HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080715AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, July 15, 2008
4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
L ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IH. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 411 Monarch, Dancing Bear PUD Amendment, Resolution No.
22
B. 612 W. Francis, Subdivision Review, Resolution No. 24
C. 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen Valley Hospital Conceptual
PUD, Resolution No. 23
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
vA
~'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissi~yo/n
FROM: Errin Evans, Current PlanneYD~
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo>~
DATE OF MEMO: July 8, 2008
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2008
~; 411 S. Monarch Street -Planned Unit Development
Amendment, Commercial Design Review, Growth
Management Quota System Review
P1
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Dancing Bear Land, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Eben P. Clazk, Klein, Cote and
Edwazds, LLC
LOCATION:
Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch
Street; Legal Description -Lots P, Q,
R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite
of Aspen;
Parcel Identification Number - 2735-
182-19-002
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Lodge zone district with
a PUD overlay containing a timeshaze
lodge development currently under
construction.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to enclose
two outdoor seating azeas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the request to enclose the two
outdoor seating azeas.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission to approve the PUD Amendment,
Commercial Design Review and the Growth
Revised 7/8/2008
Page 1 of 11
Photo of the subject property
P2 ~
~~/
., ~„
SPECIAL NOTE: APPLICATION (EXHIBIT Dl AVAILABLE FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (ERRIN EVANS 429-2745)
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to enclose two outdoor seating areas on a previously
approved project, the Dancing Beaz Lodge, that is now currently under construction at 411 S.
Monazch Street (See Application -Exhibit B). The change is minor in nature; however, three
different approvals aze required.
The required approvals include a PUD amendment, Growth Management Quota System review
and Commercial Design Review. The Dancing Beaz Lodge received approval by Council on
August 11, 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 of Series 2003.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to enclose two outdoor
seating azeas on the Dancing Beaz Lodge:
• Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development for an
increase in commercial net leasable azea of 386 squaze feet pursuant to Land Use Code
Revised 7/8/2008
Page2of11
L
P3
Section 26.470.080 (1). (The Plazuvne and Zonine Commission is the final review
authori who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
PUD Insubstantial Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 A. 'This
application qualifies for an insubstantial amendment which can be handled
administratively; however, this review is being combined with the land use reviews. This
review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing.
Commercial Design Review for a change to the original design that received final
approval. As pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.080 (A);
"An insubstantial amendment to a Commercial Design Review approval granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission may be granted by the Community Development
Director if
a: The change is in conformance with the Design Standards, Section 26.412.060, the
change represents a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the proposed development, or
the change is consistent with representations made during the original review
concerning the potential changes, of the development proposal considered
appropriate by the decision making body; and
b. The change requires no other land use action requiring review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. "
Since this application requires other land use actions that aze under the purview of the
planning and Zoning Commission it does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment,
which is handled administratively; however, under Code Section 26.412.040, the
Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process
accordingly. Due to the scope of the request, the application will be reviewed as a Final
Design application.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
Enclosing the two proposed outdoor seating azeas will result in an increase of 386 squaze feet of
net leasable commercial space. When the increase in net leasable area is greater than 250 squaze
feet, the application cannot meet the qualifications for administrative review. This application
falls under the requirements of Code Section 26.470.080 -Major Planning and Zoning
Commission Applications (1) Expansion or New Commercial Development. If approved, this
application will require employee generation mitigation pursuant to Code Section 26.470.100,
Growth Management Quota System Calculations. The increase of 386 squaze feet of net leasable
space means that 0.95 employees will be generated as a result.
Every 1,000 square feet of new Net Leasable Area commercial space in the Lodge zone district
generates 4.1 employees. The mitigation calculation, using 2008 fees, is as follows:
386 squaze feet / 1,000 square feet = 0.386
0.386*4.1 employees per 1,000 squaze feet =-1.58 employees
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 3 of 11
P4
1.58 * 60% as per Section 26.470.050 (B) (5) = 0.95 employees
Since this is less than one employee generated, the applicant is permitted to make acash-in-lieu
payment.
0.95 employees * $130,213 (Category 4 fee) _ $123,702.35
The Planning and Zoning Commission, based on a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority has the authority to permit cash-in-lieu payment for mitigation of less
than one employee. This is the third option listed on the recommendation that was submitted.
(See Exhibit B). Staff finds that Option 3 is the only one that the City has the ability to request
as per the Code requirements. The applicant has provided more units than were required for the
original approval. The two additional units above the requirements aze provided on site.
The approval of this application will result in deductions from the Annual Development
Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels for 2008 for commercial development. There have
been no allocations granted yet for 2008, as a result, there aze 33,300 net leasable squaze feet
available. This application meets the review criteria for general requirements for Growth
Management Review. Please refer to Exhibit A for staff findings of the review criteria.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT REVIEW:
The proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development is found to be consistent with the
approved final development plan by staff. This qualifies the proposed project for approval,
approval with conditions or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing.
The change proposed by the applicant is relatively minor. '
During the application process when the Dancing Beaz PUD was created, concerns were focused
on the massing and height of the building. The minutes from those meetings aze included as
Exhibit C. The proposed enclosure will be consistent with the original approvals. A Floor Area
Ratio of 2.98:1 was approved in the final development approval. Currently the project has a
F.A.R. of 2.28:1 and the proposed project will result in an F.A.R. of 2.32:1, well below what was
approved.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval
for the proposed changes to the structure. The application must meet Section 26.412.060 of the
Land Use Code regazding Commercial Design Standazds. The azea proposed to be enclosed is
currently under an overhang and not open to the sky. These areas are not considered open space
by definition of the City's Land .Use Code. Utility, delivery and trash services will not be
impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. These items have been approved in the
original PUD and meet the standards.
The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial
Character Area. The Commercial Chazacter Area has some design objectives and guidelines that
the proposed amendments to the building must meet. The previously approved Planned Unit
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 4 of 11
PS
Development will still meet these objectives after the proposed amendment is added to the
structure. Changing the proximity of the seating azea to the sidewalk may encourage a more
defined street wall and more defimed edge towazds the street. This may be a better use of the
space by bringing the customer activity into sight of the streetscape rather than recessed under the
overhanging part of the building away from street activity. There is space remaining to
accommodate outdoor seating in the summer months on the south side of the building. The
proposed enclosed seating will bring the activity closer to the sidewalk in the winter months.
The same building materials will be used as aze used throughout the rest of the project. Lazge
windows will be the dominant new feature.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requested that the applicant update the fee
calculation to reflect the new 2008 fees.
RECOMMENDATION:. While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is
generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Dancing
Beaz PUD. It does not substantially change the exterior of the building, the same materials will
be used and outdoor seating will still be available for restaurant patrons. Community
Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the Growth Management Review, Planned Unit Development Amendment, and Commercial
Design Review requests.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve
the proposed amendments that they may use this motion "I move to approve Resolution No~~,
Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the Growth Management Review, the Planned Unit
Development amendment and the Commercial Design Review to enclose two outdoor seating
azeas at 411 South Monarch on the Dancing Bear Lodge (Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and
Townsite of Aspen)."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Staff Findings
Exhibit B - Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Referral
Exhibit C -Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (June 23, 2003 and July 28, 2003)
Exhibit D -Application (was submitted for the last meeting)
Revised 7/8/2008
Page 5 of 11
P6
EXHIBIT A
26 470 050 General Requirements for the Growth Manaeement Ouota System
All development applications, for Growth Management Review shall comply vvtth the following
standards. The review body shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the 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.
There are suff dent allotments to allocate to the proposal. There have not been any
allocations of Commercial net leasable square footage. Each year there are 33,300 net
leasable square feet available. This proposed development is requesting an allotment of
386 square feet. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The AACP states that the intent of the Economic Sustainability theme is to "Maintain a
healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area
community. " Increasing the amount of seating that is available in all four seasons will
help contribute to a year-round economy. There will still be outside seating available
after the enclosure is complete. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone
district.
The proposed portions of seating to be enclosed are currently covered areas. The
building footprint will not be altered. The proposed project meets all the dimensional
requirements Lodge zone district requirements. The additional net leasable space will
require an amendment to the total stated in the approved ordinance for the Planned Unit
Development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design approval, and the Conceptual
Planned Unit Development approval as applicable.
The proposed project is consistent with the Conceptual Design approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval. The-main concerns for the original
development were building height and mass. It was also noted that it would be optimal to
increase the open space on this property. The seating that is proposed to be enclosed is
not considered open space because it is a currently covered area. Conceptual Historic
Commission approval does not apply to this project. Staff f nds this criterion to be met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, 60% of the employees generated by the
additional commercial or lodge development aze mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing.
The applicant has opted to pay cash-in-lieu to mitigate the employees generated because
the employee generated is a fractional employee. The original development provided
more employee housing than was required at the time of the first approvals. The housing
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 6 of 11
P7
department has requested that the applicant update the calculation to use the new 2008
fees. The increase of 386 square feet of net leasable space means that 0.95 employees
will be generated as a result The project proposes 386 square feet of new Net Leasable
Area Commercial space. Every 1, 000 square feet of new Net Leasable Area commercial
space in the Lodge zone district generates 4.1 employees. The mitigation calculation is
as follows:
386 square feet / 1, ODD square feet = 0.386
0.386*4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet =1.58 employees
1.58 * 60% as per Section 26.470.050 (B) (5) = 0.95 employees
Since this is less than one employee generated, the applicant is permitted to make acash-
in-lieu payment.
0.95 employees * $130,213 (Category 4 fee) _ $123,702.35
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Affordable housing Net Livable Area, for which the fmished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least 30% of the additional free-market residential Net Livable Area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above Natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
This is not applicable as a cash-in-lieu payment is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to
be met. ,
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
This project will only place minimal additional demands on the public infrastructure.
The proposed area to be enclosed was intended for outdoor seating. If approved, the
seating will be interior to the building. Staff finds this criterion met.
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 7 of 11
P8
EXHIBIT A (Continued)
Planned Unit Develoament Amendment Review
26.445.100 PUD Insubstantial Amendments
An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may
be authorized by the Community Development Duector. The following shall not be considered
an insubstantial amendment: (staff findings are in italics)
1. A change in the use or chazacter of the development.
The proposed amendment is enclosing an area that was previously designated for
outdoor seating. The use will not change; the seating will become interior to the
restaurant. Stafffrnds this criterion to be met.
2. An increase by greater than three percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land.
The site coverage that was approved in the final development plan will not be altered. The area
to be enclosed is located under an overhang. The building footprint will not change. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public facilities.
There are no additional impacts predicted to existing infrastructure. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
4. A reduction by greater than three percent of the approved open space.
The area to be enclosed does not meet the definition of open space because it is located under an
overhang. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. A reduction by greater than one percent of the off-street pakking and loading spaces.
The off-street parking and loading will not change from the original approval. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or right-of--way for streets and easements.
The pavement widths and right-of--ways will not be affected. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met.
7. An increase of greater than two percent in the approved gross leasable floor azea of
commercial buildings.
This is not a commercial building. This does not apply. Stafffrnds this criterion to be met.
8. An increase in greater than one percent in the approved residential density of the
development.
There are no residential units in this development. The units are timeshare lodge rooms. Staff
fnds this criterion to be met.
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 8 of 11
P9
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting a variation from the. project's approved use
or dimensional requirements.
The proposed amendment is a minimal change from the approved site plan. The applicant
predicts that pedestrians will have increased interactions with the patrons on site for a longer
portion of the year as a result of the enclosure. Indoor patrons will be more visible from the
street because they will be in closer proximity and they will still have interactions with the
remaining outdoor seating area. The pedestrian circulation will still have an interactive
relationship with restaurant patrons in the remaining outdoor seating areas and the
indoor seating areas will be more visible because they will no longer be located under
the overhang. There will still be outside seating available after the enclosure is
complete. Staff finds this criterion to be mei.
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 9 of 11
P10
EXHIBIT A (Continued)
26 412.060 Commercial Review Design Guidelines
As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval
for the proposed changes to the structure. The application must meet Section 26.412.060 of the
Land Use Code regarding Commercial Design Standazds.
The Commercial Design Standazds include:
1. 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 the public right-of--way or private property
within commercial azeas.
Staff Finding -The area proposed to be enclosed is currently under an overhang and
not open to the sky. These areas are not considered open space by definition of the
City's Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision
Staff Finding -Utility, delivery and trash services will not be impacted by the
proposed amendment to the structure. These items have been approved in the
original PUD and meet the standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.
The project is located in the Commercial Chazacter Area. The Commercial Chazacter Area has
some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet,
including:
Design Objectives. These aze key design objectives for the Commercial Area. The City must
find that any new work will help to meet them:
1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District.
2. Maintaining a retail orientation.
3. Promote creative, contemporary design.
4. Encourage a well defined street wall.
5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally.
6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a cleaz definition with the street
edge.
7. Promote variety in the street level experience.
Staff Finding -The previously approved Planned Unit Development will still meet these
objectives after the proposed amendment is added to the structure. Changing the
proximity of the seating area to the sidewalk may encourage a more defned street wall
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 10 of I 1
P11
and more deftned edge towards the street. This may be a better use of the space by
bringing the customer activity into sight of the streetscape rather than recessed under the
overhanging part of the building away from street activity. There is space remaining to
accommodate outdoor seating in the summer months. The proposed enclosed seating
will bring the activity closer to the sidewalk in the winter months. The same building
materials will be used as are used throughout the rest of the project. Large windows will
be the dominant new feature. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Street and Alley System.
The street and alley configuration will not be affected by this proposed amendment. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Parkin¢•
The parking will not be affected by this proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
3. Public Amenitypace.
The proposed amendment will not alter the approved open space. The outdoor seating
areas to be enclosed are not considered to be open space because they are located under
overhangs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Buildine Placement
The building footprint will not be altered by the proposed amendment. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Buildine Height Mass and Scale
The building height, mass and scale were an issue during the original approval process.
The proposed amendment does not alter height, mass or scale in this case. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Final Review Design Guidelines
1. Buildine Design and Articulation
The building design and articulation will not be significantly altered as a result of the
proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Architectural Materials
The proposed amendment will incorporate the same building materials as the rest of the
approved project. Large windows will be the dominant feature in the enclosed area.
Staff finds this criterion fo be met.
3. Pavine and Landscanine
The paving and landscaping will not be altered from the ftnal approved development plan.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Revised 6/12/2008
Page 11 of 11
P12
RESOLUTION No.
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF TFIE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF ASPEN,
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEW,
INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNTT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, AND COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING TWO OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS
OF THE DANCING BEAR LODGE LOCATED AT 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET, LEGALLY
KNOWN AS LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Parcel Identification Number 2737-182-19-002
WHEREAS, Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwazds, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street,
Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado,
submitted a request for Growth Management Quota System Review, an Insubstantial Planned Unit
Development Amendment and Commercial Design Review dated Febniary 15, 2008 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the request is to receive approval for Growth Management Quota System Review
allotments, an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development amendment, and Commercial Design Review to
enclose 386 squaze feet of outdoor seating to indoor seating, therefore increasing the net leasable
commercial azea; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for
Growth Management Quota System Review pursuant to Code section 26.470.080 (Major Planning and
Zoning Commission Applications), an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development Amendment pursuant to
Code section 26.445.100 (A) (PUD Insubstantial Amendments), and Commercial Design Review pursuant
to Code section 26.412.040 (Review Procedures) under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 17rd, 2008;
and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community
Development Deparknent recommended approval of the request; and,
P13
WHEREAS, a change order to the Building Permit application will be required; and,
WHEREAS, the City of 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CTI'1' OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT:
Section 1.
The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following fmdings of fact:
1. A request for the annexation petition and zoning application was initiated by: Eben P. Clazk of
Klein, Cote and F.dwazds, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on
behalf of Dancing Beaz Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado.
2. Notice of the proposed Growth Management Quota System Review, Planned Unit Development
amendment, and Commercial Design Review has been provided to surrounding property owners in
accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such
notice is on file with the City Clerk.
Section 2:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Growth Management Quota System Review for new
commercial development under Major Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, Insubstantial
Planned Unit Development amendment, and Commercial Design Review application request for the said
lot.
The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of Ordinance No. 29. of Series 2003; however the applicant
has approval to develop 386 squaze feet of net leasable azea by enclosing some outdoor seating as shown
in Exhibit A.
Section 3:
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 4:
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.
Section 5:
Al] material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein
awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning
Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fatly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
P14
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen on the 17th day of June 2008.
LR Erspamer, Chairperson
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A -Approved Exterior Elevations and permitted area to be enclosed.
p15
n ~z~ = o
O ~ D O D
m
w m 70 ~
Dm ~ m
~ ~
W w r ..€k111t6('~ '[D ~
'_~.~
6~
r D D _~
p~ ~ ~ *~
v
~" ~ wII1
„' ~
/r:SOL IJTt oIJ
`
Z
~
I ~~
.
~: D~] 1/~
1 SN~mD SN~O DII 1
.
., -
O ~,
~ z D T D ~
~ ,
~ ~ -Ti ~ EXHIBIT
-F --~ m -
`, .. .. ..
------ ---- ---- _. --_ -- -____._ _ _-- -----~ A
P16
(l
D
m ~ ~
w DX~ cmi~7~
E
/ ~ d` rcn~"DOD=~
~~..~/ Z_ ~O D ~ ~ N ~ m
~zzmmZz
0 ~G~D~D ~~
z
n
~D ~
D
~~
m
-. ~ -•
ti ~J =
o ~O~
ti ~m
ncDD=~
a' -i D D
Dyj=C~l~
u'„mmz
m~Dp--r
B m
~ ~
60~ 6`~D
Zw ~ Z~o~
~ cD~ ~Coc
mN~ mN~
~~ O NGJ~
m~,-fl m~~
P17
~ ~ ~ ~
m rn = n
m z
w ~ z ~
m
a~ D m m
~~ -N-~ ~ ~
' ~ c '
B m ~ -p
D ~ ~
O N
Z Q
rn
P18
CNl X 7C D
m z= ~
D z ~
m D~ m
m D
- D ~ ~
O ~ ~
oZ~
~~
D m ~
U, D D
mom
~~
~m
D
-~
O
i;
4
7
9
1 RO,i
' i
- i
I ~
-
~---~~~!C-~
-----
-
~ • ---- - ~ -~ '-I
J- ~'-
'I~ -=
T'~ I ~ -~
~ 1 -
~~
Ca,
1
~
_~
~
~~a L~
~
`-
~~
-
'
'
-y
I
~
~ C
y I~_
~
I I f-! i --i
,~ ~ ~
-~ .
