pay for parking. The proposed fee structure should address any
discounts or special rates.
• "One parking space will be assigned to each of the affordable housing units,
as required by code." The Transportation Management Plan should address how
the Club will encourage the affordable housing residents to use alternative forms
of transportation.
• Monitoring Program. The Transportation Management Plan should articulate
the operational chazacteristics of the monitoring plan, including why Mazch and
August aze the suggested months for vehic]e counts, what will be included in the
reports to the City, and the review schedule and who in the City reviews the
information.
Comaliance with 1996 Aaaroval:
Staff in the Transportation Department and Community Development Department have
examined the available information regazding the Club's 1996 transportation
commitments. While the record is not entirely complete, staff has determined that some
effort was made by the Club to comply with the 1996 approval.
In eazly 1999 a Club representative met with the Community Development Department to
discuss compliance with the required Transportation Plan. At the time the Club had not
met the condition of approval, but did provide documentation of a Transportation
Management Plan to the City on August 16, 1999. That plan indicated that the Club
attempted to incentivize its workers to use alternate forms of transportation by providing
discounted bus passes, carpool incentives, and a rideshaze matching program. The Club
also stated that shuttle service was available on-demand to local hotels, and that the Cross
Town Shuttle serviced the Club. On November 16, 1999, Transportation staff proposed
that the Aspen Club partner with the City to help fund a portion of the Cross Town
Shuttle in an effort to meet the 1996 requirements.
Based on a letter sent from the City Attorney to Michael Fox, it appeazs that the Club met
with City Council on January 10, 2000 to discuss the Transportation Management Plan.
There is no indication in the meeting minutes of any discussion of the Transportation
Plan at this meeting. However, there was discussion at the February 28, 2000 Council
Meeting. The minutes indicate that Council was concerned that the Transportation Plan
instituted by the Club did not meet the original condition of approval regazding pazking
spaces, and the shuttle provided by the Club. There was no discussion regazding where
5
P6
the shuttle operated`, but the Club represented that a shuttle did operate between local
hotels and the Club. The memo for that meeting that was provided by the Transportation
Department again mentions the possibility of partnering with the Club to pay for the
Cross Town Shuttle as a way for the Club to meet the condition of approval.
In a letter from May of 2000, the Club provides information from a traffic analysis that
measured all traffic entering/leaving the Club. Staff has not been able to locate a
response to this letter, or any other correspondence between the City and the Club until
2003. A December 2003 letter from the City to the Club states that because the Club will
not be paying for the Cross Town Shuttle, they must provide a van service by December
15, 2003, provide a payment for part of 2003 for use of the Cross Town Shuttle2, and
provide a plan for proof of compliance, or risk violating the conditions of their 1996
approval. A December 30, 2003 letter from the Club to the City states that shuttle service
will run yeazly at specific times and will loop through town, that the amount owed for the
2003 use of the Cross Town Shuttle will be sent, and that the Club will comply with any
annual reporting process the City proposes. A follow up letter from the City to the Club
in Mazcli 2004 addresses the amount owed for the Cross Town Shuttle, but does not
address any of the other requirements outlined in the December 2003 letter. Staff was not
able to find any other information regazding the 1996 approvals.
Based on the information available, Staff believes that the existing shuttle service
provided by the Club meets the requirements for the Club to provide some kind of shuttle
service. However, there was never any discussion regazding the route that the Club's
shuttle should take, and therefore Staff believes that until a new Transportation
Management Plan is adopted, the Aspen Club Shuttle should be using Highway 82 rather
than Ute Ave, as was required in the 1996 approval. Because the Application before the
Planning and Zoning Commission would likely impact the use patterns at the Club, Staff
believes that a new Transportation Management Plan should be completed that addresses
the new Club needs and operating chazacteristics. This should include what street the
Club's shuttle service should access the Club, and should be included as part of the
Transportation Management Plan, discussed above, that is submitted at Final PUD
Review. This has been added as a condition of approval in the Resolution.
2. RE-INVESTMENT IN THE ASPEN CLUB: The Planning and ZOnirig COIrImISSIOn IequeSted
information regazding how this project would enable re-investment into the Club, and
what that re-investment might look like. As part of Exhibit F, the Applicant has provided
information regazding the types of re-investment currently anticipated. This will total
between $12.3 and $16.75 million dollazs.
3. NUMBER OF PROPOSED TIMESHARE UNITS: The Planning and Zoning Commission
requested information regarding why nineteen (19) units aze proposed for the Club.
While this information was not provided by the Applicant for this packet, the Applicant is
prepazed to fiartlter address this question at the April 151 meeting.
~ The condition of approval required that the shuttle use Highway 82, but that Ute Avenue could be used for physical
therapy patients
a It appears that the Club utilized the Cross Town Shuttle for part of 2003, and was therefore required to pay for that
time.
6
P7
4. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SPA DESIGNATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission
and members of the public asked for clarification regazding requirements for a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) designation. An SPA is a process in which a site specific
development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the
development of land and promotes objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community
Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional
requirements for the benefit of the public. The Review Standazds, as outlined in Exhibit
A, should be used to determine if the pazcel is eligible for an SPA designation.
In this case, the SPA designation is being requested to permit two (2) uses that aze not
permitted in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district: Affordable Housing and Timeshaze
Lodge. The Aspen Club pazcel is part of the Callahan subdivision and was zoned RR in
the 1970s when the Callahan Subdivision was created. The parcel was zoned RR because
it is the only zone district that permits a Recreational Club use.
While Staff has some concerns regazding certain aspects of the proposal (i.e. the
proposed site plan), in reviewing the proposed uses, Staff believes that an SPA
designation is appropriate. The SPA designation allows flexibility when "traditional
zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic significance, natural features,
unique physical chazacter, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit
from comprehensive development." 3 Further the SPA designation allows "the
development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design
practices:'
Staff believes this is a parcel with a number of unique natural and physical features,
including proximity to the Roaring Fork River, an existing recreation facility that serves a
broad spectrum of the community, and an existing trail that can be enhanced with the
right kind of development. The Rural Residential zone district is fairly limited in the
kinds of uses permitted, and therefore Staff believes that an SPA designation to
encourage an innovative design and development that creates a community benefit is
appropriate.
It is the Planning and Zoning Commission's role to determine if the SPA designation for
this development is appropriate. Staff believes that the SPA designation is appropriate in
order to allow Affordable Housing and Timeshaze Lodge uses to the parcel.
5. QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADJACENT FAR: The Planning and Zonirig COmmlSSlori
asked for clarification regazding the Floor Area Ratios (FARs) of the adjacent
Silverlining Ranch pazcel and the Benedict Office Building pazcel. Based on planning
and building permit files, staff has been able to estimate the Floor Area Ratios for the
pazcels.°
' See section 26.440.010, Specially Planned Area Pwpose.
Please note that this is an estimation based on available information, and may not be entirely accwate. The reason
for this is the Land Use Code includes a provision that decreases the amount of land considered buildable if there aze
significant slopes (this is referred to as slope reduction). There aze significant slopes on both the Silverlining Ranch
parcel and the Benedict Office Building pazcel that would impact lot size for FAR purposes. Staff will attempt to
resolve this remaining issue prior to the April 1" meeting, and will provide an update at that time.
7
P8
Lot Area Existing Square Proposed/Allowable Proposed/Allowable
(in sq. ft.)* Footage Existing FAR Square Footage** FAR
Silverlining
Ranch 147,000 13,580 0.092:1 14,000 0.095:1
Benedict Office
Building 67,120 12,500 0.18:1 n/a n/a
Aspen Club 171,047 31,114 0.18:1 103,520 0.60: 1
* The lot azea here utilizes the best information staff has to determine the buildable lot
azea, taking into account zoning and slope reduction
** The Silverlining Ranch's SPA outlines a maximum allowable squaze footage, while
the Benedict Office Building's SPA/PUD does not indicate maximum allowable squaze
footage.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives
outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone
district's land uses and dimensional reauirements for the benefit of the public. The pazcel does
not cun•ently.have an SPA overlay. An overlay is proposed to allow for the timeshaze use on the
property.
While the site is quite large, there aze significant slopes, a required Stream Mazgin buffer, and a
sewer easement that creates site constraints. These constraints, however, offer unique
development possibilities. For instance, the proximity to the river enables new development to
better interact with the riparian azea than the existing tennis courts have. The conceptual
development plan should consider whether the proposal is compatible with surrounding land
uses, density, height, bulk, azchitecture, landscaping and open space. Strong attention to the
relationship between the new development and the riparian azea should be considered.
There are no protected view planes in the vicinity, but Staff believes it is important to retain the
perception of the riparian corridor from the center of the site. The Applicant has made changes
to the azchitecture and site plan to address Staff s concern, however Staff does not believe these
changes go faz enough to ensure the riparian azea is made prominent in the design. Staff
recommends that the applicant strive to create a project that provides views towazd the river from
the new Club entrance.
Staff does not believe the proposed site plan goes far enough in establishing a relationship with
the "upper bench" and the riparian azea, and would like to see the site plan better reflect the
mission of the Club, and to find a chazacter unique to the neighborhood and the Small Lodge
chazacter Area.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Callahan Subdivision already includes a PUD Overlay, so this application would amend the
PUD to establish dimensional requirements for the Aspen Club pazcel (Lot 15). The only
dimensional requirement that is being vaned from the underlying zoning is the east side yazd and
8
P9
the front yard setback to accommodate the affordable housing units. Staff believes these
dimensional variations aze appropriate to the setting given the slope changes between this azea
and the adjacent pazcel and Ute Avenue. No hazazds aze believed to exist on the pazcel, but Staff
requests an Avalanche study as part of the final review to ensure the affordable housing units aze
protected from avalanche danger. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution.
Staff is supportive of the programs the Applicant is attempting to bring to the Club and to Aspen.
The program will create a unique addition to the Aspen Community. The programming will
provide oppornuuties for locals to participate, in addition to the timeshaze users. However, Staff
does have concerns about certain aspects of this PUD proposal, specifically that the azchitecture
and site plan does not adequately reflect the Healthy Living Mission of the redevelopment. As
mentioned above, Staff has some concerns that the site plan does not provide a connection to the
ripazian azea. Further, Staff has concerns that the transportation commitments made by the
Applicant aze not cleaz enough to ensure that the project limits automobile use. There is a net
increase of forty-two (42) pazking spaces, but only thirty-one (31) new units (timeshare and
affordable housing). Staff is concerned that the increased pazking will encourage automobile use
rather than limit it. Staff would like to see a detailed Transportation Plan that addresses the
proposed auto-disincentives. This was also a request of the Transportation Department, and has
been included as a condition in the Resolution.
TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Applicant proposes a timeshaze use program for the nineteen (19) lodge units. As
mentioned above, these units aze divided between six (6) "flat" units and thirteen (13)
"townhouse" units.
The Applicant proposes 304 sepazate timeshare interests. There are nineteen (19) timeshare
units, and the Applicant proposes each owner have a 1/16c' deeded interest in a specific unit for
two (2) fixed weeks. The timeshaze plan includes nineteen (19) "Mid-season weeks" that will
used as the plan's "float time." These weeks, and any unused portion of the fixed weeks, will be
made available to the public for nightly rentals. The owners of the unit would be able to reserve
no more than seven (7) days of the "float time" at any one time. Each timeshaze owner is
prohibited from occupying a unit for more than thirty (3) consecutive calendaz days.
Tentatively, the sale price for the two (2) week fixed interest in the townhome units will range
from $200,000 to $400,000, and the sale price for the two (2) week fixed interest in the flats will
range from $150,000 to $300,000. The Applicant has not determined if the units will be part of
an exchange program, but the timeshaze instruments submitted with the fmal application will
permit participation in a timeshare exchange program should the condominium association
approve it.
The timeshare program, called Aspen Club Living by the Applicant, will have afully-staffed, on-
site front desk located in the existing Club's main entry. The Applicant anticipates current
Aspen Club Staff to staff this function. The program will follow the mandatory operational
practices outlined in Land Use Chapter 26.590.060.B, Mandatory Operational Practices.
The Applicant proposes more affordable housing mitigation than is required by the code for the
proposed timeshaze units. Section 26.470.080.3.b of the Land Use Code requires projects with
9
P10
less than one unit per 500 squaze feet of lot azea to provide mitigation equal to 60% of the
employees generated. Section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there aze .5 Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) generated per lodging bedroom. This project's nineteen (19) units include fifty-nine (59)
bedrooms, creating a generation of 29.5 FTEs. Therefore, the mitigation requirement is 17.7
FTEs (29.5 FTEs * 60%). The applicant has proposed to provide housing for twenty-seven (27)
FTEs onsite in twelve (12) 2-bedroom units. This exceeds the code requirement by 150%. No
mitigation is required as part of the Club remodel, as there is no increase in the amount of net
leasable azea.
As mentioned in the SPA and PUD sections of this memo, Staff has concems with the proposed
pazking scenario. While the Application provides the code required amount of pazking for the
timeshaze units (19), Staff is concerned with the overall plan for pazking and auto-disincentives.
Staff also has concerns relating to the site plan and the relationship to the riparian azea. These
aze outlined in more detail below.
The Applicant has pledged to meet all of the applicable timeshaze requirements. Information on
the timeshaze development instruments will be submitted as part of the final application. A draft
disclosure statement has been provided as part of the Application (see Appendix D, Exhibit 2 in
the Application).
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
The proposed development is in the Small Lodge Chazacter Area which encompasses lodges
located in residential neighborhoods: The conceptual review design guidelines address the street
and alley system, pazking, public amenity space, building placement and building height, mass
and scale. Staff will have the 3D SketchUp model at the April 15~ meeting.
While an attempt has been made to ensure individual units aze modulated, Staff does not believe
the design adequately addresses this standazd. A lower density of timeshaze units, or smaller
units may be required to meet this standazd.
Although modules aze created, Staff has requested that the applicant rethink the character of the
azchitecture to better reflect the mission of the Club. There is an opportunity to blend into the
natural landscape through azchitectural detailing, the creation of vistas, or through decreased
mass, and Staff encourages the Applicant to further refine the site plan and azchitecture to do so.
As part of the revised site plan (see Exhibit F) that the Applicant has submitted, the timeshaze
units seen from the proposed Club Entrance looking toward the river have flat roofs in an attempt
to create transpazency to the riparian azea. The units have also been broken up in this azea, again
in an effort to increase transpazency. Staff does believe that this is enough of a gesture towazds
establishing a relationship with the upper bench and the riparian azea.
Staff requests that the applicant continue to redesign to fmd a chazacter that complies with the
design objectives of the Small Lodge Character Area. Specifically, Staff has concems about the
following Conceptual Review Design Guidelines:
1. 5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of surface parking.
2. Public Amenity Space
3. 5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect
10
P11
traditional lot widths in more than one of the following ways:
• The variation in building height.
• The modulation of the building elements.
• The variation in fagade heights.
• The street fagade composition.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
4. 5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the
form, modulation and variation of the roofscape.
Staff would like to see the proposal redesigned prior to proceeding to Council for conceptual
review in order to better comply with the following design objective:
" 2. 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 chazacter of an exciting accommodations facility."
By addressing Guideline 2, quoted above, Staff believes the site plan and azchitecture will better
fit with the overall goal of this redevelopment proposal.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Zoning Officer, Building Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Department, Utilities and the Pazks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and
their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
Pazks has requested that a trail easement be granted on the property adjacent to Ute Avenue to
allow the completion of the Ute Ave trail. This has been included as a condition in the
Resolution. In addition, Engineering and Utilities/Public Works have both identified on-site
drainage and soil conditions as a potential challenge for the proposed site. The Applicant will
need to address these concerns as part of the Final Application.
As noted later in the staff memo, the affordable housing proposed meets the required housing
mitigation. APCHA has recommended that the smaller units be designated as Category 2 units,
and the large units be designated Categories 3 and 4. The APCHA Staff will review the proposal
again prior to final approval.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission require that the applicant revise their conceptual plans prior to proceeding to City
Council, specifically Staff recommends the applicant:
Create a site plan that emphasizes the ripazian area by creating a relationship between the
"upper bench", the new Club entrance, and the riparian area;
Better articulate the Club's mission though building design that reflects the residential
context but is unique in chazacter. This may require a lower density of timeshaze units or
smaller units;
Examine ways to minimize the amount of parking and increase auto-disincentives
through a detailed Transportation Plan provided at final review.
11
P12
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #9, Series 2008, recommending
conceptual approval of a Conceptual Specially Planned Area (SPA), Conceptual Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Commercial Design Review for
the Aspen Club project."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B - PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT C -Commercial Design Review, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT D - Timeshaze Review Criteria, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT E - DRC Comments
E~-[cstT F -Additional Materials from Applicant
Exi-[isiT G -Letter from Tasha Dimling
Ext-[csiT H -Letter from Stuart and Kelly Lasher
12
P13
RESOLUTION N0.9,
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA), CONCEPTUAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE,
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUB-GRADE PARKING, NINETEEN
TIMESHARE UNITS, REDESIGNED COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND TWELVE
RF g ~ LAgE ROAD HIESASPEN ICINLUBOCITY OFOASPEN, P TKIN
COUNTY,COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-181-32-019
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen Club and Spa, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC
requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of conceptual commercial
design review, and a recommendation of conceptual approval for a Specially Planned
Area (SPA), Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Timeshaze, to develop nineteen (19)
timeshaze units and twelve (12) affordable housing units, and to redesign existing
commercial spaces; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission for conceptual approval of an amendment to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), a conceptual approval of a new Specially Planned Area (SPA),
conceptual approval of a timeshaze, and for conceptual approval of commercial design
review; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standazds, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend
the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Specially Planned Area (SPA), a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conceptual Timeshaze, and the Commercial Design
standazds; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2008, continued
from February 5, 2008, February 19, 2008, Mazch 4, 2008, and Mazch 18, 2008, the
planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008, by a - to
- (_ ~ vote, approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and recommending
the Aspen City Counci] approve a Conceptual PUD, Conceptual SPA, Conceptual
Timeshaze; and,
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 1 of 6
P14
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable refen•al agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
fiulhers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section I•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, and recommends approval of Conceptual Specially Planned Area (SPA),
Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Conceptual Timeshaze.
The final SPA/PUD application shall address comments in the following sections:
Section 2: Buildnns:
The Applicant shall meet all adopted building codes and requirements if and when a
building permit is submitted. Accessible routes to any public right-of--way and accessible
pazking spaces will be required. T'he proposed project will be subject to the Use Tax on
building materials. The proposed project will be required to comply with al] Efficient
Building Programs in place at time of building permit submittal.
Section 3: Ensineerin¢
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standazds published by the
Engineering Department. The proposal shall comply with the DRC comments from the
Engineering Department regazding transportation, drainage, pedestrian improvements,
construction management, traffic studies, utilities and sight distances. The Applicant
shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee.
The final application shall address how the construction management plan will address
construction while the Club remains open, and shall address how all construction
activities will not impact all trees that aze remaining on the site. Aspen Club Trail access
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 2 of 6
P15
or use for any constntction activities is prohibited at all times; this includes but is not
limited to truck traffic, foot traffic, storage or materials.
Prior to submittal of the final application, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering
Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed Right-of--Way
improvements, including speed bumps and crosswalks, meet all applicable standazds.
Section 4: Affordable Housiu¢
The Housing Board recommends that the three smaller units be deed-restricted as Category
2 units and that the other nine units be a mix of Category 3 and 4. The Applicant shall
examine this request and address it in the fmal application.
Section 5: Fire MitiEation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25,
and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standazds. Each of the units
within the building shall have individual water meters. The final application shall confmn
that the 3-hydrants shown aze adequate for the new land use
Nothing from the 1976 PUD water rights agreement may change as part of this current
project. A detailed utility plan including fire system requirements needs to be completed
and submitted for approval.
Details of how the mechanical room water distribution to the townhouse needs to be
addressed in the final application. This distribution of service may be in conflict with the
IRC. A service agreement may be needed for this option type.
There is a planned replacement of roughly 1000 l.f. of existing waterline in Ute Avenue
scheduled. The Applicant shall address how coordination in construction will occur in
the final application. The final application shall also outline the proposed Water Line
main loop. The final application shall address snow storage and drainage.
Section 7• Sanitation District Requirements
The district will require a conceptual samtary sewer utility plan for this development
before committing to serve the proposed project. The plan must lie acceptable and
beneficial to the owner, the district and the Silver Lining Ranch.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which aze on file at the District office.
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 3 of 6
P16
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz water connections
(roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
The district will require that the applicant verify that the existing building's roof drains
do not dischazge the sanitary sewer system.
Section S: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regazds to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be awaze of when filing a building pemut include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise
abatement and pool designs. The Applicant must meet all applicable requirements
associated with the new pool.
Section 9: Exterior Li¢htine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: Transaortation
The Applicant shall address all of the following in the final PUD/SPA Application:
1. An updated traffic impact study.
2. Pazking issues for residents and guests at the Aspen Club.
3. Detailed Transportation Plan, which at a minimum includes the following
information:
o Which street the Aspen Club and Hotel Shuttles will use to access the
Club;
o Operational chazacteristics of the paid pazking proposal, the carpool
proposal, the cazshaze proposal, the bike share proposal, and the
monitoring plan;
o Examine how existing transportation services to the airport could be
utilized for the pick-up/drop-off of timeshaze owners/guests, and how the
Club would coordinate pick-ups to minimize the number of total trips
taken;
o Address the feasibility of a corporate membership with the City's cazshaze
program.
o Examine the feasibility of utilizing the existing Cross-Town Shuttle
service rather than adding additional shuttle services; and
o Address how the Club will encourage the affordable housing residents and
its employees to use alternative forms of transportation.
Section 11: Parks
1. The final application shall include a detailed plan submitted for stream mazgin
protection and stability of the hillside above the trail.
2. The final application shall include information on how trees that aze to remain on
the site will be protected throughout construction.
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 4 of 6
P17
3. The natural stands of native landscaping located along Ute Ave should be
protected with as little disturbance to the area as possible. This shall be addressed
in the final application. The City will work with the developer to outline a
possible traillsidewalk connection along the ROW on Ute Ave.
4. Parks is not comfortable with the proposed change in trail alignment. The
Applicant shall work with the parks department prior to submittal of the final
application to address all concerns related to all landscaping considerations,
including proposed landscaping, proposed tree removals, and proposed trail re-
alignments.