~ - -
i
_
rte-- ~ t-~ -
-
I ~1 J O ~ i ~° O ~-
~
I - I
I _ --
i > ~ * L-_
i r
I
I -
,
-
i = ~ -{ -~~
_ - ~ -_
T _
_ i
®
I
O
_ _ _
• I ~ -
I
N
I ~
n
~
I -
--I_'r--
i -~ _ _ e~ .-~ - - I I 1 -' ~-
i ~
~ ~
~
x ~
Ii -
-
~
I~
~ i.
-~
P19
N m 7c ~
(l X -=F D
D ~ (~ Z
!?~ z m n
w p z ~
D ~ II7
_ m m
D
_~~~
8 Zl ~ ~
~ z D
Z
~ ~
DON ~
m ~ m
D i
~m
~m
D
~_
O
z
P20
i
~ ~~n
~ D
m m = n
m z
w ~ z ~
~ ~ m ~
D
~~ _ -N+ ~l
m c '
~ ~ D D
D ~
O N
z D
m
I I ~ I
- ~ i ~ ' 1 ' ~ -t -'~ -I -
_
L
J
# ~ ; ~
__ _
_
_ _
. __ _ ~ __t _i
~
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ -
( - ` - -
~ ~ -
_ i
r-
-__
__-_.
_- .L _~ _ ._
_~ -
_ _~. __~
.~
i
_I
~._
-I
n
O ~E' ' ~ j r _
1 - ~ ; i _
~ ------~- -- -_ -' - -~ ±-_
- ------ , -- --~-~1-~ -=-,L i-
._L_
~~ - i
u-~ __. i -~
~ i _
'~
i
I ~ ~ O- ~ ~
-
I
;
~
i -
~
J ~
i
i
~
_
__ -
I
i
~
~~`
'
I -
I
~
i
~
._...- ,-.8 - ~ Y ~
~._
'
^ -
I
i.
i'ii_'
I
~X~-I l~ 1 i ~
P21
MEMORANDUM
TO: Errin Evans, Community Development
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: March 27, 2008
RE; DANCING BEAR LODGE PUD AMENDMENT (411 S. MONARCH STREET)
Pazcel ID No.2737-182-19-002
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting an amendment that would increase the restaurant/ commercial
space in the project by 386 square feet.
BAC%GROUND: The property is located at 411 South Monazch Street. The addition of 386
square feet would allow for approximately 30 additional diners in the restaurant throughout the off-
season and winter months. This increase of square footage would result in less than asingle-
employee being generated; therefore, the applicant is requesting to satisfy the affordable housing
mitigation through acash-in-lieu payment. According to Section 26.470.OSO.B.S, 60% of the
employees generated are required to be mitigated. The requirement for an additional 386 square
feet of net leasable space is 386 - 1,000 X 4.1 employees generated per 1,000 squaze feet of net
leasable space X 60% _ .95. As this is a fraction of an employee, the applicant has the option to
mitigate via acash-in-lieu payment.
The Housing Board has prioritized the options that can be utilized for mitigation purposes. They
are as follows:
On-Site Housing -That the location of a deed restricted property used for construction or
redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes be either next to or attached to the
development.
2. Off-Site Housing -That the location of a deed restricted property used for construction or
redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes be at a sepazate location approved by
the Housing Office.
3. Cash-in-Lieu or Land-in-Lieu -That the applicant for a development may, under certain
conditions and subject to certain requirements, satisfy the mitigation requirement by
payment of an affordable housing dedication fee or a donation of land. The preference of
cash or land shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Due to the priority, the Housing Office would prefer a studio unit be provided for this additional
squaze footage request.
P22
Section 26.470.OSO.B.S allows for the payment-in-lieu fee to be calculated using the Category 4 fee.
Under the Category 4 stated fee, the amount owed for adding 30 additional diners in the restaurant
would be $127,702.35 ($130,213 [as specified in the 2008 Guidelines] X .95). The applicant has
used the 2007 payment-in-lieu fee for Category 4. In most instances, a person who works in the
restaurant business falls under the Category 1 or Category 2 income level. Staff would recommend
approval of the payment-in-lieu fee versus providing a unit if a more reasonable fee was used. Staff
would recommend that the average of Category 1 and Category 2 be utilized in calculating the fee
($264,228 + $221,072 _ 2 = $242,650); therefore, a fee of $230,517.50 would be required to
mitigate for this request. This payment more readily reflects the cost to construct a studio unit to
house an employee.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of using the payment-in-lieu fee if the
average of the 2008 Category 1 and Category 2 fees are utilized. Otherwise, staff would prefer that
the mitigation be provided by expanding the on-site units to three-bedroom units or by providing an
approved off-site studio unit.
2
~lYIBIT G
P23
Reeular Meetin As en Ci Couacil Jnne 23 2003
Councilwoman Richard moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, with
the provision that the neighbors be consulted at the time of the soils survey
with the engineer and that the fire marshal look at fire and safety access
during any demolition and excavation time as well as the final development
plan and that a building permit will not be issued for this unless the
Residences application has been withdrawn
Peterson asked what consulting with the neighbors on the soils survey
means. Councilwoman Richards said the neighbors.wouldfike to give
background and history when the soils study is being looked at. Vann said
the applicants are required to submit a soils evaluation to be reviewed by
city staff. Vann said the condition states the applicants will comply.with the
recommendation bf the soils analysis. Julie Ann Woods, community
development department; said if the neighbors are not "consulted", where
does that leave staff. Peterson said when the soils study is submitted; they
will give the Falenders a copy. Peterson said he is not comfortable with the
language "consulted".
Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion.
Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, on
second reading with the condition that prior to the issuance of a building
permit or demolition permit, the application for the Residences at the Little
Nell will be withdrawn and that the Falenders will be provided with a copy
of the soils study and invited to comment; seconded by Councilwoman
Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau,
yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #29 SERIES OF 2003 -Dancing Bear PUD
James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a
lodge preservation PUD to redevelop a site at 411 South Monarch street.
Council is the final reviewing body of all land use requests for this site.
Lindt showed Counci] where the site is; just west of Wagner park. The site
is 12,000 square feet and is zoned I;TR. There is currently aone-story lodge
building with 23 bedrooms. This building has been vacant for the last 5
years. Lindt said the proposal is to demolish the existing lodge and replace
it with an 11-unit time share lodge of 28 bedrooms. Each unit will have lock
off capabilities..
15
P24
R lar Meetin As en Cl Council dune 23 2003
Lindt reviewed each flooi of the proposal. The first floor has a lobby and
check in azea access from South Monarch street; a lounge/bar with patio
seating; one 1400 square foot, 2 bedroom lodge unit; 2 affordable housing
units of 2 bedrooms. The second floor contains 4 lodge units, two 1400
square feet 2 bedroom units; two 2800 square feet 3 bedroom units. The
third-floor.contains 3 2800 square foot 3 bedroom units. The fourth floor
has 3 three bedroom units and a recessed patio. The fifth floor has a glass
gazebo, which would have a hot tub and exercise area.
Lindt said the•applicantproposes 3 below grade levels. The first level has a
garage access accessed from the alley, as well as a games and recreation
area, and a storage area. There aze 24. parking spaces proposed on site; 5
spaces at grade on the applicant's property. The second floor below grade
contains the majority of the garage. The third floor below grade contains
more storage for the owner's personal goods, mechanical area and
conference room..
Lindt said the timeshare will be 8. shares per unit, 58 totals estates. The FAR
is 3.25:1 and a height of 57 feet to the midpoint of the gazebo. Lindt_told
Council staff feels this is an appropriate use for the site. In the fast this has
been used as a lodge. This project will bring vitality to a very important
corner in town. The applicant has proposed a good deal of their affordable
housing mitigation on site. The applicant has proposed greater than .7/lodge
bedroom of parking spaces, which is required by code. Lindt noted one
concern is the height, which is proposed at 57 feet as measured by the land
use code. Other lodges in that area are the St. Regis, which is 50 to 60 feet,
the Mountain Chalet is low 50's. Three PBcZ members felt the height was
too extreme for the 28 feet as allowed in the LTR zone.
Lindt told Council the upper floors aze recessed to create a wedding cake
effect, which helps lessen the mass. The building has been stepped down to
the west towards the townliomes. Lindt said staff feels the massing is
appropriate with the exception of the turret. Lindt told Council the applicant
proposed to use two spaces on Monarch as loading zones. Staff does not
agree a lodge of 11 units needs a loading zone and added a condition that
two alley spaces be signed ascheck-in parking.
The third issue is the financial impact analysis to compare the proposed
timeshare lodge with the tax revenues that would have been gained through
lodge use. Lindt said the applicant's financial impact analysis shows there
16
P25
would not be a tax revenue loss through this fractional fee change. The
city's fmance director, Paul Menter, commented the projected nightly rental
rates are too high and the analysis should be redone with a lower rate.
Menter requested a condition that the city be able to do an audit after the
lodge is operating.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, reiterated this site has been sitting
vacant for several yeazs and has been years since it has contributed to
Aspen's bed base. Haas said a boazded up building is sending an antithetical
message to' tourists regarding the economy and the vitality of lodges on the
fringe of the commercial core,. Haas told Council.most potential purchasers
of this property wanted to build residential townhomes. This owner is
interested in developing something that will contribute to the vitality and
economic sustainability of the town. The applicant proposes two above
grade employee housing units. This development should raise occupancy
levels and should attract new visitors to Aspen...
Haas noted there are trash compactors and recycling facilities access off the
alley.. 'There will be a decrease of l lodge unit from the Aspen Manor;
however; the bedrooms will increase from 23 to 28. 'There will be an
increase of leasable commercial space on the property including a sidewalk
patio cafe on the corner:.Haas told Council the applicants propose to house
4.5 employees and the~remaining fraction of employee will be mitigated by
cash-iii-lieu. The management and operation of the lodge will be done with
an existing lodge or with a management company.
Haas said a strong architectural statement is important on this comer, right
across from a lazge park. The perceived mass of the structure is broken up by
different forms and modules, changes in exterior building materials,
balconies, different window forms and shapes, and stepping the building
back. Haas said they have tried for a classic wedding cake style.building,
the structure steps down in height to the west and the southwest comer of the
lodge is only 25 feet above grade. The west side of the lodge is 3 stories as
is the northwest and northeast corners of the building. The midsection of the
building is 4 stories. The 5~' story gazebo sits in the center of the building.
The building height has been lowered and the mass reduced through P&Z
review. Haas told Council the height at the corner of Monazch and Durant is
less than 32 feet without the turret.
17
P26
As n Ci Council June 23 2003
Re lar Meetin
Haas said the height of the structure varies depending from where it is
measured. The fluctuations are a function of the topography of the site. The
highest measured height on apublicright-of--way is at the northwest'comer
along the alley and it is 39'9"; the southeast corner 31'6" exclusive of the
turret. The height is the gazebo is mitigated by using glass, by the stepping
back of the surrounding levels and the fact it is setback 27 feet from Durant
Avenue. This should not .shadow streets or surrounding properties.
The Wheeler.Opera House view plane of Aspen mountain would not be
compromised by this development. The overall height of Dancing Beaz is
lower than that of the St. Regis. The Mountain Chalet addition was
approved at 52 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof and allows 5 stories in
that building. -
Haas said given the site's location and proximity to downtown and the
transportation center, there should be little need for, cars. There aze 24 on-
site pazking spaces. The applicant commits to encouraging employees and
guests to use alternative transportation. A fleet of bicycles will be kept on
site for guests and employees. There will be provision for airport shuttle liy
the applicant or by contract with another lodge who does ,airport shuttle.
The applicant has committed to keeping a small fleet of hybrid vehicles for
use by guests and employees. Haas said, they hope to obtain LEEDS
certification, which is a national green building program, and to come as
close to possible of the gold level.
Haas snmmari~.ed this is will replace an eyesore, will add hot beds, and will
revitalize the DurantlMonazch intersection. The applicants hope to set a
precedent for green building; they Plan of housing 4.5 FTEs on site. There
will be over $1 million in direct tax generation in the first 5 years of
operation. The project provides community facilities, is self sufficient for
parking and storage and the project furthers the AACP goals with respect to
small lodges, affordable housing, economic sustainability, growth and the
environment.
David Brown, architect, went over the materials and the azchitecture of the
proposed building. Brown told Council they went through the guidelines in
the fractional timeshare ordinance and have tried to incorporate everything
the ordinances envisions.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
18
P27
Cliff Weiss said this building is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weiss
said he does not feel this size building will contribute to the community
Roger Haneman, P&Z member, said this project will bring more benefits to
the community than the one Council just approved. Haneman said these
applicants made a great effort to meet the requests of P&Z.
Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, said he is concerned about the economic
viability of the base of Aspen Mountain; however, he is very concerned
about the economic sustainability of the Limelite Lodge. Paas said a
massive building of this height and bulk will negatively affect the ability of
the Limelite to rent rooms. Paas. said. this building does not blend with the
neighborhood. Paas requested Council only approve 28. foot high building
as allowed by the code. .
Stan Hajenga, manager Mountain Chalet, presented a letter from the owners
of the Snow Queen Lodge stating they are against the proposed height,
which goes against the'principles of planning in this. area. Hajenga
applauded that someone is trying to develop this comer. Hajenga said the
city needs to look at a system that allows a building to fall into disrepair for
5 years. Hajenga said the proposed height will affect many neighbors and
many businesses. Hajenga said when the Mountain Chalet addition went
through the process, they had to meet the view plane requirements. This.
building does not meet the view plane requirements. Hajenga said he would
like to see this corner redeveloped; however; this proposal is beyond the
scale and height called. forr
Debbie Falender said she reviewed the PUD and other land use code
ordinances. The PUD ordinances say height, mass, parking, and density
should respect the underlying zoning. "The underlying zoning here is 1:1 and
the FAR for this proposed project is 3.25:1. The PUD ordinance also states
that the property shall be clustered to preserve significant open space. Ms.
Falender noted that does not mean a building should be built right up to the
borders of the property. Ms. Falender said this is too big for town.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards said she appreciates all the work that has.been
done; however, she cannot approve this plan: Councilwoman Richards
noted there is discussion in the infill about creating more view planes and
19
P28
one of Shadow Mountain and this will block the view of Shadow Mountain.
The building is taller than the surrounding pine trees. Councilwoman
Richards agreed she would like to see redevelopment on this lot; however,
this is overreaching. Councilwoman Richards said only 9% open space may
work for a one story building but it does not work. fora 5 story building.
' Councilwoman Richards noted part of a PUD process is to look at a greater
public benefit. This proposal does not. add any extra affordable housing out
of 36,000 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said this site is on the north
side of Durant and has transitioned to a different neighborhood from the
base of the mountain. Councilwoman Richards noted this building will be
higher than the Elk's Club building. Councilwoman Richards said this is
zoned LTR and one could construct 3 residential townhomes on this site,
which would not contribute to the community either.
Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has problems with the height, especially as it
would block the view of Shadow Mountain. Mayor Klanderud said the
turret makes the building interesting.. Mayor glanderud stated she would
consider some height variance; however, this is much too high. Mayor
Klanderud said she would prefer to see all affordable housing built rather
than get cash=in-lieu for housing.. Mayor Kianderud said she is concerned
there aze only 2 parking spaces for affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud
agreed it is great something is being planned for this site. It ig a critical
block in Aspen.
Brown said some of the benefits to the conununity are that this project will
provide hot beds and will bring guests to Aspen with money to spend.
Councilman Paulson agreed the structure is took taXl. Councilman Paulson
said he likes the gazebo. Councilman Paulson said he would like to see the
building shrunk. Councilman Paulson asked about the trees on site. Brown
said they have met with city.staff, who have identified 2 or 3 significant
trees on Durant street that should remain. The, applicants will cooperate with
the parks to give them what they ask for. Haas told Council the Iazge
conifers are not appropriate for pedestrian traffic as they grow all the way to
the ground. The pazks department is recommending trees that aze more
easily walked under. .
Councilman Paulson asked what will keep a person from buying 6 or 12
months of one unit. Ciry Manager Steve Barwick said that is covered in the
city's timeshare ordinance, which he will have to Council at their next
20
P29
consideration of this application. Barwick said the city cannot guarantee
how a building will be occupied but can guarantee that one person may not
purchase all the weeks.
Councilman emrau pointed out the infill ordinance would only alldw 30
feet plus an additional 8 feet with special review and a historic TDR
Councilman Semrau said agreed this is a great project in a great location but
it is too big; the height and mass are out of scale for the site. Under the PUD
process, the. applicant has the responsibility of proving a project is deserving
of an exception.
Councilman Torre asked what percentage of the total square footage is
actual lodge space and wha4 is amenities, parking, storage. Brown said it is
50% net Ieaseable under the LTR definition of net leasable. Councilman
Torre said there seems to be a lot of amenity space built in and there maybe
away to lessen that, make the units smaller, and make the project smaller.
All the amenities will, make guests stay on property rather than go out in
town and spend money. Brown said the intent of the amenities like the game
room and movie theatre is to give families things to do. Brown said without
the amenities, t`~is is not a competitive project and would be under serious
distress. Brown said there is not a square inch that could be removed
without impacting the project.
Mayor Klanderud noted when the Obermeyer project first came to Council,
there was an outcry about the height. The design team came back with a
project at the height requirement, which won broad support. Brown pointed
out applicants are not allowed to talk to Counoil until the end of the process.
It would be better to have a more collaborative process. Brown asked
Council what would be the. right height, the right mix, the right project.
Councilman Semrau said the right use is family type lodging and the.
amenities aze Brea*: however, the mass, scale and height aze out of character.
Councilman Semrau said he feels 38 feet would be appropriate for the
neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud agreed she could approve 38 feet. Mayor
Klanderud said she would also like all employees housed on site. Mayor
Klanderud said she likes the commitment to green development:
Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to
July 28; seconded.by Councilwoman Richazds. All in favor, motion carried.
21
P30
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting
to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried..
RESOLUTION #55 SERIES OF 2003 - Obermeyer Temporary Use
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this
temporary use request is for a real estate office to be located on the .
Oliermeyer property. Bendon said staff does not see any issues with this
request.
Mayor Klandenxd opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor I{landerud closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #55, Series of 2003;
seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #56 SERIES OF 2003 = Mascotte Annexation
John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this property is located at the
base,of Smuggler Mountain along Park Circle.. The owner, Alain Degrave,
owns lots 2 and 5 of the Aspen election subdivision, which are already iri the
city. City Clerk Kathryn Koch reported the posting and publication are in
order. Worcester said there is 1/6`b contiguity with the city and a community
of interests exists. The area is capable of being integrated within the city.
The property hasnot been subdivided into separate parcels. 100% of the
property owners have consented to annexation: There are no other
annexations pending.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor 1{landerud closed the public hearing.
.Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Resolution #56, Series of 2003;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Councilman Paulson said he would like a neighborhood map for second
reading to make sure where this is located in reference to any possible
master plan for Smuggler Mountain.