S. The Applicant shall include the trail easement language for the existing Aspen
Club Trail located on the North side of the property as part of the final
application.
Section 12• Avalanche Hazard Resort
The Applicant shall be required to submit an updated Avalanche Hazard Report detailing
the avalanche danger for the lot.
Section 13:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 14:
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 15:
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 sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this
day of , 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 5 of 6
P18
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
LJ Erspamer, Chair
Resolution No 9, Series 2008
Page 6 of 6
P19
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.440, SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (5PA)
Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area
(SPA).
A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development
plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is compatible with the existing mix of commercial and
housing uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes the proposed health and wellness
program will be a good addition to the existing Club services and to the community in
general. Staff does have concerns that the site plan and azchitecture do not reflect these
aspects. In order to fully understand the mass and context of the application, Staff has
requested a 3D SketchUp model to be digitally constructed for the review. The Planning
and Zoning Commission will be able to review this model at the Public Hearing. Staff
requests that the applicant continue to redesign to better relate to the riparian azea, to
reflect the mission of the Club, and to find a character unique to the neighborhood and
the Small Lodge Character Area.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding:
Sufficient public facilities and roads exist to serve the proposed development. The traffic
engineering report provided in the application indicates that the proposed development
will not significantly alter the current service levels on Ute Avenue, or at the intersections
between the Aspen Club and Cooper Avenue. These intersections will continue to
operate at a Level of Service grade B or better. Further, the Applicants plan on upgrading
the existing water service line and to relocate a sewer line to accommodate the proposed
units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of
mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has located all development outside the Roaring Fork River's mapped 100-
yeaz floodplain. No other natural hazards aze believed to affect the lot. However, Staff
requests an Avalanche study as part of the final review to ensure the affordable housing
units aze protected from avalanche danger. At a conceptual level, staff finds this criterion
to be met.
Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria
Page 1 of 4
P20
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trails and similar amenities for. the users of the project aad
the public at large.
Staff'Finding:
The proposal replaces existing tennis courts with lodging units, adds units to the existing
building, and adds affordable housing units to anunder-utilized portion of the site. While
there aze not specific view planes in the vicinity, Staff believes it is important to retain
the perception of the riparian corridor from the center of the site. The Applicant has
made changes to the azchitecture and site plan to address Staff s concern, however Staff
does not believe these changes go faz enough to ensure the riparian area is made
prominent in the design. There is an existing path that crosses the Aspen Club property
neaz the river. This path will be maintained in the proposal.
Staff recommends that the applicant strive to create a project that provides views towazd
the river from the new Club entrance. In addition, concerns about site drainage, soils and
compliant access from the pazking gazage must be addressed prior to final review.
Staff finds the conceptual application to meet this criterion, but would like to see the site
plan and azchitecture better accommodate views towazd the riparian area.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan aze met, but
that the Applicant does not go faz enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. The
Application meets a number of AACP goals related to affordable housing, economic
sustainability, and arts and culture, but Staff has concerns about sections related to
community character & design, transportation, and open space & environment.
The Applicant is providing 150% of the required Affordable Housing, which is an
important step in helping the community meet the Affordable Housing goals outlined in
the AACP. Further, the Economic sustainability section of the AACP recognizes that
"local ownership of business helps maintain our community's unusual chazacter, tends to
return more money to the local economy, and provides additional opportunities for
upwazd mobility of people." The Aspen Club is a locally owned and operated business,
and the stated goal of this proposal is to provide a new health and wellness opportunity
for residents and visitors, and to use the money raised through the timeshaze sales to
subsidize programs for locals. Staff believes that the concept of this application is a good
one, and will go a long way towazd furthering the goals outlined Aspen Area Community
Plan. The Aspen Club currently works to promote the Arts, Culture, and Education of the
Aspen Area by supporting local non-profits through offices and financial support, and by
facilitating educational and wellness programs for Club members and community
members at lazge.
Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria
Page 2 of 4
The AACP discusses the need to "preserve, enhance and restore the natural beauty of the
environment of the Aspen Area." Staff does not believe the Applicant goes faz enough in
enhancing the riparian azea on the site, and believes the placement of the buildings
creates a barrier between the Club and the River. The AACP asks that development
"retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the
special chazacter of our community" Staff believes the ideas put forward in the
Application for a health and wellness facility aze good goals, but Staff does not believe
the site plan or azchitecture adequately reflect the mission of the Aspen Club, nor do they
"enhance the special character of our community" The site plan creates a bamer to the
riparian azea, and the azchitecture could fit in any mountain community. The Aspen Club
site is unique, and this Application proposes a unique addition to the Club. Staff believes
the azchitecture should reflect these opportunities. Finally, the Applicant has mentioned
in the Application that a caz shaze program, bike fleet, and shuttle service will be
provided to help minimize the impact of the automobile in the azea, which is a goal of the
AACP. Staff believes these elements aze important in working towazd changing the auto-
centric culture that currently exists, but Staff believes that the lazge amount of parking
provided will encourage the use of the automobile. If the Applicant provides a more
complete transportation plan part of this application (one that addresses the need for
pazking, how shuttle service will work, etc.), Staff believes the AACP goals related to
transportation may be met.
Overall, Staff does not find this guideline to be met.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure
th of excessive
urrounding
public funds to provide public facilities e
for the parcel or s
neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The proposal does not require public funds to provide public facilities for the proposed
pazcel. The application states that all costs associated with public infrastructure
improvements will be borne by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%)
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2.
Staff Finding:
The property's northern lot line lies in the Roaring Fork River, and then the property
slopes up to meet Ute Ave on the south. There aze slopes in excess of 20%, and the
Applicant has made the appropriate slope reduction and density reductions. The total
squaze footage on the lot is 201,128, but after slope reduction 171,047 squaze feet of land
azea is available for floor azea calculations. The proposed development equals
approximately 103,20 squaze feet, or an FAR of 0.6:1. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding:
Not Applicable. The Applicant will be required to make a Growth Management
Application as part of the Final PUD/SPA Application. Under the current proposal, the
P21
Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria
Page 3 of 4
P 2 2 a lication will r wire twelve 12 affordable housin allotments and seven six 76
PP eq ~ ) g ty- ~ ~ )
lodge pillow allotments.
B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the
requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from
those requirements may be allowed based on the standazds of this Section. Variations
may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between
buildings, maximum height, minimum front yazd, minimum reaz yazd, minimum side
yazd, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access azea, internal floor azea ratio,
number of off-street pazking spaces and uses and design standards of Chapter 26.410 for
streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA
agreement and shown on the final development plan.
Staft Finding:
There aze no requests to vary the dimensional requirements as part of the SPA. These
requests are made under the PUD request. Staff finds this criteria to not be applicable.
Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria
Page 4 of 4
P23
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN'T'
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan aze met, but
that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. The
Application meets a number of AACP goals related to affordable housing, economic
sustainability, and arts and culture, but Staff has concerns about sections related to
community chazacter & design, transportation, and open space & environment.
The Applicant is providing 150% of the required Affordable Housing, which is an
important step in helping the community meet the Affordable Housing goals outlined in
the AACP. Further, the Economic sustainability section of the AACP recognizes that
"local ownership of business helps maintain our community's unusual chazacter, tends to
return more money to the local economy, and provides additional opportunities for
upwazd mobility. of people." The Aspen Club is a locally owned and operated business,
and the stated goal of this proposal is to provide a new health and wellness opportunity
for residents and visitors, and to use the money raised through the timeshare sales to
subsidize programs for locals. Staff believes that the concept of this application is a good
one, and will go a long way towazd furthering the goals outlined Aspen Area Community
Plan. The Aspen Club currently works to promote the Arts, Culture, and Education of the
Aspen Area by supporting local non-profits through offices and financial support, and by
facilitating educational and wellness programs for Club members and community
members at lazge.
The AACP discusses the need. to "preserve, enhance and restore the natural beauty of the
environment of the Aspen Area." Staff does not believe the Applicant goes faz enough in
enhancing the riparian azea on the site, and believes the placement of the buildings
creates a barrier between the Club and the River. The AACP asks that development
"retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the
special chazacter of our community" Staff believes the ideas put forwazd in the
Application for a health and wellness facility are good goals, but Staff does not believe
the site plan or azchitecture adequately reflect the mission of the Aspen Club, nor do they
"enhance the special chazacter of our community." The site plan creates a bamer to the
riparian azea, and the azchitecture could fit in any mountain community. The Aspen Club
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page t of 13
P24
site is unique, and this Application proposes a unique addition to the Club. Staff believes
the azchitecture should reflect these opportunities. Finally, the Applicant has mentioned
in the Application that a caz shaze program, bike fleet, and shuttle service will be
provided to help minimize the impact of the automobile in the azea, which is a goal of the
AACP. Staff believes these elements are important in working towazd changing the auto-
centric culture that currently exists, but Staff believes that the lazge amount of parking
provided will encourage the use of the automobile. If the Applicant provides a more
complete transportation plan part of this application (one that addresses the need for
parking, how shuttle service will work, etc.), Staff believes the AACP goals related to
transportation may be met.
Overall, Staff does not find this guideline to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed development is consistent with the chazacter of the azea. The
neighborhood consists of a vaziety of single-family and multi-family homes, and while
the proposal is for new timeshare lodge units it will function in a more residential nature
than a typical lodge downtown. The proposed affordable housing is consistent with the
adjacent properties, which include a number of affordable projects. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of
the azea. Staff fords this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, fna[ PUD
development plan review.
Not Applicable. The Applicant will be required to make a Growth Management
Application as part of the Final PUD/SPA Application. Under the current proposal, the
application will require twelve (12) affordable housing allotments and seventy-six (76)
lodge pillow allotments.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in Genera[ Provisions, Section 26.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below:
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 13
P25
Underlying Zone District
RR Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Dimensional
Requirement Requirements Re uirements
Minimum Lot Size 4.941 acres, or 215,232 sq. 2.0 acres
ft
Minimum Lot Area per N/A Multi-Family: N/A
dwellin unit Lod e: N/A
Minimum Lot Width 370 Feet 200 Feet
Minimum Front Yazd 7.5 Feet for Affordable 30 Feet
Setback Housin Units
3 Feet on east side for
Minimum Side Yard Setback Affordable Housing Units; 20 Feet
20 Feet on west side.
Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 100 Feet 20 Feet
Maximum Height 28 Feet 28 Feet
Minimum % en S ace N/A N/A
103,520 sq. ft. total:
Multi-family (affordable Single-family: Same as R-
housing units): 12,330 sq. 15 zone district
Allowable Floor Area ft. Multi-family: NIA
Lodge: 56,560 sq. ft. Lodge: N/A
Commercial (Club): 34,630 Commercial: N/A
s . ft.