All in favor with the exception of Councilman Paulson, motion carried.
22
R ular Meetin¢ Asaen City Council Jnly 282003
activities, and delete reference to conversion of lodge units, and construction
management plan in #9; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call
vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Semrau,.yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #5. SERIES OF 2003 -Code Amendrnent Infill
Councihziau Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #5, Series of 2003, to
..August 25;seconded by Councilwoman Richards. A11 in favor, motion
carried.
C ORDINANCE #29. SERIES OF 2003 -Dancing Bear PUD
James Lindt, community development department, retninded Council at the
last public hearing, they stated the proposed project was too large and too
tall. The applicant will present a revised design. David Brown, representing
the applicant, showed Council the current design and told them they have
taken off one floor. The first two stories are of stone, stepping back onto a
shingled dazker floor and above that is a greenhouse, gazebo and roof. The
setback is 5 feet rather than 2 feet. Brown told Council the corner facing
Monarch and Durant is 31 feet to the 3~ floor and 20'6" at the 2"d floor. At
the alley for the main part of the building is 38 feet. The gazebo adds
another 8 to 10 feet, which makes the building 44 feet at the midpoint of the
glass shed. The top of the Highest elevator shaft is 46 feet. The building
elevations at the street are 34 to 31 to 34 feet. Brown showed the first
project as reviewed by P&Z, the recommendation from P&Z and the current
iteration. The building is greatly reduced.
The project is now 9three-bedroom suites with lock offs for 18 keys. The
building as is has 23 bedrooms; this will be an increase of 3 free market
bedrooms. The lower levels have not changed since the last presentation.
The 2two-bedroom employee units are the same as before and aze now .
twice the required mitigation.. All the suites range from 1700 to 2200 square
feet, averaging 2,000 square feet. The bar and restaurant is smaller than
before.
The second floor contains 4 suites and 4 lock offs. The 3'~ floor has been
stepped back so each unit has its own outdoor deck_ The roof has solar
collectors, gardens, hot tubs and gazebo. The height of the gazebo varies.
to
P31
F,_:~
P32
R lar Meetin¢ Ashen City Council Juty 28, 2003
from 43 to 45 at the highest point. Brown showed elevations from different
points azound the project.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the gazebo will be set back 17
feet from the Durant avenue fagade and 13 feet from Monarch. street. Haas
said the building is within the 38-foot height requested by Council except for
the gazebo, which is transparent and sits in~the middle of the building. Haas
said this feature is necessary to set this project apart from other time-share
projects. Haas said the gazebo does not add to the perceived height of the
building. Haas said the height measure is not as important as the qualitative
measurements. The gazebo placed at the comer of Monarch and Durant
would fit within the height limits but it would not be a good design.
Haas reminded Council the recently approved Hyatt is 46 feet with a ground
elevation higher than this site. The Mountain Chalet was approved with a
52-foot height limit. Haas stated the applicants will make all efforts to
achieve LEEDS certification and the gazebo will provide a perfect place for
photovoltaic cells and capture of energy: The ,glass stairwell on Monarch is
another location for passive solar gain for reuse. This corner needs
revitalization. The project plans to add to the streetscape with the restaurant.
The applicant plans to provide a hybrid vehicle for use by residents as well
as bicycles. The applicant is providing 115% housing for employees when
only 6Q% is required.. Haas said they feel this will.be a fiscal benefit to the
.city. This is aself-sufficient development for parking, affordable housing,
economic sustainability and providing amenities on site.
Lindt told Council staff feels this proposal meets community goals in
bringing vitality to this location. The use,is appropriate; this site-has been
tourist accommodations. The applicant has met their housing requirements.
Lindt said this building is lower than other PUDs in the surrounding area.
At the last meeting, Council indicated 38 feet would be appropriate on this
site. Staff does not recommend asking for removal of the gazebo as it is set
back. far enough that it would not be a dominant feature of the building. The
gazebo will be constructed out of translucent materials.
Council brought up the restaurant space at the Iast meeting and whether it
will remain that use in the future. There is a condition in the ordinance to
requue a PUD amendment if the owners want to convert this space from a
restaurant. Lindt reminded Council at the previous meeting they indicated
one parking space/affordableuhit was too few. The amended ordinance
11
P33
Reen]ar Meetine Asven Citv Council Jnly 28 2003
requires two parking spaces per two-bedroom unit. The applicant has
requested leasing parking spaces in:the publicright-of--way for loading.
Staff does not feel a 9-unit lodge would require loading spaces. The city
engineer is opposed to leasing spaces in the publicright-of--way.
Paul Menter, finance director, pointed out not all tax information is available
because the Aspen Manor has not been operating for the past 5 years.
Menter said the applicant's fiscal analysis meets the code requirements.
Menter told Council the condition on whether a fee is owed levers on the
historical occupancy rate of the hotel. The original occupancy rate was
estimated at 61 %; the revised application is 51 % as attested by the previous
owner. The difference is whether a fee is owed or not. Menter concluded no
fee is owed: • Brown agreed there appeazs to be no fiscal impact to the
applicant and this should be a cash generator for the community. City
Manager Steve Barwick. suggested for the future, Council consider a
minimum occupancy rate for fiscal analysis amendment to this code aection.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Susan O'Neal asked about the row of evergreens on Durant. Haas said the
one on the corner and one other will be preserved; the pazks department has
asked the other trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate
street streets. Kathy Petner, 210 East Cooper, commended the applicants for
their design, for stepping the building back, for the green development, for . .
the extra affordable housing. Ms. Petner said she is concerned' about the 46-
'/z feet and the precedent this will set for future developments in this azea.
Ms. Pettier asked if the gazebo will be used at night and will be lit. Brown
said it will be glass and there will be window coverings in order to make this
a green project: It will be Tit and will be used at night. The gazebo will be
used as an exercise room, mechanical equipment and lounge.
Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, said he is very concerned about keeping the
scale of the neighborhood. Paas pointed out every time this project has
come back for city review, it has been a better project. Toni Kroilberg said
she is eoncemed about the height. Visitors like.the view of the mountain.
People do not want taller buildings. Ms. Kronberg said this is a special site
as it allows views of Shadow Mountain from the malls and from Wagner
Park.
12
P34
Re¢nlar Meetin¢ Ashen City Council Jnly 28.2003
Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Carol Saunders-White,
Jim Scull, and one from.Andrea Clark all concerned with the height of the
project as well as light from the gazebo at night.
Haas said condition #21 requires a PM10 mitigation plan to be reviewed by
environmental health. Haas stated the measures they have already
committed to the in the application are more than adequate and should be
accepted as the PM10 mitigation plan. These measures are a fleet of
bicycles, hydroelectric vehicles, airport shuttle, employee bus passes, and
marketing the location. These are all representations of the application.
Lindt told Council environmental health staff feels the applicant has gone
above and beyond PM10 mitigation. Lindt suggested the condition be
amended that the applicant meets the representations of their application.
Mayor Klanderud requested these representations be listed in the condition.
The applicant.agreed.
Haas brought up condition #31, the 4 parking spaces for affordable housing,
and requested only 2 spaces be required. Haas said the applicants feel they
are being penalized for providing more housing than necessary. Haas noted
the memorandum states that cash-in-lieu of school dedication is not
attributable to the time-share units but is for the affordable housing units.
Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said they do not have a problem with
the city finance department conducting an annual audit, but does have a
problem that if the city finds there is a shortfall, that they be obligated to pay
some impact fee as determined by Council. Klein stated there is no
provision in the code for this requirement: There are no standards for this
requirement and this should have some study and legislation. Menter said
what staff is most interested in is collection information. Barwick suggested
adding language that this condition would only apply if the city adopts code
amendment within the next year. Mayor Klanderud stated she does not have
a problem deleting conditions #40. Councilmembers agreed:
Klein requested a change in condition #41 about a "substantial" change to
'' ~ the restaurant; let the community development department decide whether
this is a major or minor, PUD amendment. Council agreed..
Mayor Klanderud said when Council has required fewer on site parking
spaces because employees will not use their cars has not worked.
Councilwoman Richards agreed. Councilman Semrau said in this
13
-c~,'i!
P35
Re¢alar Meetia¢ Asaen Citv Council Jniv 28, 2003
neighborhood, it would be a great service to have 4 parking spaces. Council
agreed to require the applicant provide 4 parking spaces for the affordable
housing.
Councilwoman Richards said the city should not lease any spaces in the
right-of--way on Monarch to this project. Councilwoman Richards pointed
out this project is only providing 9% open space. Councilwoman Richards
said she is concerned about reflections off the gazebo. Councilwoman
Richards said she cannot accept the 4t° floor. Where the gazebo is placed
does not meet what the Council intended when they said 38 feet at the
highest. 'Councilwoman Richards said she does like the changes in massing
and in material. Councilwoman Richards stated she sees a separation .
between the•north and south side of Durant and this structure would be .
set@ng a precedent for the south side.
Councilman Torre said he is concerned that the on-site.ameuities will keep
the guests on site rather than getting out into the community. Councilman
Torre said the gazebo raises the heights beyond what. Council envisioned.
Councilman Torre said the project could have a hot tub and rooftop garden
without the, gazebo structure. Councilman Torre said he feels the applicants
have worked hard on this iteration.
Councilman Semrau agreed this is an improvement and an interesting
design. Councilman Semrau agreed about not leasing parking in the public
right-of--way. Councilman Semrau does not support a 4ei floor but does
support an architectural element that makes this an extraordinary building.
Eliminating the gazebo would make it a more boring building.
Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the gazebo and whether
it is appropriate in this location. The light and reflection are major concerns.
Mayor Klanderud questioned the excavation of 3 floors below grade. Mayor
Klanderud asked if this would be in the proposed Shadow Mountain view
plane. Lindt said this would probably be located within the view plane;
however, it has not been drafted. Mayor Klanderud said she would rather
see the hybrid vehicles eliminated
Brown said the•gazebo is located away from the northwest comer because of
concerns of the neighbor. The building is 38 feet at this comer and is 31 feet
on the street side. Brown said the applicants feel the gazebo will make this
space very special and could be used by the community for special events
14
P36
]3eeular Meetin¢ Asaen City Council July 28.2003
and fund raisers. Brown said the sunlight reflection will be brief. The
gazebo could be wrapped in fabric to cut down on this reflection or use non-
reflective glass. Councilman Semrau suggested the size of the gazebo be
reduced to 1500 square feet square feet.
Councilwoman Richards stated the underlying height allowed in this zone
district is 28 feet and going np to 38 feet is a significant variation. Going up
another 8 feet is too mach; the gazebo makes it appeaz as a 4`s floor.
Councilwoman Richazds said she would not disapprove of uses on the roof
but without the structure. Mayor Klanderud said this is a creative design
with a good way to hide the mechanical equipment; however, she is
concerned about the height.
Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to
August 11; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #32. SERIES OF 2603 -South Aspen Street PUD
ORDINANCE #33; SERIES OF 2003 -South Aspen Alley Vacation
Councilman Semrau recused himself based on owning land within 300 feet
of this application. James Lindt, community development department, told
Council this final PUD review is for an application from Aspen Land Fund
R to construct 14 free mazket and 17 affordable housing units on 3 parcels of
land near the intersection of South Aspen and Juan streets:
Sunny Vann, representing Aspen Land Fund II, reminded Council Savanah
Limited Partnership received the original conceptual approval for this piece
of property in 2001. Vann said he submitted a final application in 2002.
The property has been for sale and the applicants asked staff to hold the final
review until final disposition of the property. Vann told Counbil Aspen
Land Fund II acquired this property December 2002, notified the community
development department and asked them to complete the final application.
Vann told Council this application is identical to the conceptual application
except for minor changes made in response to neighborhood concerns.
Councilwoman Richards asked about the reference to the applicants wanting
to build a hotel. Vann said Aspen Land Fund R purchased the property to
build tourist accommodations at the base of the mountain. The applicants
15
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director(
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 600 W. Francis Street and 612 W. Francis Street- Subdivision Review (Public Hearing)
DATE: July 15, 2008
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Jack and Mazisa Silverman
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning
LLC.
LOCATION:
600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and
S, Block 21, Doremus/Silvenman
Lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen. 612 W. Francis Street, Lots
P and Q, Block 21,
Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6, Medium Density Residential
with two single family residences.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
R-6, Medium Density Residential
with two single family residences.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the application
meets the criteria for Subdivision
and recommends P&Z make such a
finding to City Council.
600 W.
Francis
Street
612 W.
Francis
.Street
1
SUMMARY:
Staff fmds that the application meets the criteria for
Subdivision
~.,w_ ~;~
P2
LAND USE REO~TS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site:
• Subdivision for the relocation of an existing shazed property line pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.480 (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
PROJECT SUMMARY'
The subject properties aze two adjacent 6,000 square foot lots; 600 and 612 W. Francis Street.
600 W. Francis contains a Pan Abode home constructed in 1956. 612 W. Francis contains a
home built in 1996. The pazcels are in the same ownership and the owner is voluntarily applying
for landmazk designation of the entire 12,000 squaze foot area in order to apply for a Subdivision
that takes advantage of the smaller minimum lot size requirement for landmazked pazcels (3,000
squaze foot minimum for landmazks vs. 6,000 square foot minimum for non-landmazks.) The
goal of the Applicant is to reconfigure the property so that the more recently built house is on a
3,000 squaze foot lot and the Pan Abode is on a 9,000 square foot lot. The platting that the
applicant desires was the configuration of the properties prior to a past Subdivision approval
requested in 2000.
On June 25th, HPC recommended that City Council approve Landmazk Designation by a vote of
6 to 0. Although the designation criteria aze not in P&Z's purview, staff understands that
information about why this modest structure might be considered significant would be helpful
background, therefore we have attached the HPC memo for your reference: Council is scheduled
to consider HPC's recommendation on Landmark Designation, along with P&Z's review of the
Subdivision application on July 28th.
STAFF COMMENTS'
SUBDIVISION:
The Applicant is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
City Council regazding Subdivision, for the relocation of the existing property line dividing two
abutting properties, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480. City Council is the final review
authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In reviewing the subdivision application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable
subdivision review standazds established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review
Standazds. Those criteria along with the staff findings aze attached as "Exhibit A."
At this time, the applicant is not proposing any new development on the pazcel. Landmazk
designation and Subdivision will not increase the Floor Area that would currently be allowed in
total on 600 and 612 W. Francis Street, except for the possibility of a 500 squaze foot Floor Area
bonus if awazded by HPC for future restoration efforts. Landmazk Designation, whether. or not
the lot line is relocated, does create the potential for an additional dwelling unit adjacent to the
Pan Abode, but that unit would have to be accommodated within the same Floor Area that would
be allowed for the single family houses that currently exist. Including the full 12,000 squaze foot
area in the landmazk designation gives the owner the incentive they need to volunteer
designation, locks in 612 W. Francis in its current size, allows HPC full design review over the
2
i
x
' P3
1
pazcels in perpetuity, and, if full build out is pursued in the future, creates the opportunity to have
3 smaller scaled homes instead of 2 lazger ones.
T,r,iP i • Fv;~f;,,Q Aevelnnment riehts for 600 and 612 W. Francis Street
lot Size 6,000 square feet
Allowable Density
per Lot 1 single family unit
Allowable Floor
Area per Lot 3,240 square feet
Table 2: Development Rights associated with Landmazk Designation of 600 W. Francis (Pan
HDULLG 1Ul uiu
600 W. FRANCIS
612 W. Francis
(Pan Abode)
Lot Size 6,000 square feet 6,000 square feet
Allowable Density per 2 single family units 1 single family unit
Lot
Allowable Floor Area 3,240+ potential 500 3,240 square feet
per Lot sq.ft. FAR bonus
Table 3: Development Rights with Landmazk Designation of 600 W. Francis and 612 W.
Francrs, tus suoarvis~on tuic ~ LL LL~aa ~~_~_~ = w~
600 W. Francis
612 W. Francis
(Pan Abode)
Lot size 9,000 square feet 3,000 square feet
Allowable density 2 single family units 1 single family unit
Allowable Floor Area per Lot 4,080, plus potential 500 sq. ft.
FAR bonus 2,400 square feet
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP
as well as the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends
approval of the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution Nor Series of 2008, recommending Council approval of the
proposed Subdivision at 600/612 W. Francis Street."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Staff memo prepazed for Historic Preservation Commission review of Landmazk
Designation.
Exhibit C -Application
3
P4
Resolution No. ~_'J
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL GRANT SUBDIVSION APPROVAL
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS R AND
S, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN AND 612 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 21,
DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, the applicants, Jack and Marisa Silverman, owners, represented by
Haas Land Planning LLC, requested Subdivision approval for the property located at 600
W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman
Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standazds,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Subdivision
request; and,
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on July 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code; reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Duector, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that a recommendation
for Council approval of the land use request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Aspen Area Community Plan, by a vote of x-x; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
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 Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the
subdivision request to relocate a lot line between two abutting properties, located at 600
W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silvenman Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman
P5
Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. The result is that 600 W. Francis will be a 9,000
squaze foot lot and 612 W. Francis will be a 3,000 squaze foot lot.
Section 2• Plat and Aereement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of
Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council
provides final approval of the subdivision request.
Section 7:
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, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 8:
This resolution shall not effect 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 9:
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 150i
day of July, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P6
Exhibit A
StJBDNISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standazds and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Findin¢
The AACP supports the designation of resources that are associated with Aspen's 20~h century
history. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Findin¢
The Subdivision returns the property to the configuration it was in for many years. The proposed
lot sizes aze consistent with the historic character of the West End. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findin¢
The proposed Subdivision will result in more public input (through public heazings and HPC
review) on any future development of this site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
Title.
Staff Findin¢
The proposed Subdivision meets the applicable review standazds. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding
The subject lot is a standazd West End site, with no unusual natural hazazds present. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4
P7
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial
patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities
and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
The layout of the Subdivision is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
Staff Finding
No development is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding.
No demolition is proposed and no multi-family units exist on the site, therefore the Replacement
Housing program is not applicable. If any future development is proposed, affordable housing
must be provided per the standazds of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
No development is proposed at this time. Future development will have to provide School Land
Dedication fees as applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been. obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
No development is proposed at this time. Future development will have to receive Growth
Management Allocations or Exemptions as applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5
P8
~~~e L B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 600/612 W. Francis Street- Landmazk Designation, Public Hearing
DATE: June 25, 2008
SUMMARY: The subject property is two adjacent 6,000 squaze foot lots; 600 and 612 W.
Francis Street. 600 W. Francis contains a Pan Abode home constructed starting in 1956. 612 W.
Francis contains a home built in 1996. The pazcels aze in the same ownership and the owner is
voluntarily applying for landmazk designation of the entire 12,000 squaze foot azea in order to
take advantage of the ability to reconfigure the property so that the more recent house is on a
3,000 square foot lot and the Pan Abode is on a 9,000 squaze foot lot. The platting that they
desire was the state of the property prior to a subdivision approval requested in 2000.
HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the Landmazk Designation. Re-
establishment of the Lot Line will be determined by Council, although HPC may certainly
comment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for designation of
a property to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures, and
recommends HPC make such a finding to City Council.
1
612 W. Francis Street
600 W. Francis Street
P9
APPLICANT: Jack and Marisa Silverman, owners, represented by Haas Land Planning LLC.
PARCEL ID: The Pazcel ID for 600 W. Francis is 2735-124-09-009. The Pazcel ID for
612 W. Francis is 2735-124-09-007.
ADDRESS: 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City
and Townsite of Aspen. 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot
Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
1. The property was constructed at least forty (30) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified. and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response: The application describes the house at 600 W. Francis as a Pan Abode that was
owned for approximately 40 years by the Jones family; Whipple Van Ness Jones having been the
creator of Aspen Highlands Ski Area. It has been used throughout it's history (even now) as a
rental for tourists and "ski bums." This is typical of the Pan Abode building type as it was quick
to build, affordable, and appropriate to the scale of the community when small vacation homes
and worker housing began to be needed. Pan Abodes appear to have been quite common in
Aspen from the 1950's to eazly 1970's an aze an important illustration of how the community
first handled some of the housing and lodging pressures that aze still challenging today. Staff
finds that criteria A is met.
In addition, we find that criteria C is met because the house is a physically a classic example of
the Rustic Style. Within the historic context paper that has been developed for Aspen's Rustic
azchitecture, there aze specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to
reflect significance. Typical characteristics of the Rustic Style aze "log construction, stone
foundation, small paned windows, overhanging roof, stone chimney, and battered walls." To be
2
P10
eligible for historic designation, Aspen's examples of Rustic Style azchitecture should have the
following distinctive chazacteristics:
• Hand built structures that aze constructed out of locally available materials, usually
log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney.
Later examples include machine cut logs.
• The buildings aze usually single story, with aloes-pitched gable roof.
• True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or maybe in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking.
• Window openings aze spaze and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used
to finish out the window openings.
• Building plans are simple rectangulaz forms, with smaller additive elements.
• The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standazd
framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space.
• The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
600 W. Francis Street has a central element that was built first, and two wings on each end, also
of Pan Abode manufacture and built in 1957 and 1969. The Pan Abode material is unaltered,
inside and outside, and original window forms are intact. A stone chimney is present. There has
been a modification to the entry, and the building has been painted. Staff did not include this
building on Ordinance #48 because of our initial misconception about the history of the bookend
additions. The building is somewhat difficult to view because of heavy vegetation, however it is
on a corner lot, allowing three sides of the structure to have some public visibility. The paint can
easily be removed in the future, as has been done with several other Pan Abodes in town. In
terms of the architectural integrity scoring that is part of the landmazk designation process, staff
scores this house at 86 out of 100 points, which exceeds the required threshold.
We support landmark designation and the reconfiguration of the lot to its original condition, with
the Pan Abode on 9,000 squaze feet and the new house on 3,000 squaze feet. The designation
will apply to the entire site, so HPC will have purview over all of the development, new and old.
As a landmark, the Pan Abode lot will have the potential to develop a second unit in the future,
using the FAR that might otherwise be added on to the historic structure. Even if this applicant
only designated the Pan Abode on it's current 6,000 squaze foot azea, a second unit would be
allowed. It is preferable to have more sepazation and breathing room that will be afforded by the
new lot configuration, should someone decide to add new living space in the future. The
designation does not create any new FAR, other than the potential for an HPC bonus.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that designation "Criterion A" and "Criterion C" aze met
and that the property meets the azchitectural integrity requirements.
Staff recommends that HPC support landmazk designation for 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and
S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis
Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.
Exhibits:
A. Integrity Assessment
B. Aspen's 20e' Century Architecture: Rustic Style- a paper written by the Community
Development Department.
C. Application
P11
4
P12
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC. 600 W. Francis Street
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION LOCAT/ONIS THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORIC PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED OR
THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTORIC EVENT OCCURRED.
5 -The structure is in its original location.
3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the
original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilaz to its original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (mtnxiMUmt of 5)
STAFF SCORE: 5
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a properly.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact.
6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building aze such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
STAFF SCORE: 8. There aze two eazly, intact additions to the building, by the original
manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of
rustic azchitecture. There appeazs to be a new entry room added, therefore some points have been
deducted.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 -Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
STAFF SCORE: 8. There aze two eazly, intact additions to the building, by the original
manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of
rustic azchitecture. The entry addition does de-emphasize the long horizontal emphasis of the
roof line somewhat, therefore some points were deducted. The entry is however easily
reversible.
5
P13
SCALE
5 -The original scale and proportions of the building aze intact.
3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 -The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF SCORE: 5.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-The original door and window pattern aze intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows aze new but the original openings aze intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the original
opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
STAFF SCORE: 8. The only apparent alteration is at the front door.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN
10-The form and features that define the Rustic style aze intact. There is an overall
sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative features are spaze.
5- There aze minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
STAFF SCORE: 10. The simple nature of the Pan Abode style is intact.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 45) = 39
SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical sun•oundings aze similar to that found when the structure was originally
constructed.
3-There aze minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic chazacter of the building.
STAFF SCORE: 5. There is heavy, mature vegetation on the site, some of which was probably
installed azound the time the house was built. An irrigation ditch runs along the 6s' Street side.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM of 5) = 5
P14
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15-The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials aze intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have been made in a
manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
STAFF SCORE: 15. There are no apparent alterations.
DOORSAND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original doors and windows units aze intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units
would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that
would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF SCORE: 5. The front door, and possibly some window units have been replaced, but
opening sizes appeaz to be original.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM of 25) = 20
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/HAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR IMITATION
OF HAND-BUILT CHARACTER
15-The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10-There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or handwork
character.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic
category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the chazacter of the original structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
STAFF SCORE: 15. There aze no appazent alterations.
7
P15
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style aze intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that
define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
STAFF SCORE: 2. The building has been painted, which is reversible.
TOTAL POINTS (mnxiMUM of 20)=17
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
TOTAL STAFF SCORE: 86
Note: Each azea of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might
be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the
point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
8
P16
ASPEN'S 20~ CENTURY ARCffiTECTURE:
RUSTIC STYLE BUILDINGS
The Rustic Style of azchitecture was symbolic of eazly 200i century attitudes that embraced
not only the mythology of the "hazdy outdoor life of American pioneers"~ in the western United
States, but also, to an extent, the lazger dream of Manifest Destiny. There was embedded
within the style a desire to live up to the spirit of adventure and rugged determinism of those
who had ventured West.
Though heavily steeped in western legend, the Rustic Style's roots actually lay in the
simple pioneer cabin, and in the vacation homes of the Adirondack Mountains which were built
in the late 1800's. As eazly as 1916, however, with the founding of the National Pazk Service,
the style became a cornerstone of the NPS's belief that "buildings should blend in with their
natural surroundings"Z and that "natural settings could influence azchitecture.i3 The majority of
entryways, information centers, and guest lodges that were built in the Pazks throughout the
country in the first decades of the 200i century were log and stone buildings constructed in what
came to be known as the "National Pazks Service Rustic" style. "The high point in the
development of this `rustic' design ethic occurred in the late twenties and spread throughout the
nation during the work-relief programs of the Depression.""
Hand-in-hand with the growth of the National
Parks Service was the development of resort azeas
throughout the Rocky Mountain States, and Rustic
Style buildings, which ranged in size from small
cabins to substantial lodges, were constructed in
Colorado starting ui 1905.5 Eazly examples of the
buildings can be found in burgeoning tourism and
vacation spots such as Grand Lake, Thomasville,
Woodland and Estes Pazks. Rustic style
"represented an eazly 200i century movement in
American azchitecture It was picturesque,
romantic azchitecture that recalled the American
past.,,6
In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins used as
lodges and residences, began to be built in the
1930's, though the tourism industry was still in its
infancy. The Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and
once located at the corner of 70i and Hallam Streets,
have since been demolished, but were one of Aspen's
first group of small tourist cottages. The Swiss
Chalets (now L'Auberge, and suffering from the
' Carley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style Comes Home"
~ Rocky Mountain National Pazk, Home Page, Historic Buildings
' Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmazks in the Landscape, 17
° Harrison, Laura Soulliere, Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmazk Theme Study, 1
5 Colorado Historical Society Home Page
a Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge"
1
Grand Lake Lodge, built in 1925
Burners Lodge, a vacation home in Glemvood
Springs, built in 1935
P17
"chalet" misnomer- as they aze, indeed, in the rustic style) aze located at 435 W. Main Street,
and were built during roughly the same period. Prescient, and perhaps with a nod to the
automobile's growing influence in American society, a motor court configuration at the Chalets
allowed guests to drive right up to the individual units. Single family residences in Aspen
employed the Rustic Style as well.
300 W. Main Street, residence built in
/944.
Also in the 1930's, a WPA sponsored structure that was used as
a bell tower was constructed at the present location of the town fire
station on East Hopkins Avenue. It fell under the supervision of
the National Pazk Service, who managed the WPA program and the
design of all its projects. The Pazk Service's azchitectural
philosophy was summarized at the time in a volume entitled "Park
and Recreation Structures,"which stated that,
"Successfully handled, (rustic) is a style which, through the
use of native materials in proper scale, and through the
avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and oversophistication,
gives the feeling of having been executed by pioneer
craftsmen with limited hand tools. It thus achieves sympathy
with natural surroundings and with the past "~
/930's and shown here after
its relocation to Paepcke After the Second World Waz, looking to the past- and in
Parkin 1954. It was particulaz, the American past was the result of a nation fuming
reconstructed in 1990. inwazds, and away from foreign battlefields. The romance and
heightened idealization of the West, and the appeal of the rugged individualist's lifestyle, was
evidenced by the populazity of television shows like "The Lone Ranger" and "Davy Crockett",
and further, by the proliferation of Western movies (many of which were produced as a result
of the McCarthy Era effect on post-waz Hollywood productions). The American public
acculturized the West's ideals, and the Rustic Style even found its way into children's toys like
"Lincoln Logs."
' Harrison, 8
2
Swiss Chalets, 435 W. Main Street, built circa
/9i0(c
WPA Bell tower, built in the
P18
The American landscape was transformed in the 1940's. The unpazalleled growth and
prosperity of the United States (spurred on in part by the GI Bill), and the "baby boom" that
began- and didn't slow down- until the late 1960's, brought with it success, comfort, and a
blossoming middle class. Americans were enjoying greater financial freedom, along with
increased leisure time, and they were looking for adventure. They looked West.
Falling gasoline prices, the construction of cross-country highway systems, and a young,
flourishing automotive industry (by-products of the post-waz economic climate), "gave greater
numbers of people the means to travel, and previously inaccessible places were more easily
reached."8 Vacationing and tourism became the hallmazk of the American lifestyle, and the
West held a particular interest for a people with newfound freedom, and the• desire for
adventure. "To Americans the West is their refuge, the home of the `last best place.s9
Vacation homes, hunting lodges, dude ranches, and tourist-related facilities began to increase in
number after the War, many built in the Rustic Style, which was perfect for the "frontier
spirit"10 of the new American tourist.
Aspen was the ideal destination for the "new American tourist." Purple mountains majesty
aside, it had a growing reputation as a ski town- a sport that was gaining increasing
populazity. And as people ventured out west to vacation in the late 1940's and eazly 1950's,
they were looking for what so many had sought before them: the spirit of adventure, romance,
and ruggedness. Yet what Aspen offered, even then, was so much more. It became an
"azchetype for the beginning of tourism in the post-World Waz II American West."~~ The
effort to create a cultural and artistic haven, and yeaz-round resort town that offered "good
opportunities for combining work, play, and culture,"tZ only added to the town's uniqueness, as
a "post-waz consumer culture and the nation-wide growth of tourism, combined with the
beginning of the ski industry, meant that people no longer had to belong to an elite club or live
in a mountain town in order to ski.s13
Rustic Style buildings continued to be
constructed in town during this period,
including Deep Powder Lodge (circa late
1940's/eazly 1950's), at 410 S. Aspen
Street, and The Hickory House (initially
christened The Silver Chicken) at 735 W.
Main Street, which was built in 1950. At
the time, it was one of the few restaurants
operating in town, and the original sign,
located on the west side of the building,
reads "restaurant," and is lettered to look
like logs, harmonizing the theme of the
structure down to the last rustic detail.
° Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Bazgains -Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West. 202
s Rothman, 14
10 Carley
~~ Rothman, 207
~Z Rothman , 213
"Gilbert, Anne M., Re-Creation through Recreation: Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970.46
3
Deep Powder Lodge, 410 S Aspen Street, built circa
tare 194n'.c%mlv l9sn's
P19
There was no shortage of young male labor during the period these buildings were constructed,
and the materials were readily available locally. Small cabins could be erected during a
summer, readying them for the new American tourist seeking the "Western adventure."
Between 1940 and 1959, the number of full-time residents in Aspen increased by 1000, and
"by 1959 at least 200 part-time residents joined the year-round crowd."14 As Aspen's
amenities began to attract a lazger, more influential and wealthy group of second homeowners
(including some of Hollywood's brightest stars), the city began to transform itself into a
premiere, yeaz round resort, and many people "chose to move to or build vacation homes in
Aspen."15 For some, a second home built in the Rustic Style was a natural choice, and things
were moving fast:
"A gala opening of the li8s and reopening of the Jerome was held in January,
1947, and people poured in from all over the country. A boom was on, and every
tax title was gone at the court house. If you wanted a lot or a house in Aspen, you
could no longer step around to the county commissioners and make an offer of a
hundred dollars or so on some abandoned property. You went to a swank new
real estate office and paid through the teeth, several thousand dollazs. Aspen had
been bought up in a twinkling, and by a strange assortment of people- artists,
writers, and movie actors who wanted to get away from city life, wealthy
sportsmen who wanted a fishing and hunting lodge, mid-westerners who wanted a
summer mountain cottage, eastern couples who wanted to try their hand at
ranching, and ski cranks who wanted to start a business, any sort of business, to
be close to Aspen's slopes.."16
In part, as demand and mechanization quickly
began to replace the handmade in many aspects of
American life, log cabin kits that could be ordered by
catalog, delivered by train or truck, and then
assembled on site gained in popularity. The kits were
another version of mail order houses that were
popular during'the depression era, lazgely due to their
affordability. Following the lead of Seazs, Roebuck,
& Co. and Montgomery Ward (who sold hundreds of
thousands of homes during the Depression), other
companies began selling different styles of kit houses,
including Pan Abode (established in 1952), a 211 West Hopkins Sd•e~eS~a Pan abode built in
manufacturer that specialized in log cabins. After
1950, Rustic Style buildings in Aspen were more commonly machine-made kit log structures
than hand-built, but they still reflected the same American West iconography. Materials in
these later buildings simulated log construction and referenced the particulaz visual details of
the original log structures. Examples of kit log structures built as second homes during this
period are found at 211 W. Hopkins and 765 Meadows. The kits were also used for quick-to-
build housing to fill the growing needs of the ski resort workforce, many of whom could not
14 Rothman, 223
is Gilbert, 72
16 Bancroft, Carolyn, Famous Asoen
4
P20
qualify for traditional mortgages, due to the part time nature of their jobs, and therefore relied
on affordable construction methods.
Eligibility Considerations
There aze specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect
the significance of the historic context. Typical chazacteristics of the Rustic Style aze "log
construction, stone foundation, small paned windows, overhanging roof, stone chimney, and
battered walls."~~ To be eligible for historic designation, Aspen's examples of Rustic Style
azchitecture should have the following distinctive chazacteristics:
• Hand built structures that aze constructed out of locally available materials, usually
log; stone maybe incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney.
Later examples include machine cut logs.
• The buildings aze usually single story, with aloes-pitched gable roof.
• True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or maybe in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking.
• Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used
to finish out the window openings.
• Building plans aze simple rectangulaz forms, with smaller additive elements.
• The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends aze often infilled with standazd
framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space.
• The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
Though Pan Abode structures aze still being manufactured today, which poses a greater
challenge in determining the end date for the Rustic Style period, changes in the type of
accommodations and facilities that were desired for both tourists and homeowners began to
evidence themselves in Aspen in the eazly 1970's. As land became more valuable, the era of
the small vacation cabin came to an end, and custom-built homes were faz more common, as
were condominiums.
Aspen's 1973 Growth Management plan, a reaction to the magnitude of change and
development that the town was experiencing, recognized the need to preserve the quality of life
that many felt Aspen was losing due to its populazity. Second homes began displacing
permanent residents, and in fact, the City passed a controversial ordinance in order to stem the
loss of resident-occupied housing. Concurrently, modest lodges were being replaced with
higher-end accomodations.
These trends were noted again in 1986, when, according to the 1993 Aspen Area
Community Plans, it was found that the number of second homes had significantly increased,
and that the size of these second homes was particulazly lazge compazed to traditional
residences in the city. The shifts in Aspen's development pattern suggest that it would be
"Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture
1e Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993
P21
appropriate to establish the end of the period of historic significance, which is a term used to
define the time span during which the style gained azchitectural, historical, or geographical
importance, for simple, small scale, Rustic Style buildings as roughly 1970. With regazd to Pan
Abode structures, of which there is a relatively lazge collection remaining in town, a finding of
historic significance must go beyond the basic chazacteristics of the building as an example of a
kit house, and demonstrate a connection between a specific structure and the local story of
vacation home construction and ski industry related housing, lodging, or facilities.
P22
The Cast/e Creek Cabins/YVaterman Cabins, once located at 7"' and Hallam Streets
Sunset Cabins, once located near 7'" and Main Streets
Deep Powder Lodge
P23
Bibliography
Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993, Aspen, Colorado
Bancroft, Cazolyn, Famous Aspen.
Cazley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style comes Home" September 1998,
www.uniguerustique.com/historv
Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture, www.coloraohistorv-
oah .or uides
Directory of Colorado State Register Properties, www coloradohistorv-oahp.orQ/publications
Gilbert, Anne M. Re Creation throueh Recreation• Aspen Skiine from 1870 to 1970, 1995.
Aspen Historical Society, Aspen, Colorado
Harrison, Laura Soulliere, Architecture in the Pazks: A National Historic Landmazk Theme
Studv, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 1986
http'//www cr nps eov/historv/online books/hamson
Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmarks in the Landscape, California: Chronicle Books, 1997.
Rocky Mountain National Pazk, Home Page; Historic Buildings
http•//www nps eov/romo/resources/historv/historic.html
Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Baz¢ains -Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West,
Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1998.
Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge", 1995.
CRM Volume 18, Number 5, http'//crrn cr nps Gov/azchive/18-5/18-5-4.pdf.
..
~-x~8~c~
HAAS LAN D
April 3, 2008
PLANNING, LLC
Ms. Amy Guthrie
Aspen Historic Preservation Planner
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Application for 600/612
W. Francis (Lots 1 and 2 of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen).
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter and the attached draft plat to constitute a formal
request for historic landmark designation and re-subdivision of the 600/612 W.
Francis properties.
612 W. Francis is legally described as Lots P and Q Block 21, of the
Doremus/Silverman Lot Split (Parcel Identification Numbers 2735-124-09-007).
600 W. Francis is legally described as Lots R and S, Block 21, of the
Doremus/Silverman Lot Split (PID #2735-124-09-009). They are in the Medium-
Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and are located on the north side of West
Francis Street between North Fifth and Sixth Streets. A vicinity map showing
the approximate location of the subject property is provided below.
raMwtse e~, oQ~
s~ a:...
43 a
9 ~
., w.,^aA.n b
3 ,~ ~; .,,a,,,,,, s T,
__ - =sux ~ _ „~
~ly l%yYy'}~ [ry~A M
Y~IryLLn,~ ".''~~. TW 'Yep M
8 a y rn € a R ti9?Ra6~'~
~J J` µ~A• lMnM }'' r t [,per 1
~l 8
4-p•k~ np op em>~'~ea ~nw~r
600/612 W. Francis St. Vicinity Map
• 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1
• PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395
Lots P and Q (612 West Francis Street) are improved with a 2 to 21/z story,
bluish-gray, stucco house. The house is rectangular in shape (19.75' wide x
74.75' long), has vaulted spaces, and the first floor (on the West Francis frontage)
is sunken below natural grade, at "garden level." Along the alley, the house is
two stories tall with a two car garage at ground level.
The Pan Abode house on Lots R and S (600 West Francis Street) is
oriented in anortheast-southwest direction, facing the corner of West Francis
and North Fifth Streets. The house has a footprint of roughly 2,085 square feet in
a predominantly rectilinear form, plus an approximately 60 square foot shed
attached to its West Francis Street frontage. While the house does not have a
garage, an approximately 9 foot wide concrete driveway enters the property
diagonally from North Fifth Street, as does a similarly oriented walkway to the
front porch. What amounts to the side and rear yards of the house, based on its
orientation, are fenced in and there is a wood deck extending from the central
portion of the rear of the house.
The subject properties are located in the West End neighborhood, which
contains a highly eclectic mix of architectural styles, house sizes, and building
orientations. The subject block alone contains a multitude of architectural styles
ranging from pan abodes to typical 1970's suburban houses, and from mountain
chalets to contemporary designs. The block contains very new homes, homes of
average age, and fairly old homes. The structures on the block range in height
from 1 story to 2'/z stories. Almost all of the houses on both sides of the block
take vehicular access from West Francis Street (not the alley), with head-in
parking along the north side of the street and parallel parking along the south
side. Both sides of West Francis Street contain a mature mix of large coniferous
and deciduous trees. The houses on the corner lots tend to orient toward the
cross streets (4'h and 5"' Streets)
This application is submitted by Jack and Marisa Silverman (hereinafter
jointly referred to as "the applicant"), the owners of both properties, pursuant to
Sections 26.415.030, 26.470.060, and 26.480 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). The required Land Use Application and
Dimensional Requirements forms, as well as a copy of the Pre-Application
Conference Summary completed by Amy Guthrie (Aspen Historic Preservation
Planner), are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Proof of the applicant's ownership is
provided in Exhibit 2, and authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to
represent the owners is provided in Exhibit 3. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000, is
attached as Exhibit 4. An Improvement Survey Map showing the existing
condition of the property is provided as Exhibit 5, and a draft Subdivision Plat is
attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Finally, an executed City of Aspen Fee Agreement
and a list of mailing addresses of record for all owners of property within a
Silverman Historic Application Page 2
three-hundred foot radius of the subject properties are provided as Exhibits 7
and 8, respectively.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of
the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation
of the application, questions may arise which require additional information
and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC, will provide such
additional information as may be required in the course of the review.
The Proposal
612 W. Francis Street originally consisted only of Lot P, a 3,000 square foot
lot, while Lots Q R, and S were one 9,000 square foot lot (600 W. Francis St.). In
October of 2000, the Aspen City Council granted approval for a subdivision
exemption for a lot split on the properties which dissolved the lot line between
Lot P and Lots Q R, and S, and replaced it with a lot line between Lots P-Q and
Lots R-S, resulting in two (2) 6,000 square foot lots. This became known as the
Doremus/Silverman lot split (see Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000 attached to this
application). Now both lots are owned by Jack and Marisa Silverman who
desire to return the properties to their pre-2000 configuration. However, if the
Doremus/Silverman Lot Split was simply vacated, Lot P would become anon-
conforminglot unless designated historic.
The applicant is therefore requesting that the lot lines between Lots P-Q
and Lots R-S be eliminated, creating one 12,000 square foot parcel.
Simultaneously, the applicant proposes that the entire 12,000 square foot parcel
be designated a historic landmark. Once the parcel is considered a historic
landmark, the property can then be subdivided back to its pre-2000
configuration of one 3,000 square foot lot (612 W. Francis, Lot P), and one 9,000
square foot lot (600 W. Francis, Lots Q R, and S). This would conform to the R-6
Dimensional requirements since the minimum lot size for a historic landmark
parcel is 3,000 square feet.
No actual development or alterations to existing structures are proposed
as part of this application. The applicant merely seeks to designate the property
as historic, and return it to its original configuration via subdivision.
While the applicant currently has no plans to do so, it is understood that
once the property is returned to its original configuration, the right to build a
separate, detached home on the 9,000 square foot parcel would exist. This home
would share a total of 4,080 square feet of allowable floor area with the existing
Pan Abode.
Silverman Historic Application Page 3
Review Requirements
Based on the elements of the proposal outlined in the foregoing, this
application has been prepared (in the order addressed below) pursuant to the
following Sections of the Land Use Code:
1) Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties;
2) Section 26.480.050, Subdivision Review Standards.
Sec. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties.
The designation of properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Site and Structures (the Inventory) is intended to provide a systematic public
process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built
environment are of value to the community. The Inventory was established by
City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and
objects located in the City that have special significance to the United States,
Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture.
Section 26.415.030.0 of the Code, states that property owners may file an
application for designation of a property to the Inventory.
Under Section 26.415.035(A) of the Code, the Community Development
Director is charged with reviewing the subject property and making a
preliminary determination as to whether it should be considered for inclusion on
the Inventory. This decision is based on the criteria of Section 26.415.30. B.2 as
follows:
1. The property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20rn
centun~ history, Boas constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior
to the year in zohich application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient
integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is
related to one or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local,
state, regional or national history; or
b. People zohose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is
deemed important and can be identified and documented; or,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or
method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a
recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
The "Pan Abode' on Lots R and S was built in 1956 and represents the
rustic style of architecture that was symbolic of the early and mid-20'h century.
According to an article entitled "Aspens 20'h Century Architecture' as found on
Silverman Historic Application Page 4
the City of Aspen Historic Preservation's website, rustic style buildings started
being built in Aspen in the 1930's. The rustic style was thought to give the
feeling of having been built by the pioneers and blend well with the natural
surroundings. The typical characteristics of the rustic style include log
construction, stone foundations, small paned windows, overhanging roofs, stone
chimneys, and battered walls.
After World War II, the heightened idealization of the West as a place of
adventure and freedom brought more and more people to the region for
vacation. Many vacation homes, hunting lodges, and tourist-related facilities in
the rustic style started to increase in number in the Aspen area.
The article goes on to state that in the 1950's, mechanization began to
replace the handmade in many aspects of American life, including home
building. At that time, Pan Abode, a manufacturer specializing in log cabins,
started selling kit homes that simulated log construction and referenced the
details of original log structures. These quick-to-build homes began to fill the
growing needs of the ski resort workforce.
In order to be eligible for historic designation in Aspen, a rustic style
home should be single story, log construction, with aloes-pitched gable roof,
small window openings and minimal detail or decoration. The building plans
are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. The roof will
customarily spring from the log wall, and gable ends are often in-filled with
standard framing. Further, in order to be considered historically significant, a
Pan Abode home should go beyond the basic characteristics of an example of a
kit house, and should demonstrate a connection between the structure and the
local story of vacation home construction and ski industry related housing,
lodging or facilities.
This particular pan abode was originally built fifty-two (52) years ago, in
1956. In the 1960s this home was owned by Mrs. Vivienne Jones, who was
married to Whipple Van Ness "Whip" Jones, the founder, developer and original
operator of the Aspen Highlands ski area. This home stayed in Mrs. Jones'
family until 2001, when it was sold to the applicant. Throughout the 1980s, this
home was rented out to "ski bums' during the ski season (according to Jeanne
Doremus, daughter-in-law of Vivienne Jones). Since this pan abode home is
more than fifty (50) years old, has been connected to ski industry related
housing, and is a representative example of the rustic style architecture, the
applicant respectfully requests that this entire property be granted historic
landmark designation.
Silverman Historic Application Page 5
B. Subdivision Approval
The purpose of Section 26.480, Subdivision, of the Code includes ensuring
"the proper distribution of development" and encouraging "the well-planned
subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision." This
purpose is forwarded by and achieved with the proposal made herein.
The review standards applicable to subdivision applications are contained
in Section 26.480.050 of the Code. The standards are provided below in italics,
with each followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance
therewith, as applicable.
A. General Requirements
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the AACP. The applicant
seeks to landmark the entire 12,000 square foot property and simultaneously
subdivide the property back to its original configuration. The AACP seeks to
preserve historically significant buildings and the contribution they make to the
character of the town.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
The proposed subdivision is located in a neighborhood of single-family
and duplex residences, and is consistent with the character of the area. It will
have no affect on existing character.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect future development of
surrounding areas. Nothing will change other than the location of a lot line and
a guarantee that an historic pan abode will be preserved.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
As provided throughout this application, the proposed project is and will
be incompliance with all applicable requirements of the Code.
Silverman Historic Application Page 6
B. Suitability of land for subdivision
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil
creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
The proposed subdivision is not located on land considered unsuitable for
development. The site is already developed. The property contains existing
development that is not and has not been subject to geologic or other hazards.
The proposed project will not be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
future residents.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
The proposed subdivision is already developed. The applicant is merely
seeking to reconfigure the lot lines that existed prior to the Silverman/Doremus
Lot Split, which occurred in October of 2000.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be
provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by
special review (See Chapter 26.430) if the follozning [omitted] conditions are
met:
The proposed subdivision has already complied with the improvements
set forth in Chapter 26.580. The improvements that are applicable to this
property were set forth in 2000 when the lot split was approved. Those
conditions have since been satisfied. In the event that any variances from the
engineering design standards become necessary in the future, special review
approval would then be sought.
The Applicant will enter into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement
(SIA) with the City binding the subdivision to any conditions placed on the
development order. This will be done concurrently with the preparation and
recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat. The Final Subdivision Plat will be
prepared by a Colorado licensed surveyor and will meet the requirements of the
Land Use Code. All required elements of the SIA will be provided for review by
the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney.
The SIA will replace the existing subdivision exemption agreement currently
affecting the subject lots.
Silverman Historic Application Page 7
D. Affordable housing.
Chapter 26.520, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, is not
applicable since no multi-family dwellings will be demolished. Similarly,
Chapter 26.470, Grozoth Management Quota System, is not applicable since no new
dwelling units are being proposed with this subdivision. Should the applicant
ever decide to build an additional dwelling unit on the 9,000 square foot lot,
such is allowed subject to administrative review in accordance with Section
26.470.060(1) of the Code.
E. School land dedication.
This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land
or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision.
There are no plans for any additional residential units in the subdivision at this
time. Should any ever be developed, the SIA will require payment of this fee, as
applicable.
F. Growth Management Approval
This section of the subdivision regulations requires that a growth
management allotment be granted or a growth management exemption be
obtained for subdivision approval to be granted. This proposed "subdivision' is
merely seeking to move the lot line over. There are currently two parcels, and
there will be two parcels when the subdivision is granted. The property is
already developed with one home on each lot. No new lots or homes are being
proposed at this time; therefore, no GMQS implications result.
It is hoped that the provided information and responses prove helpful in
the review of this application. If you should have any questions or desire any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Truly yours,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Mitc aas, AICP
Owner/ Manager
Silverman Historic Application Page 8
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements
Forms; Pre-Application Conference Summary
Exhibit 2: Proof of Ownership
Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC
Exhibit 4: Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000
Exhibit 5: Improvement Survey Map (Existing Conditions)
Exhibit 6: Draft/Proposed Subdivision Exemption Plat
Exhibit 7: Executed City of Aspen Application Fee Agreement
Exhibit 8: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners within a
300 foot radius of the subject properties
Silverman Historic Application Page 9
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
EXHIBIT
Name: ~ (', ~} LV
Location: ~p ~ax W. ~ S C +
(Indicate street address, lot block number, le al descri tion where a ro riate)
Parcel 1D # (REQUIRED) a 5- - 3
REPRESENTATIVE'
Name: ~-JAIR~ ~F~(VQ ~~NNi~1Cr ~ ~~-C
Address: (((~~Ot Ill(' ~S SU
Phone#: I~ ln~Qa.S-~"61! I.~--I~~~r-tall. Nhaa~(c Cori ~ -~
PROJECT:
Name: SII,VC2 /~~ LAND 17C-S/ R/ SVB IVIS
Address: [(`VV/lp i a IN. ANf.~,S(; PEAJ ~j~S t)C
Phone #:
TYPE of APPLICATION: (please check all that annlvl:
^ Conditional Use ^
^ Special Review ^
^ Design Review Appeal ^
^ GMQS Allotment ^
^
GMQS Exemption ,~,/
(_IV
^ ESA- 8040 Greenline, Stream ^
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
Mountain View Plane
Conceptual PUD
Fins] PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
Subdivision
Subdivision Exemption (includes
condominiumization)
^ Conceptual Historic Devt.
^ Final Historic Development
^ Minor Historic Devt.
^ Historic Demolition
-
~{~" Historic Designation
^ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ^ Other:
^_ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Text/Map Amendment
E~X~IS"TING CONDT170NS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
ur i~ ~°fQu SP. ltYl SOTS P ~,._r~ AIY QVE t, SF ~1 ~T ~ ~ fir, S
PROPOSAL: (descrintion of oronosed buildings. uses. modifications. etc.l
Y
Have you attached the following? FEF,S DuE: $
[~~y Pre-Application Conference Summary
uy Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement
,~,/Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
~v Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 85" x 11"must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft
Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Commercial net leasable: Existing: N~/9 Proposed: /~~/~
Number of residential units: Existing: Z Proposed: L.
Number ofbedrooms: Existing.• Proposed: Nd ('KAN(F
Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): Q ~o
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Principal bldg. height:
Access. bldg. height:
On-Site parking:
Site coverage:
Open Space:
Front Setback:
((~'
JE E
Rear Setback:
~'~P~OV(~-t~ Combined F/R:
SU~'~~y Side Setback:
Side Setback:
Combined Sides:
Existing.• Allowable:. ~ Sn Proposed.• /lJt) ('/fA1~I~E'
Existing: Allowable.• ~~ 1 Proposed: -~U Cli/HJ(~
Existing: P/ F} Allowable: N /ti Proposed: '}
Existing: Reguired.• Proposed: NUC~AIU(s~'
Existing: Reguired.• ~ /-~ Proposed:
Existing Reguired: ~/~Proposed:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing: Reguired.• Proposed:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ~e NOtV ~c`A!~yeM /TIES
Variations requested:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the defmition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE ALL ENCROACHMENTS
FOR CONCRETE PAD ON LOT 0
3.2' z 27' REMOVED
N0. ~ REOAR
YELLpE CM '10120 ~C-
EIIGR 00Ad EN ,Q f5' 01T 0011
1 .1' wIL01 Ne '4L.j,EL O
SCALE /0,,,91 •, ~'~
N
9pYrr
0 5 10 I S R3~ `
r n
CONCRETE PATIO ~ ry ~
OKROKIIEE ONTO ~
LOT 0 I iTORY TgOD HDUEE /
(B,~P~ oEMwsMEV~
1y ~ ,ssa
: tTOgr xa1tE
J
CpT R
CpT P COT p
AKEA - 3.000 ./- EO.FT. AREA - 3.000 ./- EO.FT.
~~
O
/p. ~,
PATIO ELEV-06. J'
o.s•
IAT10 LO0T00
yt
RANTER V
N0.4~R®M `~-q0.
YEL CM 16120
20ACHMENT LICENSE
STONE WALL 0.8'x30'OF •x•~Lrov -?a'
RI u •raor LOR•
E53 E 035' FRdI COR
GRAVEL PMKINO
ALW
'l376'
ORAV0. PAAKINB
AlL ENCROACHMENTS
ON LOT 0 -
j~~~ ~ REMOVED
~/ ST oF,A,~
FRANCIS
.S'Tv r _
IE ~ ]HI ][ ~ ]I ~~ ~
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE
- WOOD FENCE 1'x20'
•
~ °~ m^rft
/ ~ RED W 16140
i
SCALE / ~
/aLVERr
o s w Is so S O T S
/
~0T R
~:.
L pT ~"~
Q ~ e ENCROACHMENT ICENSE
.+' WOOD FENCE 6' IS'
g ~ °• i~
_C8 _
: ~ / /
~.'.
.h
O
MEA - 6.000 •/- aO.iT. '~S. _ /~ _
I STORY ~ o • _; F • ,'. ~~[l)
rnRneooE ~~ ~% C
?' NOUSE ~ `t"^~l
~ ' \ `~1
O~
/ ' ``
.~
`ry.
f' / ~ .~ ~ . ~ / '~
e / eJ / /
3_
ww ~_
2x76' a ~S 00 ~ c
E ~.oo. / O
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE /
WOOD FENCE 7'x26' an IaRlaext _
/
S •T CULVERT - J
1 FRS
NCI,S
ST~~T
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
PROJECT: 600/612 W. Francis
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER: Jack Silverman
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision, Historic Landmark Designation
DATE: 1 /18/2008
DESCRIPTION: 600 W. Francis Street, once a 9,000 squaze foot parcel, was the subject of the
Doremus/Silvennan Lot Split in 2000, which resulted in the westernmost 3,000 squaze feet of 600 W. Francis
being transferred to 612 W. Francis, at the time a legal non-conforming 3,000 square foot lot.