Lodge:.5 spaces per key
133 spaces total: (19 spaces)
Lodge: 19 spaces Club and Spa: 1 space per
Minimum Off-Street Pazking Aspen Club and Spa: 97 1000 sq. ft. of net leasable
spaces (43 spaces)
AH units: 17 spaces AH units: 1 space per unit
12 s aces)
The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
See discussion from 1.A above
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
No known hazards exist on the lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit B - PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 13
P26
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Most of the development proposed is within azeas of the site that have already
been impacted by development. The riparian azea is being maintained through
the fifteen (IS) foot top of slope .setback required by the Stream Mazgin
portion of the Land Use Code. The site plan was reviewed by the Parks
Department, which requires that a stand of trees located near Unit 5 be
maintained. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
d Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff recognizes that there is an existing paking problem at the Club,
especially when special events aze held. Staff does not believe that more
pazking will fully alleviate this issue, and believes that more detailed analysis
of transportation alternatives should be required. Staff believes that the
Applicant has not gone faz enough in promoting alternative means of
transportation for locals who use the club, club employees, or for the proposed
timeshaze units. Staff would like to see the Applicant provide a detailed
conceptual transportation plan as part of the Final Application that outlines the
need for shuttle operations, the anticipated demand by timeshaze occupants of
vehicles, and the specifications of all proposed transportation elements
(shuttle, electric vehicles, bikes, etc) and how they will be utilized. While
fire access is required in the existing surface parking lot, the current
configuration makes the site plan seem "auto-centric". Staff would like to see
a more detailed landscaping plan at Final that minimizes the visual impacts of
the pazking. Further; Staff would like to see a detailed study regazding the
ability to put more parking sub-grade, which would free up some space
azound the club for landscaping improvement, or would enable more
flexibility in the site plan. Staff does not find this criteria met at this time, but
if the Applicant makes the above mentioned changes, Staff would find this
criteria met at a conceptual level.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
No open space is currently proposed on-site. Staff recommends the Applicant look at
ways to consolidate internal building access points to help create more oppommities
for open space. Further, Staff encourages the Applicant to examine differ site
planning techniques to break up the mass and barrier between the riparian azea and
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 13
P27
the Club. A lower density of timeshaze units or smaller units may be needed to better
meet this standazd. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
As was discussed in the review of section 2.B.1.d, above, Staff recognizes that
there are currently pazking problems at the current Club. Staff does not
believe that the current pazking configuration and amount of pazking is
warranted, and would like to see the Applicant explore auto-disincentives
more in more detail with a conceptual Transportation Plan as part of the Final
PUD review and a final Transportation Plan as part of the PUD Agreement.
Staff believes that a moderate increase in the Club's existing pazking, as well
as the pazking provided for the Lodge and Affordable Housing units is
appropriate. However, Staff does not support the current pazking proposal.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if.•
a. There is not sufrcient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Adequate public facilities exist and will be upgraded at the owner's expense. This
includes the realignment of a sewer line. Staff agrees with the Applicant's traffic
report that Ute Avenue can accommodate the proposed pazking increases. The traffic
and pazking concerns Staff has expressed in the memo and Staff Findings, but is a
reflection of Staffs view that providing more pazking will encourage more
automobile usage rather than the utilization of alternative forms of transportation.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 13
P28
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifrca[ly, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if.•
a The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
At this time, Staff does not find that and significant natural hazards on the site that
would necessitate a density reduction. For the most part, the proposed development
is located in azeas of the site that currently contains development. Staff does not
believe the proposal will involve a pernicious impact on the site's. natural watershed.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through suck increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints.
a The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) br a specific area
plan to which the property is subject
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, [and uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as,
on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions
of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the
maximum allowable density pursuant to a ftnal PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for a[[ lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the fnal PUD development plans.
While the Applicant proposes establishing the FAR for the project, no increase in the
maximtun density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 13
P29
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
The Applicant has attempted to protect the area around the Roaring Fork River that is
subject to a Stream Margin Review at Final PUD. While these features aze preserved,
Staff does not believe that the site's most valuable natural feature is being enhanced.
As mentioned previously in the Memo and other Staff Findings, Staff believes more
work should be done on the site plan in order to enhance the visual impact of the
riparian azea.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
No significant open spaces will be lost with this proposal, as the flmeshaze units are
proposed where the tennis courts aze currently located. Further, all development is
within the height requirements for the zone district. While the timeshare units have
been clustered, Staff feels the current configuration will give the appeazance of a
"wall" of development. While there aze no protected view planes affecting this site,
Staff believes the timeshaze units should be further broken up to better preserve vistas
from the new Club entrance towazd the river..
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban
or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement
of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
The timeshaze units are not located along Ute Avenue because most of the street
frontage is already used to accommodate the existing Club. The proposed affordable
housing units are located adjacent to the street, and Staff believes these will
contribute to the street chazacter and context. The Applicant has agreed to provide an
easement along the Ute Ave portion of the site to accommodate the eventual
continuation of the Ute Ave trail. This has been included as a condition in the
Resolution. While the landscaping plan outlines paths throughout the site, Staff
believes a more simplified plan is more appropriate in this context. This site is
uniquely located in an azea that is on the Urban/Rural fringe and adjacent to the
Roaring Fork River. As such, there is an opportunity to provide unique structures that
reflect the diverse settings. While there are multi-family and single-family homes in
the azea, Staff believes the mission of this development (wellness and personal
growth) and it's unique location enable the design to be reflective of the surrounding
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 13
P30
residences while providing a different take on the design that reflects the Club's
mission.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
The City of Aspen Fire Mazshal has reviewed the proposal, and has found it to be in
compliance with all applicable life safety requirements. The existing surface pazking
azea accommodates fire truck turn azounds, and must be maintained (note that Staff's
concerns regarding the surface parking would not impact this required fire access).
Further, all structures will be required to include fire sprinkler systems, and fire alarm
systems. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided
According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. While not
required, Staff believes providing some handicapped access able timeshare units
would compliment the Club's mission. As mentioned above, the Club will dedicate
an easement for the future completion of the Ute Avenue trail. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be
handled with some drainage improvements to maintain historic runoff. Further, the
Applicant's engineer states that the timeshaze units will have a similaz footprint to the
existing tennis courts, so an expansion of the impervious surface will be minimal.
The Applicant will be required to pay the applicable Storm Water Fee assessed by the
Engineering Department. If the pazking azea is re-paved as part of the
redevelopment, Staff recommends that the re-paving utilize pervious paving
materials. Asite-specific drainage report and design has been requested by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), and has been included as a condition in the
Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
There is a significant grade difference between the proposed timeshaze units neaz the
river and the existing Club. The units that are located at the same grade as the Club
do provide sufficient spacing. Staff would like to see further attention to the spacing
to the river-front timeshare units to ensure the units will function as needed for the
proposed programs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape Plan.
Exhibit B - PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 13
P31
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with exrsting and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
The Applicant provided a draft landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual
application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application.
1. The landscape plan exhibits a we[[ designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
The Applicant has provided a conceptual landscaping plan with a number of new
plantings proposed. A final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final PUD
Application, which will ensure landscaping is consistent with adjacent land. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
Z. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
The Applicant has stated they will comply with all Pazk's Department requirements.
No development is proposed in the protected riparian area. Staff fmds this criterion
to be met.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
T'he Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character. ro riatel
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, app p Y
relate to existing and .proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
The site plan creates a bamer to the ripazian area, and the architecture could be in any
mountain cornmunity. The Aspen Club site is unique, and this Application proposes a
unique addition to the Club through the new health and wellness program. Staff believes
the azchitecture should reflect these opportunities, but does not. The timeshare units
proposed on the Club are unique, and Staff believes these will reflect the mission of the
new programs, and will fit in well with the existing architecture in the area. Staff does
not believe the architecture for the other timeshare units is unique, and does not enhance
the existing character of the azea. Instead, it replicates designs seen in other parts of the
community and throughout the Mountain West. Staff believes the azchitecture should go
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of ] 3
P32
further in differentiating itself from the surrounding community. Staff finds this criterion
is not met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
The site plan utilizes the north/south exposure on the lot, and is participating in the new
LEED for Neighborhoods program. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
The Applicant has stated that snow removal and storage will meet all applicable
requirements. The Applicant must submit a detailed plan for snow removal and storage
as part of the final application. This has been made a condition of approval in the
Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting.
I. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting
of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed plan
will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of al[ development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
I. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual reliejto the property's built form, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas rs
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 13
P33
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development
There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified f nancial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in
greater detail at Final PUD.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. This will be addressed in greater
detail at Final PUD.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where- the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and
associated materials are available for City Departments to review.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standazds 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other [and use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff believes that all structures and uses have appropriate access to a public street.
The timeshaze units, club, and affordable housing units have access from Ute Avenue,
while the additional pazlcing on Lot 14A is accessed from Highway 82. There is also
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 13
P34
pedestrian access available from the Aspen Club Trail located by the river. Staff
fmds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the deve[opmenx
The Applicant has submitted a Traffic Report that indicates the proposed pazking
configuration will not adversely impact traffic levels on Ute Avenue or the adjacent
Intersections. However, Staff believes the level of pazking provided and the unclear
plan for alternative transportation will increase the overall impact of the automobile
in the azea. Staff has requested a detailed Transportation Plan to address these
concerns.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public [ands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public
trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
The proposed development will not result in any changes to the existing Trail
easements. The Applicant has also agreed to provide an easement along Ute Avenue
to continue the Ute Avenue Trail. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations ojthe Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
The Applicant has agreed to provide an easement along Ute Avenue to continue the
Ute Avenue Trail. Staff fmds this criterion to be met.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
There aze no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for
lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
There aze no gates or guazd posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 12 of 13
P35
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
No phasing is proposed as part of this development. The development will take place
approximately over a two (2) yeaz period.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 13 of 13
P36
EXHIBIT C
Chapter 26.412, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW -Code Review Criteria
Sec. 26.412.050. Review criteria. An application for commercial design review may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the
standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required
but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Staff Finding:
Staff has concerns about the proposed site plan. The applicant has made changes based on initial
Staff comments, but Staff continues to have concerns about the siting of the timeshaze units.
Specifically, Staff does not believe the site plan provides views towazd the riparian azea from the
Club entrance. Further, the grade change between the proposed location of the timeshaze units
(the existing tennis courts) and the surface parking and existing Club presents a challenge to the
site plan. The access to the timeshaze units is located adjacent to this significant grade change,
and Staff is concerned this created a tunnel effect for individuals trying to access the timeshaze
units. Please see memo, review criteria for SPA, conceptual review design guidelines and
objectives for the Small Lodge Character Area.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be
required to comply with this Section.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds this criterion to not b® applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when
a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these
criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might
be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still
met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1)
Staff Finding:
Please see review criteria for Conceptual Review Design Guidelines and Objectives
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 1 of 6
P37
Seca 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to
the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to
commercial, lodging and mixed-use development:
A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an
attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping
and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or
operational improvements to public rights-of--way or private property within commercial
areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030,
Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity.
Staff Finding:
This project is not located in a zone district required to provide Public Amenity Space. Staff
finds this criterion to not be applicable.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a
commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall
success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of
surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of
alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting
the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service
areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.
Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall
be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site
conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments
shall be properly licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility
shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of--way at a pedestrian level. New. buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1)
Staff Finding:
The development is not located along an alley. The Applicant has proposed that the
trash/utility/recycle azea be relocated along Ute Avenue to provide better access. Staff believes
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 2 of 6
P38
this will minimize conflicts between individuals on the Club property and the trucks servicing
this area Staff fmds this criterion to be met.
Chapter 26.412, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - Conceptual Review Design
Guidelines for Small Lodges
Design Objectives
The policy intent of these districts is to protect small lodge uses on sites which have been
historically utilized for this purpose, and encourage the upgrade of these lodge facilities.
Compatibility with the neighborhood is a requirement, coupled with a respect for the ways
in which the lodge has traditionally operated. However, small lodge developments should
not mimic non-lodging buildings in the neighborhood.
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
Many lodge sites are located in residential areas, where the single family character should
be respected. In these settings, because the overall mass and scale of a lodge is likely to be
larger than that of adjacent residences, the treatment of the edges of a lodge site is
particularly important.
Other lodge sites located in commercial areas will be guided by the design objectives and
guidelines for the respective character area. In all cases, it is important to balance
compatibility with the functional needs of a lodge development.
2. 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
contest in their design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting
accommodations facility.
3. Enhance the character of the street edge.
A lodge overlay site should provide a street edge with visual delight and that invites
pedestrian activity in the neighborhood. This can be achieved with lush landscaping,
architectural details, and entrances that face the street.
4. Minimize the visual impacts of cars.
Where on-site parking is permitted, it should be screened from public view.
Street & Alley System
5.1 The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
• They should not be enclosed or closed for public access, and should remain open to
the sky.
• This applies to a lodge property that may include lots on both sides of an alley.
Staff Finding:
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 3 of 6
P39
There are no alleys adjacent to this lot. Public access from Ute Avenue is maintained as port of
this project. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Parking
5.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
• Parking shall be placed underground wherever possible.
• Where surface parking is permitted, it shall be located to the interior of the
property.
• Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally
planted and landscaped to soften design of parking areas and provide solar shade.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has provided a portion of the proposed pazking underground, retains the existing
surface lot on the Club parcel and on Lot 14A across the river. The surface pazking lot includes
some landscaping to buffer the visual impact, however, Staff believes there is too much surface
parking provided on the Club lot, and would like to see more landscaping features, and more
study done to examine the possibility of placing more pazking sub-grade. Staff finds this
guideline to be met.
5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of surface parking.
• On small lots where limited surface pazking in front of the building might be considered,
it should be designed and screened to minnnize the visual impacts.
Staff Finding:
As stated above, the Applicant has included landscaping features to minimize the visual impact
of the surface pazking. Staff would like to see further study regazding the possibility of
providing more of the pazking sub-grade, or eliminating some all together. Staff fmds this
guideline is not met.
Public Amenity Space
Public Amenity Space on sites located outside of a commercial character area should
reflect the development pattern established by residential open space along the block.
Staff Finding:
While the Rural Residential (RR) zone district does not require the provision of public amenity
space, the design guidelines do. The Club is located in a residential azea with relatively low
density development. The proposal maintains open space neaz the riparian azea, and includes
new facilities for Club members to enjoy the outdoors through improvements to the pool azea.
However, Staff believes the current surface parking configuration could be re-worked to provide
adequate fire access while increasing the amount of public amenity space on site. Staff would
like to see further study regazding the possibility of providing more of the parking sub-grade, or
eliminating some all together. Staff finds this guideline is not met.
Building Placement
5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the
existing neighborhood.
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 4 of 6
P40
These should include landscaping.
Staff Finding:
All of the proposed setbacks, with the exception of the eastern lot line, meet the underlying zone
district setback requirements. The Affordable Housing units would include a seven and a half
(7.5) foot setback in order to accommodate the proposed number of Affordable Housing units.
Because this area of the site includes a significant grade change, Staff believes this proposed
setback is appropriate. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
5.5 Within an established residential contest, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot
widths in more than one of the following ways:
• The variation in building height.
• The modulation of the building elements.
• The variation in fa ade heights.
• The street fa ade composition.
The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
Staff Finding:
This project is located in an azea with diverse lot widths and a vaziety of single-family, multi-
family, and commercial structures. The underlying zone district limits the height to twenty eight
(28) feet, and the Applicant has built the new structures to this height. While different roof
forms (relatively flat and pitched) aze proposed in the design, Staff does not believe enough has
been done to create building modules. Staff believes the two sets of timeshaze units located neaz
the river create a wall of development that is perceived as one mass. The Applicant has
responded to Staff's concerns by breaking up the units more than was originally proposed, but
Staff does not believe enough has been done to create building modules. A lower density of
timeshare units, or smaller units may be required to meet this standazd. Staff finds this guideline
is not met.
Building Height, Mass & Scale
5.6 Building height should generally fall within the range established by the setting of
adjacent buildings and the nearby street blocks.
• If two stories are predominant a third story portion may be permitted if located in
the center or as an accent on a corner.
Higher sections of the building should be located away from lower adjacent
buildings.
A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and
higher.
Staff Finding:
The proposed building heights meet the underlying zone district requirements and fit into the
neighboring context in terms of height. The proposal includes two story buildings, and maintains
the required nine (9) foot floor to ceiling height requited. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form,
modulation and variation of the roofscape.
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 5 of 6
P41
On sites exceeding 60 feet in width, the building height and form should be
modulated and varied across the site.
The width of the building or of an individual building module should reflect
traditional facade widths in the area.
Staff Finding:
The lot width is 430 feet, and includes significant slopes between the existing Club building and
the tennis courts (where a majority of the timeshare units aze proposed). All of the timeshare
units are built within the twenty-eight (28) foot height limit with little vaziation. While an
attempt has been made to ensure individual units are modulated, Staff does not believe the design
adequately addresses this standazd. A lower density of timeshare units, or smaller units may be
required to meet this standazd.
Although modules are created, Staff has requested that the applicant rethink the character of the
azchitecture to better reflect the mission of the Club. There is an opportunity to blend into the
natural landscape through azchitectural detailing, the creation of vistas, or through decreased
mass, and Staff encourages the Applicant to further refine the site plan and azchitecture to do so.
Staff requests that the applicant continue to redesign to find a character that complies with the
design objectives of the Small Lodge Chazacter Area. Staff finds this guideline is not met.
5.8 Building height adjacent to a historic single story residential building should fit within a
bulk plane which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 15 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the
maximum permitted building height.
Staff Finding:
The project is not located adjacent to a single-story historic structure. Staff finds this guideline
to be met.
5.9 Building height adjacent to a residential zone district should fit within a bulk plane
which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 25 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the
maximum permitted building height
Staff Finding:
The proposed building heights meet the underlying zone district requirements and fit into the
neighboring context in terms of height. The proposal includes two story buildings, and meets the
bulls plane requirements. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
Exhibit C -Commercial Design Guidelines
Page 6 of 6
P42
EXHIBIT D
Chapter 26.590, TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.590.070. Review standards for timeshare lodge development.
An applicant for timeshae lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards aze
in addition to those standazds applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision
applications.
A. Fiscal impact analysis and mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an
existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate
that the proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City.
In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the
applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD
application. The fiscal impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons
between the existing lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge
development:
1. A summary of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental of lodge rooms
during the prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting
rooms prior to the time of submission of the application, then the summary
shall reflect the fmal five (5) years the lodge was in operation. The summary
of past taxes paid shall be compared to a projection of the sales taxes the
proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five
(5) years of its operation. As part of this projection, the applicant shall
specify the number of nights the applicant anticipates each timeshare lodge
unit will be available for daily rental to visitors (that is, the annual number of
nights when the unit will not be occupied by the owner or the owner's
guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units, the expected
average daily cost to rent the unit and the resulting amount of sales tax that
will be paid to the City.
2. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City
if the existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has
occurred within the last twelve (12) months, then the real estate taxes paid
for that sale shall be used. This estimation shall be compared to a projection
of the real estate transfer taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development
will pay to the City over the first five (5) years of its operation. This
projection shall include a statement of the expected sales prices for the
timeshare estates and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to each sale.
3. A summary of the City-portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for
the prior five (5) years of its operation and a projection of the property taxes
the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay Yo the City over the first
five (5) years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the
Exhibit D - Timeshaze Review Criteria
Page 1 of 7
P43
expected value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor and
the applicable tax rate.
The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the
applicant believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the
proposed development. For example, the applicant may provide information
demonstrating there will be "secondary" or "indirect" tax benefits to the
City from the occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail
sales and other economic activity in the community as compared to the
existing lodge development. The applicant shall be expected to prove
definitively why the timeshare units would cause such economic advantages
that would not be achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such
additional information provided shall compare the taxes paid during the
prior five (5) years of the lodge's operation to the first five (5) years of the
proposed timeshare lodge's operation.
If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the
City from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge in any of
the specific tax categories (property tax, sales tax, lodging tax, RETT tax),
then the applicant shall be required to propose a mitigation program that
resolves the problem, to the satisfaction of the City Council. Analysis of the
fiscal impact study shall compare existing tax revenues for a lodging
property with anticipated tax revenues. The accepted mitigation program
shall be documented in the PUD agreement for the project that is entered
into between the applicant and the City Council.
Staff Findings:
The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshaze loge
development. Staff fords this criterion to not be applicable.
B. Upgrading of existing projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be
converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and
modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be
determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing
facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character
with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures
shall be brought into compliance with the City's adopted Fire, Health and
Building Codes.
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until
a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
Staff Findings:
The Applicant proposes an entirely new project, which does not include any conversion
of an existing lodge into a timeshaze loge development. T1te new development will be
Exhibit D -Timeshare Review Criteria
Page 2 of 7
P44
required to meet all City health, fire, and building codes. Staff fmds this criterion to not
be applicable.
C. Preservation of existing lodging inventory. An express purpose of these
regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory.
Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that provides
short-term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the
existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the
applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge
development shall replace the existing number of bedrooms on the property or the
applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of these
regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either the
existing number of units or bedrooms.
Staff Findines:
The Applicant proposes an entirely new project, which does not include any conversion
of an existing lodge into a timeshaze loge development. The new development will bring
additional lodge rooms to the City's Lodging stock. Staff finds this criterion to not be
applicable.
D. Affordable housing requirements.
I. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable
housing; mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the
standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable
housing requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of
proposed lock out rooms in the development and shall also take into account
any retail, restaurant, conference or other functions proposed in the lodge.
Staff FindinQS:
While this section requires affordable housing mitigation to be based on the number of
lock-off rooms, updates to the land use code require mitigation be based on bedrooms.
The Land Use Code considers there to be two (2) pillows in each bedroom. Section
26.470.080.3.b of the Land Use Code requires projects with less than one unit per 500
squaze feet of lot azea to provide mitigation equal to 60% of the employees generated.
Section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .5 FTEs generated per lodging bedroom.
This project's nineteen (19) units include fifty-nine (59) bedrooms, so creates a
generation of 29.5 FTEs. Therefore, the mitigation requirement is 17.7 FTEs (29.5 FTEs
' 60%). The applicant has proposed to provide housing for twenty-seven (27) FTEs
onsite in twelve (12) 2-bedroom units. This exceeds the code requirement by 150%.
No mitigation is required as part of the Club remodel, as there is no increase in the
amount of net leasable area.
Staff fmds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit D - Timeshaze Review Criteria
Page 3 of 7
P45
2. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program,
even when there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit.
There are currently no multi-family dwelling units on the property. Staff finds this
criterion to not be applicable.
E. Parking requirements.
1. The parking, requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be
calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district
for lodge uses. The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the
maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development.