One family now owns both sites and would like to return the properties to their pre-2000 configuration. The
Doremus/Silvenman Lot Split cannot simply be vacated because doing so would make 612 W. Francis non-
conforming again.
The Doremus/Silverman Lot Split can be undone through a new subdivision that meets zone district regulations.
The application for subdivision should descnbe the following sequential actions; (1) eliminate any lot line
between 600 and 612 W. Francis, so that the whole parcel will qualify for landmazk designation (the landmark
eligible building being the Pan Abode on the east portion of the parcel), (2) complete designation, (3) finalize a
subdivision plat to make 600 W. Francis a 9,000 square foot lot and 612 W. Francis a 3,000 square foot lot.
This will be allowable because the minimum lot size for historic landmark parcels is 3,000 square feet. The three
actions can be scheduled simultaneously.
600 W. Francis and 612 W. Francis already contain single family homes. As a result of the proposed designation,
600 W. Francis would, under current regulations, be eligible to develop an additional detached free market
dwelling unit in the future if desired, exempt from the Growth Management Quota System under Section
26.470.060.1.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties
26.470.60 Administrative Applications (Growth Management)
26.480 Subdivision
Review by: Staff for complete application; HPC for recommendation on Historic Landmark Designation; P&Z
for recommendation on Subdivision; City Counci] decision on Historic Landmark Designation and
Subdivision.
Public Hearing: Yes at all hearings before HPC, P&Z and City Council (except First Reading of Ordinance at
Council.)
Planning Fees: $2,940.00 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per
hour).
Engineering: $212 Minor Review fee.
Total Deposit: $3,152.00
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Total Deposit for review of application.
2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
3. Signed fee agreement.
4. Completed Land Use Application.
5. Completed dimensional requirements form.
6. Pre-application Conference Summary.
7. An 8 I/2" x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City ofAspen.
8. Proofofownership.
9. Site Improvement Survey.
10. Proposed site plan.
1 I. Proposed floor plan.
12. Proposed elevation plan.
13. A written description ofthe proposal and a written explanation ofhow a proposed development
complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.
14. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on
mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453
15 Copies of prior approvals.
16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of
the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is
preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
20 Copies ofthe complete application packet for Landmark Designation.
20 Copies of the complete application packet for Subdivision.
Process:
Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application is then referred to applicable referral agencies. The Applicant is
then assigned a public hearing date by Staff and Staffwri[es a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission
reviews application and makes a recommendation to City Council on requests. City Council makes Snal determination in the form
of an ordinance.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in [he future, and upon factual representations that may or may no[ be accurate. The summary does no[ create a
legal or vested right.
JUN. 6. 2000 9:28AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE
COMMITMENT FOR TTCLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A ~
1. Effective Date: May 9, 2000 at 8:30 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
(a) ALTA Owners Policy-Form 1992
Proposed Insured:
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992
Proposed Insured:
I
Case No. PC7~11855PR
i
Amounts 0.0~
Premiums D.O~p
Rafe:
Amount$ 0.
Premiums 0~
Rate: RE-IS5 E
Tax Certificat~I: 510.00
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in 8ris Corhmitrherlt i9 at ffie
effective date hereof vested m: i
JACK E. SILVERMAN
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is s~uated in the County of State of GOCORADO arM is described
as folbws:
LOT P,
BLOCK 21,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PITICIN EOVN2Y TlTI.S, INC.
601 E HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 87617
97(1.9?5-7766
970'925.6527FAX
AUTHORIZED wGENi
Sc't7edt7t~ A-PG,1
ThuI.s Commitmer7t is invalid
UtNe83 7116 InSUring
Provisior7s and Schedules
A end B are attached.
.JUN. 6. 2000 9:29AM PITKIh' COUNTY TITLE ~ N0. 17°0 P. ;;;
SCHIDULE B -SECTION 2
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the. requirements >b be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or fa the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the tulljconsiderafion for the
estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be Ensured must be executed and duly filed
for record 1p-wit:
THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHES FOR INFORMATIONAh PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOTA
CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE
EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
MAKE ADpITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED -JECESSARY. THE
RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS
ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED
WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANYlS
NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE.
JUN. 6.2000 9:29AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE ! N0. 1780 P. 4%5
I
SCHEDt;ILE B SECTION 2
DCCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the folbwing unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any fads which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disGose and which are not shown bN the public records.
4. Any Nen, or right to a Gen, for services, Tabor, or material heretofore or hen~tter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records-
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing In the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof Dut prior to the date the proposed insured
acquires of record for value the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer
service or for any other special taxing district,
7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page
283 providing as follows: 'That no title shall be hereby acquired bD any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or
copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws".
8. Terms. conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral
Agreement recorded April 27, 1595 in &ook 779 at Page 460.
9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligatons as set forth in Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Improvement
Agreement recorded August 7, 1996 as Reception No 395057
10 rk~ed of Tmcf trnm ~ IGCK _F FII \/F_R_M__A~_ i
Tn the Public Tn~ctee of the County of
For the use of : NORWEST MORTGAGE, 1NC.
Original Amount :5940000
Dated :April 29, 1998
Recorded :May 5, 1998
Reception No, :416493
11. Deed of Trust from :JACK E. $iLVERMAN
To the Public Trustee of the County of
For the use of : NORWEST BANK COLORACO, N.A
Original Amount ; g5nnpnp
Gated :June 2, 1998
Recorded :September 22, 1996
Reception No. : a2?218
JUN. 6.2000. 9:29AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE N0. 1780 P. 5/5
ADDITIONAL INF0IRMATION
AND DISCLOSURES
The Owner's Pdicy to be issued, if arty shag contain the folloWing Reins fn addition th the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Water rights, claims or tltie to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND
MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER)
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation ti9-2;
NOTE: Each title entity sha!I nntiy in writing every prospective insured in an owners tick insurance poNcy for a
single famiy rcsidenee (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that tide entity's general
requirements for the deletion of an axcephon or exduslon to coverage relating tb unfiled mechanics or
materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of
the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic'
and/or Ma[erialmen's Liens executed by the persons tndkated in the attached copy of said affidavit must
be famished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements in be specified by
the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owners pdicy when
issued. Please contact the Company for Turther information. Notwitfistandingthc foregoing, nothing
contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon airy title insurer to provide
mechanics or materialmens !kn coverage.
NOTE: If the Comparry conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for
the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaUion, the Company will be deemed to have
provided "Gap Coverage'.
Pursuant to Senate Bib 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122);
(a) The Subject Real Properly may be located in a Specal Taxing DIStriCt;
(b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the
County Treasurers Authorized Agent;
(c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board
of County Commissioners, the County Ckrtc and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
NOTE: A tax CerMicate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof
charged to the proposed insured unless Written instruction to the contrary are received by the company
prior to the issuance of the Titre Pdicy antidpated by this Commitment.
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule 6-Section 2
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitrrent No. PCT11855PR
A and B are attached.
l.:.~ ial a ~n..~ ,
I~`O
.~
eo
m
S
~S
NPS
WARRANTY
TMS DEED, Made Oda 2nd dry d January. 2001 ,
buween Doremue Pamily LSmlted Partnership,
L. L.L. P.
oy gyc •Coaaty of Pitkin and
Smm of Cohaado, grantor, and Jack Silverman
ganr4% ! 1 ~' • 00
whose legal sddtnsu 612 Weet Francis Street, Aepan,
CO 81611
d the County of PS[kin ~ Stme d' ~0~0• ~°~'
WITNPSS, dut the gmm~, far and io crukkuation of the mm of Ten Dollars (310.00) end other~goYto~d
and valuable considerations
the ieaipt and aufBeimuy of which is hmeby acknowledged. hr granad, bvgWned, nW sod cpnveyed, and by Owe prtaenm don
grmt, bargeio, rll, oonw,yend wnfirmunm the granoeea, theirheinard erigr finrnv, ool k tevaocy keommonbol kjoim kmrcy,
all the rtaI property, togethtt with improvemeota, i[ avy, sirvale, lying and beivg in the County of
Pitkis and Smk of CobMo, deacri6ed r fo0mn:
Lot Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Subdivision Exemption/Lot Split, according
to the Plat recorded January 2, 2001 in Pla[ Book 55 at Page 52, Clty and
Townsite of Aspen. '
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIII IIIIII III I'I'I IIII IIII
400221 01/03/2001 03:0N gNl DM/[S SILVI
1 of 2 R 10.00 D 110.00 N 0.08 PITKIN COUNTY CO
Woknowo by dmn and numberr 610 Weet Francis, Aspen, CO 61611
TOGBTHFJt wiW alt and aingulr the herMimmram ad yymteruveea wmevom bebvging, ar h anywlae appertaining and the
n:5rusion and revenlom, mmakdn sM mmainden, rton, (aeon and ptoflr iherm4 and all ihenwe, dghL tide. iruereal, claim and
demand whauoe5er of dm grsntar, <idsr k law r uryity, of, k and b tlw above: brgairsd premiett, wiN the hereditemenm and
aPPune^ancee.
7'0 HAVE AND TO HOLD the rid prtmier above 6vgained enddneribed, wim do appurteoancn, wmthe grmlae, their he"va
and arigm forcer. And the grslttor, for hinuel4 ha heirs and perwem nprtrnmavn, don co5vrunt, gram. brgaio and agrte m rd
with the grsnteea, Owirheim and wigs, lhm m the Time otdrcerualiag avd delivery of three pnsnts, he u wdl rimdofthe plmrrirs
above conaeYrA, hr good, Burt, perixt, ebsolum and indefeadbk ttmm of ivhmikrrte, in law, in fee dmpk, eM hr good dght, fuB
pouerand lawful mxhmkY m gnnL baegek, rll and convryllte woe in mruarand fmtn aknxaid, and that the sameert flee andclw
from all fmroer aM odw grams, bergum, saW, liens, lure, aunmsau, encum6uanm and mstrklimu of whak5er kLM ar tumor
eca5ey exaµ and aub~ecC to those matters eat forth on Exh161t A attached hereto
and made a part hereof by this reference.
The grantor ehaB wad will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEPEND OK d>ovo-bmgained prcmire in Ow tptiet wad peatssbk
pv.eeealov of tlw granmea, ihe4 hero and rdgm, agaivn a0 and awry pemm r persma hnvfu0y claiming tlm whole tt avY Pw
dwwE
The akjula number ehdl ialudc the plural, Uw pimd tl5e aingulaa and the car of any gender du0 b applicable m all gevde)s.
W WffNFSS WHFRFAP the gnnmr hu uecuted thn deed on Ne date set kM above.
STATE OP COLORADO
1 r.
County of Pitkin 1f
By: Daremue llanagemen[, Ltd., Genera.
J e Doremue, Preai ant
T6a fortgoing imtrumevt wr ackwwledgcd befort rate Ode ~ dry of January. 2001
by Jaenne Doremue ea President of Doremue Management, Ltd., General
Doremua Pamily Limited P eh1p, L.L,L.P., a Colorado limited 1
limited partnership. PSTINA pqL ~ r ~ m~Y~w ~~
\ M/q
Vd`~OTAI-/~ lcP
31EiteDatncimm~'RitYmdit '`~
of
L.P.
W CalnneaSnaE>p+ea llgllfm6l
W. rilA. Rev. 3-ffi. WAaaAMlYOeab (a JeYT~W
andrwd tuWWaia real Werw a4 preRr. Cn m]OI-Torn )9335110- HI
d' 1 l~ii IrYF
EXHIBIT A
To
WARRANTY DEED
General taxes and assessments for 2001 and subsequent years.
2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen
recorded in Book 59 a Page 283 providing as follows: "That no title shall be
hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid
mining claim or possession held under existing laws".
3. Easements, rights-of--way and all matters disclosed on Lot Split Plat of the
Doremus/Silverman Lot Split recorded January 2, 2001 in Plat Book 55 at
Page 52.
4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations set forth in Subdivision Exemption
Agreement for the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split recorded January 2, 2001, as
Reception No. 450164.
5. Encroachments and all matters as disclosed by Survey of Aspen Survey
Engineers dated March 29, 2000 as Job No. I5221A.
6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Revocable
Encroachment License recorded December 27, 2000 as Reception No. 449975.
Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters set forth in Ordinance
No. 49, Series of 2000, of the Aspen City Council, recorded January 2, 2001 as
Reception No. 450163.
2748764_1.DOC I IIII "~II "IIII II~I'I'I'll IIII "I'fl III "II' II'I I"I
450224 01/03/2001 03:04P ND DitYIS SILYI
2 of 2 R 10.00 D 110.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
Retum to:
ART DAILY
HOLLAND 8 HART
600 E. MAIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
~p t ~
CITY OF ASPEN rxty I>F ASPEW
EXEMPT FROM WRBIT EXEMPT FROM HRETT
DAT REF NO. DATE REr, "~'
~~~y ~ 4Flju~ G~iy/dfAli~ ~/%~J
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, Made June 14, 2004
between JACK SILVERMAN
of the County of PITKIN and State of CO,
of the first part, GRANTOR and MARISA SILVERMAN
whose legal address is: 612 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, CO 81811
of the County of PITKIN State of CO,
of the second part, GRANTEE
W ITNESSETH, That the said parties of the first part, for and in considere6on of the sum of Ten dollars and other
good and vaWable rAnsitleretlons, to the said parties of the first part, in hand paid by the said parties of the
second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and
conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargain, sefi, convey and confirm unto the said par8es of the second
part, its successors and assigns forever, all the following described lots or parcel of land, situate. lying and being
in the County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO, to wit
LOTS R & S,
BLOCK 21,
DOREMUS/SILVERMAN SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION/LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat
recorded January 2, 2001 in Plat Book 55 at Page 52.
Together with all and singular the hereditamenis and appurtenances there-unto belonging, or in anywise
appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and
all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said parties of the first part, either in law or
equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditamenls and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND
TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said parties of the
second part, its successors and assigns forever. And the said parties of the frst part for themselves, their heirs
and assigns do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the said Darties of the second part, their
successors and assigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of said parties of
the second part, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawhtlly claiming or to claim
the whole or any part thereof, by through or under the said parties of Ne first part to WARRANT AND FOREVER
DEFEND. The singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gentler shall be applrcahle to
all genders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hand(s) and seal(s).
i
JACK SILVERMAN
STATE OF V w/n - ss IIIINIIIIsfiI11111ANa111~~~N~IIN~IINN~~e 69860 eee::eTv
COUNTY OF ~ ~ 1~Y I r )
t1,
T e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14 " day of
u I~.t , 2004 By: JACK SILVERMAN
WITNESS my hand and official seal
my commission expires:
Brendi L. Jepson /Notary Public
PCT17964L MY Commission Expires v22rzoo5
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 87611
EXHIBIT
3
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Block 21, Lots P, Q R & S (600/612 W. Francis St.)
(PID#s 2735-124-09-007 and 2735-124-09-009)
Request for Historic Landmazk Designation and Subdivision Approval
To whom it may concern:
As owner of the above referenced properties, we hereby authorize Haas Land
Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as our designated and authorized representatives for
the preparation, submittal, and processing of an application for the approvals
listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications associated therewith. HLP
is also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff, the Historic
Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen
City Council.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review,
please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone
number are included with the application.
Yours truly,
t~-~C
J k~Silverman~~)
risa Sil reerma
612 W. Francis St.
Aspen, CO 81611
~_
ORDINANCE No. 49,
SERIES 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT FOR LOTS P, Q, R, AND S OF BLOCK
21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID (Lot P): 2735-124-00-007
Parcel ID (Lots Q, R, and S): 2735-124-09-009
from coVappEc~anASJack S iverman and the Doremus Famiar'ly~Lim'ted partnershpP ILLLP,
represented by Mitch Haas, for a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S
of Block 2 ] in the City and Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.480.040(B), the Aspen City Council, in
accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by
ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for
.--- a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split, after recommendation by the Community
Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.480.040(B)(4); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application
for a Subdivision Exemption I.ot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 City and
Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado in the R-6 zone district and
recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all 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,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, $E IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 2] City and
111111 IIIII 111111 illlll IIII 11111111111 III IIIII Ilil (III
450103 01/02/2001 03:01P ORDINRNC DRYIS SILYI
1 ei 3 R 35.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
11 .. Idi ilYd .
Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, is approved with the
following conditions:
] . That the co-applicants agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180
days of approval by City Council after recordation of the plat;
2. That the applicants remove the "No Pazking" sign located on West Francis Street
side of the subject properties;
3. At present, there aze pazking and fencing encroachments into the public rights-of-
way on West Francis Street, 5th Street, and the Alley for Block 21. The applicant
must either ])remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary Revocable
Encroachment License from the City Engineering Department allowing these
encroachments to exist prior to the recording of the final plat;
4. That all demolition of the existing building needs to occur from the alley side of
the lot. In addition, the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during
demolition;
5. If, in the future, the applicants wish to remove trees located along the property
~„~ [ine, approval from the City Pazks Department based upon the tree removal permit
process is required;
6. That the neighboring owners both must end the use of the pazking area on West
Francis Street, This is to alleviate the potential damage to the existing street trees.
The applicants shall replace the gravel azea with natural landscaping as required
by the Pazks Department;
7. That the applicant shall submit and record a subdivision plat which meets the
terms of chapter 26.480, and conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code,
in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating
that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units
be built without receipt of applicable approvals;
8. That the applicant shall record the subdivision exemption agreement in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to
record the agreement within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by
City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the
City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; and
9. That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split resulting in two
6,000 squaze foot lots contains a maximum potential build out not to exceed two
(2) principal dwelling units. This lot split effectively eliminates a development
right for Lots Q, R, and S; and
I llllll Illll llilll Illlll llll lllll IIIIiI III I'II' Illl I'll
4ti01l3 01/02/Z001 03:01P ORDINRNC DRVIS SILVI
2 ei 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
. ~ nu i-inn
10. Any future development on the newly created lots shall be required to mitigate for
their impact pursuant to Chapter 26.470 Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) as required.
Section 2•
This Ordinance shall not effect 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 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on this 10`" day of October, 2000.
. a
4 '.~. '
• Kathryn S {oeh, City Clerk
Rachel R
,,.
FINAL7L~, adopted, passed and approved this 23's day of October, 2000.
Attest:
c?~ .
_ athryn S. ch, ity Clerk
:y .
ro ~ a~,~to, form:
ICJ G~
John Worcestor, City Attorney
~~
Rachel Richards, ayor
C:\My Documents\Curtcnt Cases\I,os Slpit\DoremusSilvcrmanlSilvermenDoremusl,oVSplitMemo.doe
i ~~ui~ iiiii iriai ii'm iin i~~~i iiiiii iii ii~~i ~«i ~i~~
+30163 01/02/2003 03:01P ORpi ORVIS SILVI
3 of 3 R 35.00 D 0,00 N 0,00 PI7KIN COtINtY CO
:SJ~ ~ .