Staff Findings:
Pursuant to section 26.515.030 of the Land Use Code, 0.5 parking spaces are required for
each key in a lodge development. There aze a maximum of thirty-eight (38) keys,
resulting in a pazking requirement of nineteen (19) pazking spaces for the timeshaze units
(38 * 0.5 = 19). The Applicant has provided nineteen (19) spaces in the sub-grade
pazking garage for the timeshaze units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of
guest transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer
an alternative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
Staff Findings:
The Applicant has indicated that anauto-disincentive program will be implemented as
part of the development. This would include increased shuttle service, participation in
the City car shaze program, and a bike fleet. While these aze important pieces of a
comprehensive auto-disincentive program, Staff does not believe this program has been
outlined in enough specificity. Staff would like to see the Applicant explore auto-
disincentives in more detail with a conceptual Transportation Plan as part of the Final
PUD review and a final Transportation Plan as part of the PUD Agreement. Staff
believes that a moderate increase in the Club's existing pazking, as well as the pazking
provided for the Lodge and Affordable Housing units is appropriate. However, Staff
does not support the current pazking proposal.
Staff find this criterion is not met at this time.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in
a parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate.
Staff Findings:
The timeshaze owners will be prohibited from storing their cazs in the gazage when they
aze not staying in their unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit D -Timeshare Review Criteria
Page 4 of 7
P46
F. Appropriateness of marketing and sales practices. The marketing and sale of
timeshare estates shall be goveroed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12,
Article 61, C.RS., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed
marketing entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare
development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development
shall not be permitted:
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any
street, mall or other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to
mislead potential purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales
presentation or to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the
gift reflects the local Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or
accommodations in Aspen, restaurants in Aspen and local attractions (ski
passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no
relationship to the local Aspen economy are not permitted. The following
gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
b. Any gift package for which' notice is not given to the prospective
purchaser that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales
presentation as a condition of receiving the gifts; and
c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the
requirement to attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than
the information on the gift being offered.
Staff FindinQS:
The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements in the final
timeshaze instruments that will be submitted with the final application. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
G. Adequacy of maintenance and management plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be
appropriately managed and maintained in a manner that will be both stable and
continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will
be provided and shall also address the following requirements:
1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and
approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the
timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare
owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used
appropriately.
Exhibit D - Timeshaze Review Criteria
Page 5 of 7
P47
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to
ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained
throughout its lifetime.
Staff Findings: '
The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements in the final
timeshaze instrtments that will be submitted with the final application. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposed timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements
of Title 12, Article 61, C.RS.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3,
C.RS.; including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission
of a sales contract and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in
escrow.
Staff Findings:
The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements in the final
timeshaze instruments that will be submitted with the final application. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
I. Approval by condominium owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred percent (100%) of
the owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development,
including any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may
propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed
timeshare development and that all condominium units in the timeshare
development will be included in the same sales and marketing program.
Staff Findings:
The project currently does not have condominium owners. Staff finds this criterion to not
be applicable.
J. Prohibited practices and uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement
contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any
of the following practices:
1. The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other
timeshare concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant
to the requirements of this Section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g.,
lease-holds and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and
are not permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare
approval, timeshare development instruments or disclosure statement.
Exhibit D -Timeshare Review Criteria
Page 6 of 7
P48
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to
another who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest.
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest
therein ip violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval
granted pursuant hereto or cause or aid and abet another to violate any
requirement of this Chapter or an approval granted pursuant to this
Chapter. (Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 13-2005, § 5)
Staff Findings:
The Applicant has committed that they will not knowingly engage in any of the above
mentioned activities. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit D - Timeshaze Review Criteria
Page 7 of 7
~~~ f
The f
t~SPEN CLUB
&SPA
March 19, ?008
Ms. Jessica Garrow
Aspen Communiry Developmem Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Club Living Conceptual PUD/SPA Application
Dear Jessica:
Enclosed for inclusion in the April 1, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission packet
are several documents which address various issues which have been raised to date by
the staff and/or the Commission. These documents include an initial draft of the
Club's Proposed Traffic Safety and Management Tools, which we propose to imple-
ment to address the traffic impacts associated with both existing and expanded Club
operations; a letter from Jay Hammond, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer which
address the feasibility of constructing an additional level of subgrade parking; a
preliminary estimate of the anticipated investment in the existing Club in connection
with the development of the Aspen Club Living project; and a brief summary of why
we feel the club implementation of the project will result in fewer impacts to the
neighborhood than exist today. We are also currently investigating the feasibility of
relocating the sewer which traverses the property to the north side of the proposed
townhouse units. While we believe this to be feasible. our architect has indicated that
the relocation will provide little if any additional Flexibility with respect to the
project's current site development plan.
We look forwazd to discussing the enclosed materials in more detail with the staff and
the Commission on April 1.
Aspen Club and Spa
0
.~ ~-- i
Michael Fox
r
HEALTHFIiNE55 SPAASPEN SPORTS MEDICINE INSTITUTE
I4SO CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD • ASPEN, CO SIGH
PHONE: 970.925.8900 • FAX: 970.925.9543
W W W.ASPENCLUB.COM
!° "` SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
'~ E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R S
March 17. 2008
Mr. Richard DeCampo
Poss Architecture + Planning
605 East Main Street
Aspen, CO
81611
OITE 200 P. C. BOx 2155 ~ O'~BOX 3088
OL~RW000 SPRINGS. CO B 180 ~ ASPEI:. CO B 1 81 2 CFESE~ BLI'LE. CO 91 224
9 ]0-995-100 9]tr923-6]2] 9]OJa9-5355
Fx: 9]tr945~59a9 rx: 9]P92&a!5] Ec: 9]O-3a9-535d
Re: Aspen Club Lower Level Parking Garage
Dear Richard:
I am writing in follow-up to our discussions last week about the potential of constructing
an additional (deeper) level of sub-grade parking under the Aspen Club building off of
Ute Avenue in Aspen. My understanding is that additional sub-grade parking has been
suggested as an option to accommodate vehicle parking that is currently proposed at-
grade in the site plan for the property in a more "hidden" sub-grade garage structure.
From our conversations and my review of the proposed building layout, site plan and
Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by HP Geotech in 2005, I think there is a
strong potential for substantial problems with deeper construction on the site that may
prove Fatal to any effort to excavate to the depths required for an additional level of
parking.
Stated briefly, a deeper level of parking to a slab elevation of approximately elevation
7987 would require excavation to a footer depth in the vicinity of elevation 7984. The
Preliminary Geotechnical Study generally indicates that soils at that depth comprise
sand, gravel, cobbles and probable boulders which may at least render excavation
extremely difficult. In addition, and more importantly, the site survey by Sopris
Engineering indicates that the elevation of the Roaring Fork River north and northeast of
the building site is as high as elevation 7982 in a "normal" flow condition as of the survey
in June of 2005. High runoff or flood conditions on the river could render the water
elevation at least a couple of feet higher and, typically, groundwater elevations rise in the
site soils as we move away from the river itself.
I would be extremely concerned that the necessary excavation and deep foundation
conditions for another level of parking at the Aspen Club building would likely encounter
permanent groundwater such that the construction would require elaborate and costly
dewatering systems and structures. We would always recommend against trying to
construct foundation and slab systems into permanent groundwater due to the energy
associated with full-time dewatering pump systems as well as the potential for any failure
of such systems to inundate the Tower level of the structure.
1 don't necessarily mean to be alarmist but I think the existing Aspen Club building and
site, close to the river, is automatically one that we would be very cautious with for deep
construction even without the level of information we already have. I do realize I've been
-•~ .,
~.;~::~,
"~x=.e'''`~ March 17, 2008
Mr. Richard DeCampo
Aspen Club & Spa
Deep Garage Construction
Page 2
somewhat brief here so please feel free to contacf me if I may provide additional
comment or detail.
Very Truly Yours,
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
.~~ T- =*
~~
if
day W. Hammond, P.E.
"r Principal, Aspen Office
JH/jh_2004-313RDC1 _03-17-2008
Aspen Club and Spa
PROPOSED TRAFFIC SAFETY & MANAGEMENT TOOLS
The goal of Aspen Club Living is to create both a safer Ute Avenue as well as have no growth in
traffic on Ute Avenue due to this project. To achieve these goals we have engaged TDA, Inc of
Seattle and Denver, respected traffic engineers who have been used by the City of Aspen, to help
us create a set of traffic safety & management tools. This will be a living, evolving program
reinforcing the actions that work effectively and weeding out those measures that are not
effec5ve. The baseline conditions will be established via high season traffic counts at key
locations in the vicinity, including Ute Avenue and the Club entrance. We understand that this
document is a work in progress and expect this plan to evolve and improve as we approach final
approval.
Envisioned Ute Avenue Safety Plan
One of the main issues today for the Aspen Club and its neighbors is safety along Ute Avenue.
With a few improvements, Ute Avenue today could be made into a much safer street. We would
propose:
1. SPEED HUMPS with CROSSWALKS -Three of these are shown on the schematic
below: one at Aspen Alps, one at the Gant tennis courts and one at the Ute Trail. Their
characteristics include:
a. Smooth transition to and from a flat crosswalk about 3 inches above the existing
pavement surface
b. Designed to encourage speeds not exceeding 25 mph
c. Pavement markings and advance signs in accordance with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Please see the example attached.
d. We may have to work out some special design details when terminating at a curb
on the north side of Ute Avenue, to meet the requirements of the City of Aspen.
This will affect the two most westerly speed humps,
2. SPEED HUMP without CROSSWALK -One is shown in the vicinity of the Cemetery.
Its characteristics include:
a. Smooth transition to and from a height about 3 inches above the existing
pavement surface, with no flat crosswalk
b. Designed to encourage speeds not exceeding 25 mph.
c. Pavement markings and advance signs in accordance with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
3. SPEED HUMP SUMMARY -Together this layout provides a speed hump about every
450 feet, with a bit longer spacing between the Gant tennis courts and the cemetery.
4. NEW SIDEWALK - As shown below, we would propose a new sidewalk to the south
side of the Benedict Building and the Aspen Club, connecting to the existing trail from
the west and north. As there is not sufficient right-of-way for the addition of this
sidewalk, an agreement with the Benedict Building will be required.