VICINITY IAAP
1 _;~
o ~~ 0~°~a,~~lO+ilCjjll
o~ 6rap: i~L4a~yq~E~'~J~
0~ ~ S ®$ ~ 4
b~``~~Qa ~o£t Ev~~~5. oannEo'
X/~V ~ yJ~ l~j~y_'YE):'~Ub
w ljS_ o
SCALE
1 INCH ~ IC M1FEI
LEGEND & NOTES
o EouxD spgYEr X PEPnA w iX cdP A. xmpc
m ,P 1F_ cA P . xuL mq.fv cmvgeL
E--- wom FExcE
-+- srui Pnl. fEKE
^ Ui ll lir BC%
1959 OFF ICI nL I4P OF IFE CI}Y OF gSPEX Nn5 iXE SOVP CE
0: SUP VEY iNF OPINi ION
ilnE IP~OP NdiI ON Ndi fUPN ISXEO BY . pIIKIN CBVKLY ilil E. ~. NC
W IiUE Vi xp PCi-15009
DdiFO ' u4P CX 10. 5000
CObII iUE Ni MO 1855PF
cnpDl us
OS pEdp lNpS IB 555. 09'1 SSO. CS'pS OiOxE SOUMEeSi
BLOCK FOPNEP LO YNE SWiNNFSiI PL OLK COP NEFP ~CILY UIIxUUEN5i1
i0l~llq IS P-6
2T,FICATE
j EXHIBIT
7
I7 iHe C F. LV EPWX i p Pi SP s EPWN BE~x0 iN~ PE[OPD CNAEP
0 C xsiiE<p[ esPEH P x CVU"1n COLOP PDO~NO DOR FUVS
ni: "~apgo
oc: zi'b< v `euo ioNxs°ix`a°pisrelEi° i rou mR.pp.
e o of D PEAL rgOrLPi. i0 LOrx P NPLOCF z'. c n
i L z P 5. P Ccx z c r NxD .owns *E of aS PEx.
WA 5<5 LYEgX.» DXXEA
EIC51E W.5 C Ef OA[ K iX S Doi 0:
E. LVEP UdN e5 ONxEP~D
L SE<l
csR .as .SFM giIEXCp o "WFXflIU]EE iu irTup°EO F<PixEP SXIP.
P.PiNEP XII <5 ONXEP.
Sfdl
KATE
API LSO PEPPESEPF.iIVE OF PIiM1 I.V CCUptt ilnE, IXC..
iKIX COUxIY. C p0 PoES HEPEBY gP:IFV iXSi
HE INI SXRAi WLDS ffF SINP ~Ed51 ilE i0 iXE X
E P RE<P C[ % LIENS PXD EXLPWPPXCES E%CEPi
ESMC EPEIF ICe iE.LnLiWLGX NE PEIIEYE iXE SALTS 51AiE0
fE Pi IF ~CeSE ~5 i iC e~CCNSiPIftp <S N! dB5iP 1[i
iln r. xoP . eu:eexiEE iIrLE. w li Is xDEPSipop
e. x_ NEP SuuE: wP a PE uuPGED
N CP l BIt IiY XwiSCEV EP W Si<iEYEXi
niF D- 3w_
d iE x'a5 NKI:CFR EOGEJ p=E ORE uE iH15
30C_ BY v v. NILfNS
IXC E
XCinPY PUBI IC
CERTIFICATE
cpxi lf. , uagcH tooD wo ~ unvfr
c lox axo i~imewx is LOX OS iXE XEPiov 3xO0s~el epo PX
OF 1ME BWR:OPPV L 6N0 EdSE NENIS SHOXN OM iNEFPIiFIX
9. 0<lED NegCVX10. 5000 dXD PCi-I IB65PP Dai Ep u v 9.
HIS PL qxD Ix IMF P i dCCUq aiEly SXpMS :XE
Ii510E BOVNO~.P IFS <ND In'p 1YICVgL LOi II XES.
M IS GFE>iEP il.ax 1.10.000 NIiN qX eCCVe 1CV 10 C. WI
iER~S APPROVAL
P Nro XY ixE flrv ENGINEER Cc BHE
~/~
>Y OP too-
COUNCIL APPROVAL
I rpPOVED PY lXE CWl iv y I iXE I .SPEE~p
BY aR01 X04`'X'_ 09 SEP TES 3000 SECOP DED PS iIOX Fp
IHroG
' COL OPe W.
~iiE51
KdI:YP YN IA'N. CIiY CLEPK
iECORDER~S ACCEPTANCE
F iF ICf OE THE CLEF dxp PECOP OCP OE PI LX IN i0LM 6,
uai PECE RIIOx uWPEP SOE_ 1
Ogvl~-~
pgEP aq ED 0v
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC
310 S. WLEXL SIRE Ei
q P 81611
pelf
OB
193318
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
C[T1' OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Jack and Marisa Silverman (hereinafter APPLICANT)
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Historic Landmark
Designation and Subdivision Approval (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the pazties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a monthly basis. APPLICANT agees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs [o process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable [he
Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CiTY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of $ 3,152* which is for 12 hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual recorded costs exceed [he initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit Such periodic payments
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued
until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPLIC 'f
By:
llate: 3.7(p • Og
Bi16ng Address and Telephone Number.
Required
r~ ors c v ~l~- u'3 s•{•
Q-sV~J. ~ 8~rori
92S• ~aS22-~
*:$2,940=Planning Flat Fee; and $212=Minor Review Fee
323 N FIFTH ST LLC 609 CORPORATION ADELMAN KENNETH L TRUST
555 KATIE PARK LN PO BOX 1819 4018 N 27TH ST
SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81612 ARLINGTON, VA 22207
BEATON CHRISTINA NESLUND
BEATON GLENN K
19 HUNTWICK LN
CHERRY HILLLS VILLAGE, CO 80113
BLAICH ROBERT 18 JANET S
319 N FOURTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BLANK ROBERT S 8 NANCY L
C/0 WHITCOMB PARTNERS
375 PARK AVE RM 3800
NEW YORK, NY 10152
BOWEN-STANLEY PAMELA
2934 1/2 N BEVERLY GLEN CIR #482
LOS ANGELES, CA 90077
DEROSA THOMAS J
PO BOX 410
BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022
HALLAM SIX LLC
4430 ARAPAHO STE 110
BOULDER, CO 80303
KAFRISSEN ARTHUR 8 CAROLE F
310 N 6TH
ASPEN, CO 81611
BURROWS ANNE W
505 N 5TH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEVONSHIRE CORPORATION
6100 N PENNSYLVANIA
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112
IGLEHART JAMES P
610 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
KASCHJEFFERY C
68 RONAN RD
FORT SHERIDAN, IL -60010-2065
KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST LAWSON MICHELLE R
C/O WELLS FARGO BANK ATTN DEBBIE 522 W FRANCIS ST
BERG ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 13519
ARLINGTON, TX 76094
LICHTIN HAROLD
3110 EDWARDS MILL RD # 200
RALEIGH, NC 27612
LOWREY JAMES E JR TRUSTEE
5518 SAUVE LANE
HOUSTON, TX 77056
MAGGOS LAURA P
317 NORTH 4TH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
MARGERUM AMY L
622 WEST SMUGGLER
ASPEN, CO 81611
COOK ROBERT C 8 MARSHA N
621 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HALL CHARLES L
PO BOX 1819
ASPEN, CO 81612
JOY WILLIAM N
PO BOX 10195 DEPT 571
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
KEY R BRILL 8 ELIZABETH R
C/O KEY MEDIA
720 E HYMAN #301
ASPEN, CO 81611
LEVINE THEODORE A LIV TRUST 50%
425E 58TH ST #25H
NEW YORK, NY 10022
MACNAUGHTON DUNCAN TRUST
1288 ALA MOANA BLVD STE 208
HONOLULU, HI 96814-0206
MARTIN JAMES R 1998 OPRT
620 MARKET ST #300
KNOXVILLE, TN 37902
MCCAUSLAND LINDA MCCULLOUGH ANDREW JR MCLEAN CHARLES M
PO BOX 1584 3939 DEL MONTE DR PO BOX 11687
ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612
MG DUPLEX LLC MILLER CYNTHIA L
625 WEST NORTH ST 610 W SMUGGLER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1263
NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP NIEBUR DEWAYNE E 8: JO ANN E
2418 EMERALD TR 721 W FRANCIS
MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1910 ASPEN, CO 81611
OXLEY JOHN C TRUSTEE 50% PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC
1437 S BOULDER AVE #770 C/O SALLY TISCHER
TULSA, OK 74119 2471 VALLEJO ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123
POPE WILLIAM H PORTER HOUSE STAKE LLC
540 W SMUGGLER 1111 RACE ST PHA
ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206
RITCHIE ROBERT ROHATYN NICOLAS STEIT
701 W FRANCIS ST GREENBERG-ROHATYN~IEANNE
ASPEN, CO 81611 12 E 94TH ST
NEW YORK, NY
SHAFROTH ASPEN HOUSE LLC SHAFROTH JOHN F
1902 POPLAR AVE 3901 E BELLEVIEW AVE
BOULDER, CO 80304 LITTLETON, CO 80121
STANLEY GAINES B 8 VICKIE C SWANSON LUCIA LIV TRUST 50%
3915 LEMMON AVE #200 425 E 58TH ST #25-H
DALLAS, TX 75219 NEW YORK, NY 10022
VERLEGER PHILIP K JR & MARGARET B WARDROP INDIA CUTLER
615 W FRANCIS ST 105 WOODSFORD SO
ASPEN, CO 81611 LONDON UK W148DT,
WEISS JEFFREY L 8 JILL WEST SMUGGLER LLC
36 RUSTED LANE 2318 SILVER PALM PL
GREENWICH, CT 06830 NAPLES, FL 34105-3043
WOGAN WENDY
533 W FRANCIS
ASPEN, CO 81611
MULLEN MICHAEL
8411 PRESTON RD #730
DALLAS, TX 75225
OXLEY DEBBY M 50%
1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I
TULSA, OK 74103
PENINSULA LLC
729 NASKEAG RD
BROOKLIN, ME 04616-3316
RAZEK EDWARD G
3 LIMITED PKWY
COLOMBUS, OH 43230
ROSENBERG PHILLIP 1
68 RONAN RD
HIGHWOOD, IL 60040
SHELBY LLC
1201 WILLIAMS ST #A
DENVER, CO 60218
TISCHLER SALLY L
2471 VALLEJO ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123-4638
WARE NINA COULTER
34 CLERMONT LN
ST LOUIS, MO 63124
WILKE JOHN H & BONNIE K TRSTE
626 W FRANCIS
ASPEN, CO 81611
.r.r~
~~ P1
MEMORANDUM. ~r
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director~~
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital -Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) -
Conceptual Planned Unit Development -Resolution No. 23, Series 2008 -Public
Hearine
MEETING
DATE: July 15, 2008
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Valley Hospital, David
Ressler, CEO
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning
Services.
LOCATION:
Pazcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital
District Subdivision, commonly
known as 401 Castle Creek Road.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Public (PUB) zone
district. Lot C contains 19.1 acres
or approximately 832,085 sq. ft. of
lot area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a master plan for the
redevelopment and expansion of the
hospital campus.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission request additional information on the
anticipated employee operational needs of the proposed
hospital as well as more detail on the proposed medical
office space and continue the heazing to August Ss'.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a recommendation of approval of Conceptual
PUD.
Photo
's main
Page 1 of 7
P2
~arstes:., ,,:;qr,~
LANDLAND US~`I~pf71~1'S AND REVIEW PROCEDURESAND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
As noted in the July 151 staff memo, the Conceptual Planned Unit Development review for the
proposed master facilities plan of the hospital is being divided into four hearings with individual
topics as noted below:
July 1, 2008: Project Overview: Operational Needs, Program, Trends, Phasing,
Architecture & Design
July I5, 2008: Employee Housing, Site Improvements (grading, drainage, trail location),
Noise Analysis
August 5, 2008: Transportation (pazking generation, trail easement, site, roads, bikes, trails,
pazking garage), Housekeeping items
August 19, 2008: Conditions of approval, Vote
Again the purpose of Conceptual PUD is to allow the Commission the opportunity to identify
any major questions or concerns that you would like to have the Applicant address further, either
at this stage of review (conceptual) or at a later more specific stage of review (final).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested approval to redevelop and
expand the existing hospital campus which was annexed into the city in 2003. The focus of the
proposal is on Pazcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living
(Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located.
Pazcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing.
Pazcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 squaze feet. A site map is provided on the
next page per Figure 1.
The Applicant would like to redevelop the parcel taking into account a twenty yeaz program life
cycle with an anticipated 2016 build-out timeline. The following tables compaze existing and
proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus.
iaoie i. nxi~~u, w,u.... .,~..... . ...............
Existin Conditions
Pro osed Conditions
Pazcel Area 832,085 s . ft. 832,085 s . ft.
Building Footprint 90,849 sq. ft. 171,164 sq. ft.
(residence, hospital, bus bam,
& hase I)
hn ervious Area 190,700 s . ft. 189,854 s . ft.
O en S ace 550,536 s . ft. 471,067 s . ft.
Surface azkin 175 110*
Notes: * The proposed surface azea does not include parking structure spaces, with pazking
gazage s aces the total a uals 339 s aces.
Page 2 of 7
r
' ' P3
a
- .. _ ~ .. ... _ __~ !.____ o,.-...-„ Ceet ..F TluvnlnnmPnt
1 able L: l;X1SUI1 mIU ta u vacu vawo .~ ..~..
Eaistin Facili - - ~ --- -----
Pro osed
Total at Build-Out
Below Grade 5,000 24,558 29,558
Above Grade 70,700 96,121 166,821
Med. Office 0 17,716 17,716
Sub-Total 75,700 138,395 214,095
Pazkin Garage 0 76,000 76,000
Total 75,700 214,395 290,095
Fieure 1: Subject Site
{ `
~ ! ~ \ ~
r{}~ r \
>~ ~~
L.J ~
//~ ! ~ ~\
. ~~ ~ \~
~;
~S~ o
., ~
,~
~.
x, .
,, ~
~~
~\
~ -~
t ./ W' o
~ ~
Emaloyee HousinE/Generation:
As an essential public facility, "City Council may assess, waive, or partially waive, affordable
housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate." Although employee generation rates
(based upon a zone district) can be used as a guideline, the land use code notes that "each
operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs." The proposal for the hospital
redevelopment and expansion can be divided into two components: expansion/remodel of the
hospital and development of medical offices.
The Applicant is requesting that the city agree to certain considerations when analyzing the
employee generation of the hospital. When the hospital evaluates its employee generation for the
redevelopment and expansion of the hospital, the Applicant is proposing to consider the effects
Page 3 of 7
P4
of volume, support services, decompression, and increased efficiency when determining the
number of employees generated per phase of redevelopment. The Applicant has described these
terms as follows:
• Volume: Certain functions within the hospital aze volume driven based upon the seasonal
nature of the community so the number of FTEs fluctuates over a yeaz.
• Support Services: Other functions in the hospital aze not census/volume driven such as
housekeeping and will not fluctuate during a yeaz.
Decompression: Some of the renovation and expansion of the hospital will allow for patients
and staff to be served in lazger spaces that meet current service standazds, but will not
increase the number of employees of the hospital.
Increased Efficiencv: "Increasing the size of the facility will allow the hospital to utilize
technology that enables Hospital staff to perform functions more efficiently. Therefore an
increase in space does not necessarily increase the number of employees. Also, the Hospital
currently has excess staffing capacity that will allow for considerable volume growth, related
to increased community demand and physical capacity, without any impact on staffing levels
or employees generated."
The Applicant is proposing to develop approximately 12,401 sq. ft. of net leasable medical office
space and using a Mixed Use zone district employee generation rate of 3.7 employees per 1,000
sq. ft. of net leasable azea developed.
The Commission must also consider the Applicant's request to receive credit for past employee
housing efforts. The Applicant is requesting credit for the housing at Mountain Oaks, the
Beaumont and the single family house on Pazcel C that the hospital either voluntazily built or
purchased. When the hospital was originally developed no employee mitigation was required.
The Applicant is proposing subtracting from the credit any subsequent employee generation
mitigation that was required for changes to the existing facility. As noted in the memo from Ms.
Cindy Christensen of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority (Exhibit B), a more thorough review
of the existing credits will need to be undertaken to clarify how many credits the existing
buildings generate, how many have credits have actually been used by the hospital and what is
left.
Staff Comments and Recommendation: With the proposed expansion and remodel of the hospital,
important threshold questions that affect the context of final review should be resolved so that
clear direction can be provided to the Applicant on how employee generation and potential
housing mitigation should be handled. The Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to fact
fnd' with regard to the issues and provide policy recommendations to the City Council on how
mitigation should be undertaken. As an essential public facility, "each operation shall be
analyzed for its unique employee needs. "
The Commission will need to make a recommendation on how to handle employee housing
credits generated from the voluntary development or purchase of Mountain Oaks, the Beaumont,
and the single family residence. When originally developed, no housing mitigation was required
of the hospital. The district has been pro-active in developing or purchasing facilities that house
their current employees. The question before the Commission is how to account for it. Should the
existing housing count as a credit towards future development, a partial credit, or no credit? In
Page 4 of 7
P5
planning for the future, how is the hospital district anticipating meeting its housing needs in an
environment where land prices and market rate housing is unaffordable?
With regard to the hospital expansion, the Applicant should inform the Commission as to the
number of staff they need to operate the hospital for a year once all phases of development are
complete based upon the size of the facility they are proposing. The Applicant should also
discuss with the Commission what they see occurring, staffing wise, over time. The Applicant
notes that some of the expansion is for decompression purposes, to right-size the facility. Will
compression occur again over time? How does the Applicant anticipate the hospital will or will
not expand over time?
At the hearing or during the course of the review, Staff would like the Applicant to provide
additional information on the medical office space so that the Commission can better understand
the need for office space on the campus, potential impacts of locating the offices on the campus
and long-term expectations of the developed space. Specifically, Staff would like to Applicant to
address what type of patient generation they expect to result in the offices being located on the
campus in light of current trafftc issues at the roundabout, how many offices do they expect to
create on the campus and why 17,000 sq. ft. is the desired gross square footage for the office
space.
Staff Recommendation:
• Em~oyee Housing Credits. Staff recommends that the hospital be provided a credit for the
existing affordable housing that was developed and not associated with any prior
expansion/redevelopment of the hospital. Additional research will need to be undertaken to
clarify how many employees the existing affordable housing accommodates, how much of the
credit has been used for past expansions/redevelopment, and what is the resulting credit.
• Medical Once Space. Staff recommends that the Applicant audit other medical off ce spaces
in town to provide a realistic number of employees generated for a medical office rather than
using an employee generation rate codif ed by the land use code.
• Accounting. An accounting method needs to be developed to track whether the assumptions
of employee generation are correct over time such as an audit requirement. Staff recommends
after each phase of development is complete that acheck-in with the city is required to verify
that employee generation assumptions are correct.
Pazcel C can be roughly divided into two parts: the developed hospital on the south portion of the
pazcel and the open, more natural portion of the parcel to the north. The existing meadow is
proposed to be improved upon to accommodate the need for additional drainage. Drainage is
proposed to be carried from the south, through a series of inlets, to the north into a series of
detention basins. The basins will be dry except when detaining storm water.
With regazd to trail location, two trails currently exist on the site: the Nordic trail and the pedestrian
trail that loosely parallels Castle Creek Road. As briefly mentioned in the July 15` hearing, some
realignment of the Nordic trail is necessary and the Applicant is working with the Pazks Department
and neighbors to finalize an appropriate realignment. Changes to the pedestrian trail are also
proposed. The Applicant is suggesting to realign and re-grade the trail at two vehiculaz entry points
Page 5 of 7
P6
on the site and to reconstruct a section of trail between Whitcomb Terrace and the detention basins
to accommodate equipment access to the basins for snow management and for regulaz maintenance.
It is noted in the application (Exhibit A) submitted by the Applicant (exhibit G of their appendix)
that snow removal can be accommodated primarily in the middle storage basin. A new trail is
proposed to loop within the proposed drainage basins. The proposed detention basins aze illustrated
in Figure 2, below.
Staff Comments and Recommendation: As noted by the City Engineer and echoed by the Parks
Department, use of the detention ponds for snow storage is of concern. Engineering recommends
that adequate snow storage be provided within the proposed parking areas. The Parks
Department has concerns of vehicular use on the pedestrian trail. The department does not allow
vehicles on trails, with the exception of city maintenance and emergency vehicles. These
comments are attached in Exhibits C and D.
Staff Recommendation:
• Snow Storaee/Drainage. Based upon the concerns voiced by both the City Engineer and Parks
Department, staff does not recommend allowing the drainage ponds to be used for snow storage
and recommends that the Commission require an alternative solution to snow storage. Further,
a comprehensive drainage report will be required at final review.
Page 6 of 7
P7
Nordic Trail. Staff recommends that the Nordic trail alignment needs to approved by the Parks
Department and address the concerns of neighbors at final review.
Noise Analysis:
The Applicant is proposing to relocate the heli-pad onto part of the expanded hospital's roof in
Phase III of the proposed redevelopment. Currently, the pad is located at grade near two
entrances of the hospital on the south side of the pazcel. The relocated heli-pad will be on the
southwest portion of the property. As noted by the Applicant, the noise analysis notes "that a
relocation of the heli-pad will not cause a difference in the decibel levels when a flight for life
helicopter is taking off."
Staff Comments and Recommendation: The relocation of the heli pad to the roof will create a
safer landing environment for the helicopter, minimizing potential conflicts with vehicles and
people. Staff recommends that the new roof location be approved by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission continue the public heazing to August 5, 2008.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing on the AVH Master Facilities plan to
August 5, 2008."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXt-iiB~T A -Application (provided previously to the Commission)
EXHIBIT B - APCHA Referral dated July 3, 2008
ExHIBIT C - Engineering Referral dated May 17, 2008
ExHIBIT D - Pazks Department Referral
Page 7 of 7
P8
~~~~ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Phelan
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: July 3, 2008
RE: ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW
Pazcel ID No. 2735-123-07-801
ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for redevelopment of the Hospital property and for
approval of use of credits from existing affordable housing.
BACKGROUND: The applicant has divided the development into four phases to be constructed in
sequence.
Phase I was completed and included the expansion of Obstetrics on the north side of the building.
The plan called for approximately 5,700 new square feet and 4,252 squaze feet of renovated space
for a total of 9,973 square feet.
Phase II proposes atwo-story addition and will include the following:
Basement Second loading and receiving azea
Food service receiving
1~ Floor 27 new patient care rooms
Nucleaz medicine
Relocated food service, including dining azea
Reception azea
Central plant additions
Gift shop
Expanded intensive care unit (four rooms)
Cardiopulmonary
Same day surgery
2"a Floor Cazdiac rehabilitation and physical therapy space
Specialty clinics
Oncology
Administration offices
Medical office space
Also 3-level pazking gazage for a total of 234 spaces
P9
Partial construction of a loop service road
Water line expansion
Access improvements to the Senior Center and improvements on Castle Creek
Meadow, wetland and drainage improvements
Realignment of the Nordic Trail
Partial reconfiguration of the existing visitor pazking lot
Phase III is on the west side of the existing building and includes atwo-story addition.
IS` Floor Emergency department expansion
Imaging department expansion
Expanded surgical suite
Central plant upgrades
2"a Floor Medical office space
Patient family services with overnight accommodations for families
Roof heli-pad with a vestibule and elevator
Phase IV will include a new primary entrance and foyer added at the south side. The patient drop-
off azea will be revised to allow for direct RFTA bus service. Upgrades of the Castle Creek Road
and Doolittle Drive aze to be included in this phase. Also included is the relocation or expansion of
the medical foundation office and the creation of a chapellmeditation room.
The total project is broken down in phases below:
Phase I Renovated New Total
Basement 0 0 0
Level One 4,252 5,721 9,973
Level Two 0 0 0
Med. Office 0 0 0
Total 4,252 5,721 9,973
2
P10
Phase II Renovated New Total
Basement 168 10,074 10,242
Level One 22,728 18,630 41,358
Level Two 0 21,884 21,884
Med. Office 0 9,035 9,035
Total 22,896 59,623 82,519
Phase III Renovated New Total
Basement 0 10,671 10,671
Level One 25,149 32,715 57,864
Level Two 0 11,043 11,043
Med. Office 0 8,681 8,681
Total - 25,149 63,110 88,259
pie n7 Renovated New Total
Basement 3,509 3,813 7,322
Level One 15,574 6,128 21,702
Level Two 0 0 0
Med. Office 0 0 0
Total 19,083 9,941 29,024
The following charts outline the total gross square footage for renovation and expansion:
Renovation:
Below Grade
Above Grade
Medical Office
Total
Renovated
3,677
67,703
0
71,384
3
P11
Expansion:
Existing Facility New Total @ buildout
Below Grade 5,000 24,558 29,558
Above Grade .70,700 96,121 166,821
MedicalOffice 0 17,716 17,716
Subtotal 75,700 138,395 214,095
Parking Garage* 76,000 76,000
Total 75,700 214,395 290,095
*The pazking gazage is to contain 234 spaces.
Credits: The Hospital has been proactive in providing housing for their employees. Mountain
Oaks contains 21 rental units and was built and is managed by the Hospital. The Hospital built a
single-family home for the administrator of the Hospital and now owns what was the Beaumont
Lodge that provides 25 rental dwelling units for employees. All of the units the Hospital manages
were voluntarily built or existed and not required for employee housing mitigation. Credits have
also been used in the past for expansion of certain azeas of the Hospital. Below is a table showing
what the applicant believes is available. Housing Staff has a document that shows the balance of
credits differently than provided by the applicant.
Current Housing for Mitigation # of Employees
Purposes Housed Less Total
Expansions Credits
Mountain Oaks 37.25
CEO Housing 3.50
Beaumont (11 hotel rooms) 29.50
Subtotal 70.25
ER, Waiting Room, Lab (pre-1997) 2.0
Basement Con£ Fac. (pre-2000) 2.6
Subtotal 4.6
Total Available 65
A memo provided by Ted Guy in August 2000 stated that the prior expansions of the Hospital in
1996 and 1998 generated 23.85 employees. Mountain Oaks houses 37.25, therefore, there is a
credit of 13.4 FTE's. The Conference Facility generated 2.6 employees, thereby taking the credits
down to 10.8. Of record, Staff shows that the Beaumont has 10 rooms broken down to mitigate for
18.5 FTE's, which would provide a total of 32.8 credits for use by the applicant. Staff met with
4
P12
Leslie Lamont, the planner for the application, to review the balance of the credits. It has been
established that some of the use of the credits noted in Ted Guy's memo was for development that
was not done; therefore, the credits noted aze close to what is available. The credits for the
Beaumont, however, are high as all of the units were counted as studios and some aze dorm rooms.
The employee generation rate for a dorm unit is less than for a studio. Staff will verify what is
available prior to final.
MITIGATION:
The Hospital is defined as an "Essential Public Facility. Section 26.104.100 states, "A facility
which serves an essential public purpose is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and
serves the needs of the community." This section also states that a proposal done for an Essential
Public Facility shall be evaluated for actual employee generation. The applicant believes that there
are factors that should be considered in evaluating the employee generation rate for mitigation
purposes. They aze as follows:
• Volume -The number of FTE's changes from low seasons (spring and fall) to high seasons
(winter and summer).
• Support Services -There are administrative needs supporting basic functions of the
Hospital that aze not volume/census driven and will not fluctuate during different seasons.
• Decompression -Many Hospital employees' function within confined spaces. The
renovation and expansion will provide more room to perform the duties for some of the
existing number of employees.
Increased Efficiency -Increasing the facility will allow the Hospital to take advantage of
technology that will enable the Hospital staff to perform functions more efficiently;
therefore, some of the increased space will not increase the number of employees.
The medical office space is proposed to add approximately 17,716 gross squaze feet of leasable
space for local physicians. The applicant used the employee generation rate associated with mixed-
use projects. According to the applicant's calculations, the medial office space will generate 46
FTE's, calculated as follows:
12,401* square feet X 3.7 _ 1,000 = 45.88 FTE's
(* 17,716 gross square feet was reduced by 30% for corridors, etc.)
Staff believes the employee generation rate that should be used is Public, which generates 3.9
FTE's per 1,000 squaze feet. Staff's calculation for the medical office space alone, utilizing the
same squaze footage of 12,401, calculates out as follows:
12,401 squaze feet X 3.9 _ 1,000 = 48.36 FTE's
5
P13
This is just one area of the total expansion of the hospital.
were used to calculate the mitigation requirement at
mitigated.
If the total new expansion square footage
100%, 539.74 FTE's would need to be
138,395 total square feet X 3.9 =1,000 = 539.74 FTE's
Obviously, this figure is unreasonable. The Hospital is requesting that the City accept the housing
credits as part of their mitigation requirement and that Staff will work with them to come up with a
reasonable method to calculate the actual employee generation number.. This can be done in the
form of an employee audit after one-yeaz completion of each phase of the project; however, it is
Staffs experience that the current employee generation figures are not being provided to Housing
prior to construction and that the audits aze being forgotten in other cases.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the application at their regulaz meeting held July 2,
2008 and recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. Credits shall be allowed to be used as part of the employee mitigation requirement.
2. Credits will need to be verified and approved by Staff prior to final application.
3. Up-to-date employee numbers shall be provided to APCHA prior to final application.
4. Staff will meet with the applicant's representatives, prior to final application, as to the
methodology that will be used in calculating the employee generation rate for this Master
Facilities Plan.
P14
~~~~T ~
Jennifer Phelan
From: Tricia Aragon
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Jennifer Phelan; Trisha Nelson
Subject: AVH DRC Comments
Attachments: Framework for Establishing Quality of Service.doc; Site Transportation Impact Study Report
outline.doc
Jennifer:
I am unable to provide a complete review of the land use application for AVH. Below is a list of the information needed to
complete my review:
o The traffic impact analysis (TIA) needs to be completed according to the attached outline. A quality of service
evaluation in the TIA will be performed according to the attached outline.
o A comprehensive drainage report must be completed according to the engineering department's design criteria.
This analysis must account for all off site basins and must consider the downstream facilities. It must also identify
whether or not these facilities are sized appropriately. The report must also include the analysis of drainage along
Castle Creek Road.
o The plan proposes raising Castle Creek road. The validity of this proposal still needs to be provided.
The following are general comments:
o Using the detention pond is not an appropriate use for snow storage. Adequate now storage areas within the
parking areas must be provided for. Additionally the use of the trail for snow removal operations is not the
appropriate use of this trail.
o The phasing drawings currently show all phases on one drawing. This drawing needs to be broken out into
multiple drawings that show existing conditions and one phase per sheet.
o Currently the TIA recommends improvements to the entrance at Doolittle Drive. These improvements must be
shown on the drawings. The improvements recommended in the TIA are the hospital's responsibility (I need verify
with John Worcester).
o There is a 100 foot pedestrian, biking and road easement on the property. There is a question as to whether or
not any hospital improvements can occur in this easement.
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 429-2785
Fax: (970) 920-5081
P15
Framework for Establishing Quality of Service
Mode Quali of Service Considerations
Pedestrian Presence, connectivity and width of sidewalks
Lateral separation from traffic
Barriers and buffers from traffic
Crossing opportunities on arterial and collector roadways
Delays at intersections
Driveway frequency and volumes
Visitor experience (nationaUstate/]ocal pazks or at other types
of recreational or entertainment venues
Bicycle Presence of a dedicated facility
Network Connectivity
Number and width of travel lanes adjacent to the route
Volume and speed of traffic
Percentage of trucks and busses encountered
Pavement condition
Transit Frequency and hours of service
Reliability of service
Passenger loads
Travel times
Automobile Corridor travel times
Intersection delay
Queue length
P16
Site Transportation Impact Analysis -sample table of contents
I. Introduction and Summary
a. Purpose of report and study objectives
b. Executive summary
1. Site location and study azea
2. Development description
3. Types of studies undertaken (impacts, signal warrant, site access, etc.)
4. Principal findings
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
II. Proposed Development (Site and Neazby)
A. Off-site (or background) development
B. Description of on site development
1. Land use and intensity
2. Location
3. Site plan
4. Zoning
5. Phasing and timing
III. Existing Area Conditions
A. Study area
1. Area of influence
2. Area of significant transportation impact (may also be part of Chapter N)
a, site access points and major intersections (signalized and unsignalized) adjacent
to the site. Depending on the development size ,the first signalized intersection
on each street serving the site could also be analyzed, if it is within a specific
distance of the site as determined by the engineering dept)
B. Study area land use
1. Existing land-uses
2. Existing caning
3. Anticipated future development
C. Site accessibility
]. Area roadway system
a. Existing
b. Future
2. Traffic volumes and conditions
3. Transit service
4. Pedestrians and bicyclists
5. Existing relevant transportation system management programs
6. Other, asapplicable - (ie crash analysis for 3 yrs)
N. Projected Traffic
A. Site traffic (each horizon year)
1. Trip generation
2. Trip distribution
3. Modal split
4. Trip assignment
P17
B. Through traffic (each horizon year)
1. Method of projection
2. Non-site traffic for anticipated development in study area
a. Method of projections
b. Trip generation
c. Trip distribution
d. Modal split
e. Trip assignment
3. Through traffic
4. Estimated volumes
C. Total traffic (each horizon year)
V. Transportation Analysis
A. Site access
B. Capacity and level of services
1. Existing conditions
2. Background conditions (existing plus growth) (for each horizon year)
3. Total traffic (existing, background, and site) (for each horizon year)
C. Transportation safety
D. Traffic signals
E. Site circulation and parking
VI. Improvement Analysis
A. Improvements to accommodate existing traffic
B. Improvements to accommodate background traffic
C. Additional improvements to accommodate site traffic
D. Alternative improvements
E. Status of improvements already funded, programmed, or planned
F. Evaluation
VII. Findings
A. Site accessibility
B. Transportation impacts
C. Need for any improvements
D. Compliance with applicable local codes
VII. Recommendations
A. Site access/circulation plan
B. Roadway improvements
1. On-site
2. Off-site
3. Phasing, if appropriate
C. Transit, pedestrians and bicycles
D. Transportation system management/transportation demand mngmt actions
1. Off-site
2. On-site operational
3. On-site
E. Other
p{, Conclusions
Pia ~X~I~1~C ~
Aspen Valley Hospital
Parks Department Requirements:
An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access
infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120.
Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The overall mitigation
for removals during this phase of improvements already has a carry over from the
construction of the Obstetrics Unit.
2. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual
tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester
or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are 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. There should be a location and standazd for this fencing denoted on
the plan.
The Parks Department is concerned about the lack of spacing for several proposed
Blue Spruce Trees. New locations and planting plan should be designed to reflect
appropriate spacing away from the new structure, existing vegetation and each
individual plant species. Pazks Department can provide red lines to the applicants
landscape architects.
4. During the construction of the Obstetrics Unit a small portion of the pedestrian
trail, located at the hospitals current entrance, was realigned and partially
landscaped. This area needs to be completed with the addition of imgation,
seeding and other vegetation if applicable. The applicant should design and
present this improvement for approval by the Pazks Department.
5. Once a final alignment for the Nordic trail is determined and approved by the
Parks Department the alignment and use shall be memorialized with a trail
easement granted by the Hospital to the City of Aspen for use as a trail easement.
This should be identified (called out) on the site plans and in a signed easement
document. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on
acquiring an easement.
6. The proposed Nordic alignment is causing concern to one of the neighbors
adjacent to the proposed alignment. The applicant has to work through the
neighbors concerns and present the proposed solutions to the pazks Department.
Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on addressing these
concerns.
7. The current proposed Nordic alignment does not show a workable connection to
the existing trail connection located across Castle Creek Road. The connections
and turns have to be able to allow for the operation of a snow cat based on the
P19
machines specifications and capabilities to properly groom, this includes the
overall skiing experience. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is
contingent on creating a workable connection and trail alignment.
8. It is critical that that the construction of the detention ponds and the trail
alignments are completed prior to the start of the winter seasons. Pazks will not
allow any construction activities of any kind to take place within the Nordic
alignments, or azound the Nordic alignments. Construction impacts to these azeas
will greatly reduce the skiers experience and more importantly viability of the
snowpack.
9. It was discussed that the 2"d detention pond would be used for the storage of snow
removed from the property. This is not acceptable to Pazks and Nordic. Traffic
on the Nordic trail is limited to Nordic users and grooming equipment only. Any
other users will greatly. decrease the skiing experience and decrease the viability
of the snow conditions. Re-alignment of the Nordic trail from the proposed
alignment might help address the need to store snow. As is proposed Pazks can
not support the proposed project until this potential conflict is addressed.
10. Parks and Trails is also concerned with the proposed changes to the.intersection
of the Hospital and Doolittle Drive. The proposed changes will increase the
number of trail crossing conflicting with traffic and change the alignment of the
trail crossing castle creek road from Mazolt to the bus stop. These aze important
concerns to workout and make sure it does not create dangerous situations
between pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant should utilize the expertise of a
traffic engineer to review the plans and determine the best way to intermix the
uses.