Figure 38 30. Examples of Pavement Ma-kinga for Speed Tables or
Speed Humps with Crosswalks
OPTION A
~ of Roadway
Ce nlgr OI
irsve~ Lynn
l
va rn
~i Ri
t
mlr r
~. r
~Ir a
~ r
30G mm jt2 ini
Whgn Mnrkmgs
~egentl
OPTION B r Drreclwn of (ravel
£ o
~' ~~
~1
,~
j7 fl 300 rnm
~/
;12 inl
White
t Alsrkin~
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003, FHWA
n
•~-
O
a
A
m
a
.o
n
t
U
d
N ~
p
O
O
0
N
N
b
Nno~ w
n 9~UUaj F
~us~
F
1 F
I E
~LL
•
3 F
"
a
D
c ~
U C
i
~ ~L r
~`
C F
Q ~
U
~
~ `
1 U F
~ ~ F
Itl C
;, ueday
d
Q N
N ~
~ ~ a
c ~ ~
~ U
a m z°
~ m
2 ~
/ a
N
O
i Z
W m
Q U
N BPIg
- pipauag
Y_
t
W ~i~ ~
ZD U
m r
3
n
~ --__ E
N ~
_ -_ x
1 ~~ V
~I m
~I N
I
'o ~ ~ I I ~ ~
N c ~ I + l
I
I z _____.
w D I Y A _____
~ a --
a
A
w
m
~ c
m
t ~
v
N
d ~
N ~
~~
O
C d
~ d /~
'~ ~ E
U
y r b I
~ 6
~ E
U =
o
Z ~ R\
N \
M
a
e U
~ o
U Z
~I
U Y
F
W
OF
~ F
O
N
Q. O
Z
n
O
a
3
N
m
E
x
n
R
d
c
c
u
i m
Q '~
~ m
~ a
m x
C y
w '-^
d9
~W
N ~
r
4'
O
z
Envisioned Traffic Management Measures
As stated above we believe we can create a traffic management plan so that there is no growth in
traffic on Ute Avenue due to this project. We would do this through a flexible set of tools we can
use to reduce overall traffic The initial set of traffic management tools include:
1. The Aspen Club will provide shuttle service to and from the Club at intervals of up to
3 round-trips per hour. These would serve Ruby Park, the Rio Grande parking lot and
set points in town to make commuting easier for our employees, members and guests.
The shuttle would also be available for on-call pickups and drop offs as it is today.
a. Shuttle vehicles will be reduced emissions or zero-emission.
b. This service will be provided from 7 AM to 9 PM every day during the peak
summer and winter seasons. These hours may be increased or decreased
depending on actual demand experience. During shoulder seasons and before 7
AM and after 9 PM, service will be on-call.
c Signs and other information identifying the routes and times will be posted at
the Club, and, if permitted, at Ruby Park and Rio Grande.
d. There will be no charge for the service.
e. The shuttle service will look to coordinate pickups and drop offs of hotel guests
in town to limit overall van traffic to the Club.
2. Caz sharing vehicles will be available, on site, for employees and registered guests.
a. We have met with Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles to discuss car sharing options.
b. The Club will initially provide up to six small electric or low-emission vehicles to
be stationed at the Club and available to guests and employees on a check out
basis for quick trips into town.
c. Employee use will be limited to Club business purposes to and from town at no
charge.
d. Employees living in the onsite affordable housing will have access to car share
program at no charge.
e. Guest use to and from town will be provided at no charge.
f. The Club concierge will coordinate guest trip, if necessary.
g. The vehicles will remain on-site overnight.
h. Electronic ID cards will be needed.
3. Shazed bicycles for employee or guest trips to town will be available at the Club.
a. Initially, up to ten bicycles will be avaflable. This will be increased if justified by
demand.
b. Electronic ID card will be necessary for use
4. Either caz share vehicles will be available for longer trips for employees living on site
so that they do not need to own cars themselves or arrangements will be made with a
local caz rental company for discounted car rentals.
a. The Club will provide one low-emission vehicle to be stationed at the Club or
arrange for discounted car rentals.
b. Employee living on site will be able to use these vehicles to take trips outside of
Aspen.
c. Trips will be charged at RFW or discounted car rental rates.
d. Electronic ID cards will be needed.
5. Aspen Club Shuttle service to and from the Airport will be provided for owners and
guests.
a. Information on this service will be provided in reservation materials.
b. Service will be at the airport at the scheduled arrival time. A phone request for
service will not be required, but acell-phone contact will be provided in case of
schedule changes.
c. Low-emission vehicles will be used.
d. There will be no charge for this service.
6. Club employees will be required to carpool, use our shuttles or take public
transportation to the Club in order to get their cazs off of Ute Avenue and Crystal Lake
Road. On-site employee parking would be restricted to carpools, with the exception of
selected managers and spaces required for onsite affordable housing.
a. Assistance to carpool formation will be provided.
b. Carpools will be registered and issued a permit.
c. Help to employees in carpool creation
d. Carpool parking will be monitored at least 1 time per week
e. Additional incentives may be provided (prize drawings for carpoolers, for
example)
Instituting paid pazking at the Aspen Club as an auto disincentive. Parking charges
could apply to interval owners, guests, employees, local members or participants in
Aspen Club services and programs. Inifially, ACL will test different fee structures to
determine which will best achieve our overall goals.
a. Parking charges anticipated at no less than 50% of downtown daily rates
b. Potential parking charges will be identified in sales, lease, rental, membership
and employment agreements
c. Parking charge fee schedule and seasonality will be reviewed and updated at
least every 2 years.
8. One parking space will be assigned to each affordable housing unit, as required by
code. However, auto use by tenants of these affordable units will be discouraged. ,
Monitoring Program
The effectiveness of the program will be measured in several ways:
1. Vehicle counts will be performed at Ute Avenue and at the Club access twice a year
during March and August starting today and will continue each year for five years after
the project is completed.
2. Results will be summarized in Memorandum form complete with tabulations and charts
so that year-to-year trends are readily apparent.
3. A log of car share, bike share and RFVV participation by employees and guests will be
maintained by Club management.
4. A Year in Review TDM technical report will be prepared for Club management. The
report will identify overall conformity will trip reducfion goals and suggest
improvements that could achieve better compliance and intended success.
5. Two years after completion of project, results will be submitted and reviewed by city
staff with a potential review by City Council. If necessary, another review will occur five
years after completion of the project.
H
H
T
bA ~
C ~
J C
U
C ~
N ~
Q ._
~ d
Y
G
N
E
O.
~
Q N
C
w O
~
C ~Y
L
C d
O
U ~
C lJ
f0
E
v
c
o ~
E H
Q O
o
m v
a w
~
c
v~f
c
p_ -a
c >
~n •o n
~
a
~ c
O
"i
~
A c ~
c
J
N
L
O
E
C ~/f
h
E
~ L
I- U
v
ti y
,,,
~
o
O
° ~
~
~ ~ v
o >
u
v
E
+'
z a ~~
-, ~ ~ m ° v o
y
v O
~ s
~' ~
Q v
Q E
K N
0 .
;
o ~
vTi ~
> O
~ ° ~ -v ~ 0
_ ' ~ ~ o
~ o
-a ~
v = a
~ v E
~ v O
o E o °m
N
~ J
O N
iLL ~
~ m N
~ ~~
C >
O L
~' N
L Y
p N
-i
~6 ~ -
v
> d ~p p V i
a v v a o E o a ~ v>
~ z Z ~ .
vi z l7 w vi l7 ?+
Q oc
Aspen Club Living
Impact Analysis
One of the main goals of Aspen Club Living is to create a project which is exciting and vibrant,
allows the Aspen Club to continue to serve our community and also has few negative impacts
on our neighbors and our community.
Aspen Club Living is a very different project than normally comes through this city. It is low
impact both environmentally and in terms of neighborhood impacts while remaining a locally
serving business that provides positive community benefits.
Sustainability and Carbon Footprint
One of the areas Aspen Club Living is focused on, as evidenced by our acceptance into the LEED
for Neighborhood Development pilot program, is Sustainability. An area we believe is an
exciting aspect of Aspen Club Living is the work we are doing with alternative energy to end up
with a smaller carbon footprint when we are done creating ACL than we have today. We
envision using a combination of solar photovoltaic cells to provide electricity, geothermal heat
exchangers to replace many of our old heating and cooling units, a new smart HVAC system to
minimize energy waste and more trees on site to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. The net
result is that Aspen Club Living will have a smaller carbon footprint when completed than exists
today.
Safety & Traffic on Ute Avenue
In another area, a big concern of ours and our neighbors has to do with safety on Ute Avenue.
Through Aspen Club Living we will have a chance to address this issue. We can create both a
safer Ute Avenue as well as have no growth in traffic on Ute Avenue due to this project. We
outline these opportunities in detail in the document titled "Aspen Club and Spa -Proposed
Traffic Safety and Management Tools" included in this meeting's packet. Again, when Aspen
Club Living is completed we will have both a safer road and one which has less traffic than if we
did not do the project.
Construction Management
We understand that there will be construction impacts due to this project. We will work with
our neighbors and contractors to put together a comprehensive construction management plan
which minimizes bath the impacts themselves and the length of the construction period for our
final approval.
Employee Housing on Site
Another issue that is facing Aspen today is having people who work in this community actually
live in this community. Through Aspen Club living we can address this. ACL will give employees
who live down valley and have to commute to work each day the opportunity to live right in the
heart of Aspen and be active members of our community. As part of this project, we are
proposing to build 12 2-bedroom apartments right at the Club. This represents 150% of the
required affordable housing and more importantly 200% - 300% of the actual jobs created
through this project. This will reduce traffic coming through the 5 curves into town and more
importantly will make our community stronger.
Community Benefit and Reinvestment in Club
On the benefit side, the Aspen Club Living project will allow us to invest significantly into
making the Club better and ensure it stays viable far into the future. The project will allow us to
continue to work with and grow our relationships with our non-profit partners. We outline
some of this investment in the document titled "Aspen Club Living Reinvestment Analysis"
included in this meeting's packet. Aspen Club Living will enable the Club to remain a mainstay
of our community.
Programming
Aspen Club Living will enable us to create a broad range of exceptional programming and
seminars that will be available to members, Aspen locals, residence owners and weeklong
visitors. Much of the programming will be available throughout the year, while some of the
special programs below will be run only during certain weeks of the year. With the new Aspen
Club Living residences we can develop cutting edge healthy living programs and seminars.
We will be able to hold an array of weeklong workshops for yoga, Pilates, meditation, cancer
survivors, biking, hiking, skiing, snowboarding, orienteering, mountaineering, etc. The new
residences provide a residential base to develop destination programs focusing on a myriad of
health and lifestyle opportunities. These programs will be open to our members and the
general public.
Summary
to summary, Aspen Club Living is a unique project in that it strengthens a locally serving
business, retains a community asset, decreases traffic, lessens our carbon footprint, expands
our programming, provides better jobs for our employees and enables more of our hard
working team to live in the Aspen community.
p1. P,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direc~
RE: Reconsideration of 300 Puppy Smith, Resolution No. 11, Series 2008
MEETING
DATE: April 1, 2008
BACKGROUND:
Staff is requesting that the Commission reconsider the resolution that was adopted at the
previous meeting to include some content amendments to the resolution that staff is proposing.
As a conceptual approval, the resolution should discuss preliminary issues that will need to be
addressed in further detail at final review. Some of the content of the resolution was more
detailed than necessary and though staff mentioned wanting to "clean-up" the resolution, it was
not included in the motion. Staff has reviewed the resolution with the Applicant's representative
and he is comfortable with the amended language.
To reconsider the resolution, a commissioner who voted for approval of the resolution must
make a motion to reconsider the resolution. Attached is an amended resolution, along with the
original resolution for comparison. In addition to incorporating the motion made by
Commissioner DeFrancia in Section 1, staff has incorporated the following changes:
1) Some of the introductory whereas clauses have been clarified; and,
2) Section 4, Affordable Housing, has been modified and generalized to reflect the
distinction between the existing affordable housing unit's deed restriction requirements
and the proposed affordable housing units.
3) Section 6, Public Works; Section 7, Sanitation District Requirements; and Section 11,
Parks, have been condensed and summarized.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the amended resolution for the purpose of clarifying parts of the
document and summarizing some the sections of the resolution at this conceptual stage of
review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to re consider Resolution No. 1, Series of 2008." If this is approved by a majority of the
P&Z, then a second motion is required: "I move to approve amended Resolution No. 11, Series
of 2008."
P2
RESOLUTION N0. 11,
(SERIES OF 2008)
-~'~~~~
~~~y
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT, AND
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF SUB-GRADE PARKING, COMMERCIAL SPACE, FIVE FREE-MARKET
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 PUPPY SMITH STREET (CLARKS
PARKING LOT) CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parce[ ID: 2737-073-52-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Puppy Smith, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC
requesting a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission for conceptual
approval of an amendment to a Specially Plazmed Area (SPA) and for conceptual
approval of commercial design review for the development of a new building to contain
sub-grade pazking, commercial space, five (5) free-mazket residential units and nine (9)
affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standazds, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend
the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and
the Commercial Design Standazds; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2007, the
Planning and Zoning Commission opened the hearing and continued the heazing to
January I5, 2008, and at the January 15, 2008 hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission continued the heazing to February 26, 2008 due to failure to provide
appropriate public notice; and
WHEREAS, at the February 26, 2008 hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, took public testimony, considered the application, and moved to continue
the public hearing to Mazch 18, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, at the March 18, 2008 hearing, upon further public testimony,
discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 11, Series of 2008 by a four to one vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds al] the applicable development standazds and that
the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
The final SPA application shall address comments in the following sections:
P3
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of Conceptual
Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, and Conceptual Commercial Design Review
with the following conditions to be incorporated into the final SPA and Commercial
Design Review:
A) Review the height and setback variation and relationship to surrounding
contextual buildings with respect to the northwest corner to de-emphasize the
mass of the proposed building and to lessen the reading of one structure.
B) Create a building that emphasizes the corner importance of Mill and Puppy Smith
streets by defining a "gateway" on approach to the City from the north, either
with building forms or with azchitectural detailing and/or pedestrian amenity.
C) The applicant shall pay 6% in lieu of the public amenity requirement to be Open
to the Sky.
Section 2: Buildin¢
The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a
building permit is submitted. Accessible routes to any public right-of--way and accessible
parking spaces will be required. The proposed project will be subject to the newly
adopted Use Tax on building materials. The proposed project may be required to comply
with a newly developed Efficient Building Program for Commercial projects.
Section 3: Engineerin¢
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with al] sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standazds published by the
Engineering Department. The proposal shall comply with the DRC comments from the
Engineering Depaztment regarding transportation, drainage, pedestrian improvements,
construction management, traffic studies, utilities and sight distances.
Section 4• Affordable Housing
The Housing Boazd requests that a deed restriction be memorialized for the existing
eighteen (18) affordable housing units. The content of the deed restriction will be subject to
the terms of the original approval. As proposed, the nine (9) newly created affordable
housing units shall meet the requirements of the Land Use Code and the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines.
Section 5: Fire Mitieation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25,
and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standazds. Each of the units
within the building shall have individual water meters. The well house cannot be used as a
P4
discrete source of irrigation water for the Rio Grande Park. A transformer location will have
to be provided on the Customer's property that meets the COA Utility standazds for safety
cleazances per National Electric Safety Code. Customer will pay for costs incurred by the
COA Electric System in engineering fees for calculating and designing load profiles for the
premises. On-site drainage detention solutions are questionable due to poor soil conditions
existing.
Section 7• Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved
Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections are not connected to the sanitary sewer
system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will not approve service to
food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date. Oil and Grease
interceptors are required for all Food processing establishment. Oil and Sand separators are
required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance
drains must drain to drywells, elevator shags drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. Below
grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Shared service line
agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All ACSD fees
must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation foundation or access/infrastructure
permit.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise
abatement and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior LiQhtina
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: Dimensional Standards
All lots within the proposed subdivision shall meet the underlying zone district standazds
of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district unless granted vaziances.
Section 11: Parks
An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. Parks
requests alternate plans for proposed on-site mitigation. The parks department requests
that the applicant work with the Parks and Engineering offices to review design options
for sidewalks. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester
or his/her designee before any construction activities aze to commence. No excavation,
storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or
vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site.
Section 12:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
P5
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 13:
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 14:
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.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18th
day of March, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~- a~ ~~ P,
~~~~~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. ~,
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT, AND
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF SUB-GRADE PARKING, COMMERCIAL SPACE, FIVE FREE-MARKET
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND E AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR
THE PROPERTY COMMONL KNOWN AS 300 PUPPY SMITH STREET
(CLARKS PARKING LOT) CI OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
N 1 ~ 'Parcel ID: 2737-073-52-OOI
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Puppy Smith, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC
requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission a recommendation of conceptual
approval for a Specially Planned Area (SPA), Growth Management Review approvals for
Commercial Space, Free Market Residential and Affordable Housing, Subdivision, to
develop Commercial Space, five (5) free-market residential units and eight affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission for conceptual approval of an amendment to a Specially Planned
Area (SPA) and for conceptual approval of commercial design review; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend
the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and
the Commercial Design Standazds; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2007, the
Planning and Zoning Commission opened the hearing and continued the heazing to
January 15, 2008, and on Januazy 15, 2008 the Planning and Zoning Commission
continued the hearing to February 26, 2008 due to failure of notice; and
WHEREAS, at the February 26, 2008 heazing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission moved to continue the public hearing to Mazch 18, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, at the March 18, 2008 hearing, upon further public testimony,
discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution
No. ~, Series of 2008 by a _to_ vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standazds and that
the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
P8
The final SPA application all address comments in the ollowing sections: r0
NI~~ ~ ~~"' ~.~~DUV~ G1n~~tmr't lO+pE'~ +' f~-n'rl"~
Section 1: ) f~bj!'cf ~-,.•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspe Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Conceptual
Specially Planned Area (SPA), Conceptual Commercial Design Review with the
following conditions to be incorporated into the final SPA and Commercial Desigti EX~ 1 QI ~' L
Review: ~
1 Widen the sidewalk on the south facade of the building to minimum (clear) of 8
Wl ~ feet to create places for social interaction as stated in the AACP. ~tLIE~' 1r
.~, the height and setback variation and relationship to surrounding ' fc1
contextual u~ ings to de-emphasize the mass of the proposed building, to lessen _
N~1,1 ~ the reading of one structure, to a etg m 1,t fry
Create a pedestrian link (stairs) on the corner of Mill and Puppy Smith Streets t ~
allow for pedestrian permeability (not barricaded) through the site. jt .,. ~:r
4) Create a building that emphasizes the corner importance of Mill and Puppy Smith VS~S
streets by defining a "gateway" on approach to the City from the north, either
with building forms or with architectural detailing and/or pedestrian amenity.
5) Consider having the eastern public amenity Open to the Sky. ,_ 2) ~ - Ga1(• • I"• U~"
Section 2: Building
The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a
building permit is submitted. Accessible routes to any public right-of-way and accessible
parking spaces will be required. The proposed project will be subject to the newly
adopted Use Tax on building materials. The proposed project may be required to comply
with a newly developed Efficient Building Program for Commercial projects.
Section 3: Engineering
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standazds published by the
Engineering Department. The proposal shall comply with the DRC comments from the
Engineering Department regazding transportation, drainage, pedestrian improvements,
construction management, traffic studies, utilities and sight distances.
Section 4• Affordable Housing
The Housing Board requests that a deed restriction be recorded on the 18 current affordable
housing units located above Clazk's Mazket with the requirement that each tenant has to be
a qualified employee as to employment status as stated in the Guidelines and that eac~
tenant must be provided with at least asix-month lease.
~ti,~~ y 6~~'~4~
The developer has the option of the~units being "for sale" units or rental units. Should they
be rental units, the following conditions should be required as part of the approval:
Rental Units:
a. The units will be deed-restricted as Category 2, 3 or 4, to be approved by APCHA and
finalized at time of Final approval.
P9
b. The deed-restriction will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the
owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems even ONE of the
units out of compliance over a period of one year. If any of the units are found to be out of
compliance for one year, or the owner elects to sell the units, the units would be listed for
sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the category specified at
the time of final approval, based on the sales price stated in the Guidelines in effect at the
time of recordation of the deed restriction, appreciated as stated in the deed restriction (3%
or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less), as of the date of the listing of the units. If
the units are being sold due to non-compliance, all of the units will be sold through the
lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the units, the owner may choose 1/3`d of the
buyers as long as they qualify under the top priority for that specific unit.
c. An agreement will be established between the owner of the commercial space and APCHA
regarding the tenancy of the affordable .housing units. An owner of one of the
commerciaVretail spaces may request a unit for a specific employee, but at NO time will
the tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employment. If the owner cannot find a
qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled through
APCHA's normal advertising process.
d. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the
applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and
managing said units.
e. Each tenant in the rental units will be required to requalify on a yearly basis.
f. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to
become ownership units.
g. Should the rental units become ownership units, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect
to purchase them for rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA
Housing Guidelines.
h. As long as the affordable housing units remain as rental units, the APCHA or the applicant
shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that an undivided 1/10`h of 1 percent
interest in the ownership of each unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the
applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines
acceptable.
Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the units' assessments
upon the units becoming "for sale" units. The assessments shall be based on the value of
the free-market units compared to the deed-restricted units. This language shall be required
in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same
voting privilege as the free-market residential units upon the units becoming "for sale" units.
No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
P10
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25,
and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standazds. Each of the units
within the building shall have individual water meters.
1. Under Water Supply. 2nd pazagraph, Sentence 2 "The well house is connected to
the City distribution system and is configured to provide water to the system as a
whole or may be used as a discrete source of irrigation water for the Rio Grande
Park. This is not correct; the well cannot be used as a discrete source of irrigation
water for the Rio Grande Park.
2. A transformer location will have to be provided on the Customer's property that
meets the COA Utility standards for safety clearances per National Electric Safety
Code.
3. Customer will pay for costs incurred by the COA Electric System in engineering
fees for calculating and designing load profiles for the premises.
4. On-site drainage detention solutions aze questionable due to poor soil conditions
existing. Not a good assumption to assume good granular site soils.
Section 7• Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT under the counter traps) are required for all food
processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit. Even though the commercial space is mixed use and maybe tenet finish, interceptors
will be required if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD will
not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according
to specific ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
P11
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where
more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping
plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public
RO W or easements to be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation/foundation or
access/infrastructure permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be
assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be
overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area
of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building
stubouts prior to building permit.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3
feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise
abatement and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: Dimensional Standards
All lots within the subdivision shall meet the underlying zone district standards of the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district. The Amendments of the SPA allows for
tie development of a mixed-use building on lot 1 B.
Section 11: Parks
1. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set.
Contact the Parks Department for permit, 920-5120.
P12
Parks requests alternate plans for proposed on-site mitigation. The parks
department does not support the current plans for planting in the ROW. Please
submit prior to building permit a new ROW planting, showing the proposed
spruces removed, and an evenly spaced planting with a specific street tree.
Applicant should set up a meeting between the Parks and Engineering offices to
review two alternatives for a separated sidewalk and or attached. ,
3. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for tree removal and
protection.
4. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or
his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence.
5. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of
equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site.
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 12:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
Section 13:
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 14:
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.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this
day of , 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST: