HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20090217AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, February 17, 2009
4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing
SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 312 S. Hunter - Commercial Design Review
B. 1490 Ute Avenue, Jewish Community Center, SPA
Amendment (continued from 1/20)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER:_~
~a
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Errin Evans, Current Planner
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo>~
January 21", 2009
February 17`n, 2009
312 S Hunter Street -Commercial Design Review
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
James Perse Enterprises Inc / Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Revolution Partners Commission approve the application for Commercial
Design review as submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Linda Wong, Marmol Radziner
and Associates
LOCATION:
Civic Address - 312 S Hunter
Street; Legal Description - Pazt of
Lots K, L and M, Block 100, City
and Townsite of Aspen; Pazcel
Identification Number - 2737-
182-25-023
CURRENT ZONING & USE
The existing building is located in
the Commercial (C-1) zone
district. Currently there is a retail
use on site.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
continue the retail use. They plan
to operate a retail clothing store
and would like to give the fagade
and the wall facing the alley a
remodel.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission to approve to Council the application for
Commercial Design Review for the facade remodel of the
existing building located on 312 S Hunter Street.
P1
BACKGROUND: The existing building located at 312 S Hunter Street is currently occupied by
Polar Revolution, a retail sports and clothing store. James Perse Enterprises, Inc would like to
move into that location and remodel the faFade to allow better access to the front entrance.
Currently, the building is accessible only by stairs and the remodel of the faFade includes a ramp
to bring the building up to International Building Code (IBC) compliance.
To construct a remodel to the faFade, applicants shall meet the policies of the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. In this application, the
applicant proposes to remodel an existing building that does not currently meet the design
guidelines. In their proposal, they have not proposed to amend the non-conformity in design but
have created an accessible entrance. To meet the guidelines, the applicant would need to do a
more extensive remodel than the one that they have proposed.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Commercial Design Review -Commercial Chazacter Area pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.412.050. An application for Commercial Design Review requires the
Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with
conditions or disapprove of the Commercial Design Review.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
This application is required to undergo review under Commercial Design Review because it is
located in the Commercial Chazacter Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives and Guidelines. It can be difficult for an applicant to incorporate all of the
guidelines and objectives when working with a building with existing non-conforming
conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission should apply the guidelines as appropriate.
The Code states that "Although these standazds and guidelines are relatively comprehensive,
there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives
might be identified. In this case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still
met, albeit through alternative means."
Existine Conditions
The entrance to the existing building consists of a set of five (5) stairs and does not meet the IBC
standards for accessibility. The building also does not conform to some of the design policies
adopted in the design guidelines such as not having an airlock entry or having an entry that is
elevated. Both of these existing conditions contradict guidelines in the First Floor Chazacter
section of the Design Objectives and Guidelines document that state that storefronts should be
level with the sidewalk and use an airlock.
The Proposed Remodel
In the applicant's proposed remodel, a new exterior finish along the primary street faFade and the
alley faFade will be installed. This change will entail removal of the existing bay windows and
the stairway. The Applicant intends to include an air curtain as an alternative to an airlock. New
lazge windows will replace the bay windows and a ramp will run the length of the street frontage
P2
on the building. The exterior finish consists of tongue and groove, vertical wood siding along
the alley and concrete with a stucco finish along the street fagade.
When the application was first submitted (Exhibit C), the ramp was enclosed with a solid
concrete wall. Staff felt that this created a visual Hamer between the building and the sidewalk
and detracted from the fagade. The applicant has since altered the application, as shown in Figure
1 and Exhibit D, so that the ramp is now bordered by an open railing and reduced the overall rise
of the ramp. As a result the concrete is now 30 inches high next to the sidewalk, reduced from
72 inches. This will provide more transpazency between the storefront and the sidewalk than the
original proposal.
Figure 1: Proposed Elevations
Although Staff would prefer that the ramp be located inside the building so that the front fagade
of the building is adjacent to the sidewalk and property line, it is recognized that this is an
existing building that is being renovated and that the store will be accessible. The Code states
that "The purpose of the Commercial Design Review is to preserve and foster proper commercial
scale and chazacter, and to ensure that Aspen's commercial and streetscapes are public spaces
conducive to walking." The applicant has indicated that relocating the ramp inside the building
is a lazger project than intended for the~scope of this remodel.
P3
MARMOL RADZINEP
,~~ AND h55OC1ATE5 All
Staff Comments
The proposed remodel will create an improvement to the existing building. The proposed
materials of wood create diversity along that street frontage and complement the surrounding
brick structures. Currently, the building is only accessible by a set of five stairs. The applicant
intends to add a ramp and make the building comply with IBC standazds. The location of the
ramp however, does not comply with the policies of the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic
District Objectives and Guidelines. The First Floor Chazacter section in the Commercial
Chazacter area states that a building should avoid the use of elevated or sunken floors; however,
the finished floor of the building is quite a bit above grade and the Applicant has worked hazd to
achieve the best possible design with the site constraints. The following guidelines indicate
where the remodel does or does not meet certain guidelines.
Guidelines that aze met:
Guideline 1.1 Orient a primary entrance towazd the street.
Guideline 1.20 Building facades shall be pazallel to the facing street(s) and primary
entrances shall be oriented towazd the street.
Guideline 1.40 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior
street fagade azea when facing a principal(s) street.
Guidelines that aze not met:
Guideline 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge
Guideline 1.38 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level (all entrances shall be
ADA compliant)
Guideline 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for Commercial Design Review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
approval for the request, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve
the request for the commercial design review for 312 S. Hunter Street."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Staff findings
Exhibit B - Application dated December 15, 2008
Exhibit C - Addendum to the application dated January 5, 2009
Exhibit D - Addendum to the application dated January 29, 2009
P4
Resolution No. _
(SERIES OF 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSED OF
REMODELLING THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 312 SOUTH
HUNTER STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND
LEGALLY KNOWN AS PART OF LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 100,
TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel Identification Number - 2737-182-25-023
WHEREAS, the Community Development Departrnent received an application
from Mannol Radziner and Associates, 12201 Nebraska Avenue, Los Angeles, CA,
90025, on behalf of James Perse Enterprises, 3311 East Slauson Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA with permission from the building owner, Revolution Partners, LLC of Box 1247,
Aspen, Colorado, requesting Commercial Design Review approval to remodel the fagade
of the building located at 312 South Hunter Street; and,
WHEREAS, as part of land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial
Design Review approval for the proposed remodel of the facade of the building; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standazds,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application as
presented because it does,not meet the policies of the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic
District Objectives and Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application
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, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the
approval and recommendation of approval of the land use requests is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval of the
Commercial Design Review request; 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 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
P5
Section 1•
Pwsuant to the procedwes and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Commercial Design
Review to permit the remodel of the facade of the building located at 312 S Hunter
Street.
Section 2•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pwsuant 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 3•
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 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
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15's
day of August, 2006 by a _ to _ vote.
Attest:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
LJ Erspamer, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM
James R. True, Special Counsel
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Approved West and North Elevations
P6
EXHIBIT A
An application for submitted for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the following
criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standazds provides a more appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particulaz standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not
required but maybe used to justify a deviation from the standazds.
Staff Comments
Section 26.412.060 -Commercial Design Standards
Public Amenity Space -This does not apply in this case. The applicant intends to update
and remodel the facade of the building only. No new public amenity space is required at
this time. The applicant will be required to upgrade the curb, gutter and sidewalk to City
Engineering standards. This is required regardless of this application. The property
owner was sent a notifcation regarding updates to the public right-of--way prior to the
submittal of this application. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met.
Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision -This does not apply in this case. The
existing services are adequate and will not be altered as a result of this application. The
applicant intends to improve the visual impacts of the mechanical roof equipment. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements. of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be
required to comply with this Section.
Staff Comments
Please see the section above. This building is not being converted to a commercial use.
It is currently a commercial use.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standazds and guidelines
that aTe to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall
determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standazds and guidelines.
Although these criteria, standads and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may
be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives
might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the
guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
P7
Staff Comments
Guidelines that aze met:
Guideline 1.1 Orient a primary entrance towazd the street.
Guideline 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and
primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street.
Guideline 1.40 Window azea along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of
exterior street fagade azea when facing a principal(s) street.
The storefront design incorporates large windows and depth. The ftrst joor meets the
objectives for street level design with regard to height and transparency. The height of
the ramp enclosure has been reduced from 72 inches to 30" using the railing creating
more transparency.
Guidelines that aze not met:
Guideline 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge
Guideline 1.38 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level (al] entrances
shall be ADA compliant)
Guideline 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
The applicant intends to install an airlock curtain in the entry way to meet the airlock
requirements. The curtain consists of a mechanical device that blows hot air straight
down in the doorway. The proposal does not meet the objectives for level retail entrances
in terms of height The storefront design incorporates large windows and depth.
P8
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Duector
FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner )
RE: Aspen Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch -Consolidated SPA
Amendment, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Review, Special
Review for Parking, Stream Margin and 8040 Greenline Reviews -Resolution
No._, Series of 2009
MEMO DATE: February 12, 2009
MEETING DATE: February 17, 2009
SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the January 20`" hearing and addresses
questions about the proposal at the last meeting. It contains the following:
• A summary of the questions raised from the last meeting with additional
information provided by Staff and the Applicant;
• Staff recommendation & motion; and
Also attached is the original staff report of January 20, 2008. This memo provides the
commission with the development proposal, background and dimensional standards
associated with the development so that you have this information at hand.
SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS:
At the January 20th public hearing on The Jewish Community Center, the Planning and Zoning
..Commission raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail prior to
moving on the application.
Below, the concerns voiced during the first meeting aze itemized issue by issue.
1) Provide the minutes from the 2007 determination from the City Council (May 14, 2007
hearing) regarding the de-annexation request and denial.
• Minutes are provided as Exhibit J. A motion to approve the de-annexation of the
Silver Lining Ranch from the City of Aspen did not carry at the May 14, 2007
hearing.
2) Who funds the Cross Town shuttle? Are there `vouchers' for the off-season? What is
the Aspen Club's role in the Cross Town shuttle?
• According to the Transportation Department, the Aspen Club has, in the past,
contributed to the Cross Town shuttle service monetarily. Please see the attached
1
P9
memos and letters associated with the Aspen Club contribution to the Cross Town
Shuttle -Exhibit K
• The Cross Town shuttle is a seasonal service, with winter and summer service only.
In the off-season, adial-a-ride service is provided through High Mountain Taxi,
currently funded by the City of Aspen.
• From 1999 through 2003, the Aspen Club contributed to the funding of the Cross
Town shuttle.
• In December, 2003 after review from the City of Aspen Transportation Department,
the Aspen Club initiated its own shuttle service, and was allowed to stop the
contribution to the Cross Town shuttle.
3) Is the Fire Department okay with the access to the existing hydrant and location of the
new path?
• The Fire Mazshall has reviewed the proposed site plan (the most current version) and
has determined that the proposal is in compliance, and that the proposed condition
azound the existing hydrant is acceptable (per phone conversation).
4) Are (private) gates allowed in the City of Aspen?
• Gated entrances to private property aze not prohibited in the City of Aspen provided
that they meet the requirements of the Aspen Fire Department. The existing gate on
the property has been reviewed by the Fire Mazshal and is in compliance.
5) Attach a copy of the avalanche study provided for the original approvals.
Previous approvals allowed for development on the property. All structures are out
of the avalanche zones. The existing driveway is within the red and blue avalanche
zones, and was determined to be acceptable. Staff does not find the addition of a
pedestrian bikeway path adjacent to the driveway for additional access to the
property alters the previous determination allowing for development within an
avalanche zone. Attempts to locate the previous avalanche study from the Silver
Lining approvals has been unsuccessful, however, a verbal confirmation of the study
has been obtained by the applicant's representative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application for Special
Review for Pazking, 8040 Greenline Review, and Stream Mazgin Review: Staff recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the consolidated Specially Planned Area
(SPA) Amendment and GMQS review for an essential public facility to convert the Silver Lining
Ranch into a Jewish Community Center, for the addition of a small cabin to be used for affordable
housing, driveway reconfiguration and associated landscaping.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFII2MITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution ~ Series of 2009, approving Special Review for Pazking, 8040
Greenline Review, and Stream Mazgin Review, and recommending approval of the consolidated
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and GMQS review for an essential public facility."
2
P10
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Specially Planned Area (SPA) -review standards and Staff findings (provided in the
1 /20/09 packet)
EXHIBIT B -GMQS -review criteria and Staff findings (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
EXHIBIT C -Special Review -standards and Staff findings (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
ExxIBIT D - 8040 Greenline Review -standards and Staff findings (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
EXHIBIT E -Stream Margin Review -standards and Staff findings (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
ExtIIB~T F - DRC Comments (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
EXHIBIT G -Application (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
EXHIBIT H -Supplemental Drawing -Site Plan (provided in the 1/20/09 packet)
ExxIBIT I -Letters from neighbors (handed out at the 1 /20/09 hearing)
EXHIBIT J -Minutes from May 14, 2007 City Council, de-annexation of Silver Lining Ranch
(provided in new packet for the February 17, 2009 continuation)
EXHIBIT K -Cross Town /Aspen Club shuttle documents (provided in new packet for the
February 17, 2009 continuation)
EXHIBIT L -Avalanche Study (provided in new packet - if obtained)
l+or reierence -the memorandum from the
APPLICANT /OWNER:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services
LOCATION:
Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the
Silver Lining Ranch - 1490 Ute Avenue -Parcel
ID # 2737-184-06-805
CURRENT ZONING:
Academic (A) zone district with a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay, and Conservation
(C) with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests consolidated SPA
approval to allow conversion into a Jewish
Community Center with an addition of an
affordable housing cabin. The applicants are
requesting a recommendation of approval for a
SPA Amendment, Growth Management Quota
1v1L' L~ 111 li 1JA 1 r,: January LU, LUUy
!~ ~i~; ~ #
l ~ a 1J;~
~~~1 , ~ : K~ ~ r
It is j ~^~,~ ,.
t' ^•.~`!
. L A~ ~ ,p:
~ ,
~ ~•
~ } i ,
.;, rc'
<'~', ~
,~ ~' .
a
Photo: The Silver Lining Ranch -Academic zone district
shown at left /Conservation zone district shown at right -
separated by the high water line (top of slope not shown)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
3
P11
System (GMQS) Review, and approval of a Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Review for Parking, 8040 Greenline approve the application converting the Silver Lining Ranch
Review, and Stream Margin Review at this time. into a Jewish Community Center (primarily internal changes)
and for the addition of a small cabin to be used for affordable
housing, with conditions.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Planning and Zoning
Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council for the following land use
approvals: Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Review for an
Essential Public Facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission has final authority for the
following land use approvals: Off-Street Parking, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin reviews.
A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives
outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone
district's land uses and dimensional requirements for the benefit of the public. The parcel
currently exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development
must be amended to allow the additional development.
The review of a Specially Planned Area is (in most cases) a four step review process. Step one is
conceptual review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, step two is conceptual review
before City Council, step three is final review before P&Z, and step four is final review before
Council. The applicant has requested a consolidated review for the SPA (allowing atwo-step
review before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then review by City Council). The
Community Development Director has granted the consolidated application due to the minor
interior and site changes, and to allow for the one step development review for a small affordable
housing cabin. The land use reviews required as part of this application are:
• Specially Planned Area (SPA) -Consolidated Review (Section 26.440.040 B) to allow
for the conversion to a Jewish Community Center. Upon recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the application shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the City Council.
• A Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facilit~(Section 26.470.090.4(a),
The Community Development Director has determined the Jewish Community Center to
be an Essential Public Facility, according to the definition. The Planning and Zoning
Commission's authority is to determine employee generation, pursuant to 26.470.100
A(1). Upon a recommendation by the Community Development Director, City Council
shall determine the rate of affordable housing mitigation.
• Off-Street Parking -Special Review (Section 26.515.040 A) The Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a Special Review
application for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements.
• 8040 Greenline Review (Section 26.435.030 C) The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development
application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA).
4
P12
• Stream Mazain Review (Section 26.435.040 C) A Stream Mazgin Review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission is required if "the expansion, remodeling, or reconstruction will
be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development "The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove
a development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA).
BACKGROUND:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen recently entered into a contract to purchase Lot 5,
Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue. The
Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (Planned Unit Development) was approved by the Boazd of
County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution 94-233. In 1996, the owner of Lot 5, the Little Staz
Foundation, submitted a petition to annex the property to the City of Aspen which was determined to
be compliant through Resolution 68, Series of 1996, and Resolution 3, Series of 1997. The Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional use approval, special review to establish
pazking requirements, 8040 greenline review, and stream margin review. Resolution 97-04 also
recommended that the City Council zone the property Academic/ConservationlSPA and approve the
SPA and GMQS exemption. The Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 10, Series of 1997 annexing
the property to the City of Aspen, and Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, zoning Lot 5
Academic/Conservation/SPA, approving the Conceptual/Final SPA plan and granting a GMQS
exemption for an essential public facility. The approvals allowed for the operation of a non-profit kids
camp for children with cancer, directed by Andrea Jaeger, commonly known as the Silver Lining
Ranch.
The Little Staz Foundation operated programs at the Silver Lining Ranch from 1999, when the
building was completed, until 2006. The property has had limited occupancy since that time, and the
Foundation has been trying to sell for the last two yeazs so that the proceeds can be used to fund its
charitable mission. In 2007, the Founda5on applied to the City of Aspen to either de-annex
(disconnect) or rezone to its former single-family residential use. The City Council denied both
requests, viewing the non-profit/institutional use of the property as an important community value, and
was not willing to sacrifice the use to convert to a single family residence and miss an opportunity of
providing a place for a community facility.
vn~vrnrrcr.v_evvunvr.ri r-7MRNRrnNAi, RF,OiliREMENTS /PROPOSED CHANGES
Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan
Dimension Proposed
Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 6 acres no change
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit no change
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet no change
Minimum Front Yazd Setback 30 feet no change
Minimum Side Yazd Setback 20 feet Amend building
envelope to
accommodate
revised arkin
Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 20 feet no change
Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid- no change
5 P13
point of the roof on all sides o
the building, except for the
east-facing elevation, which
was limited to 32.5 to the mid
oint of the roof
Minimum Distance Between Principal and No Requirement no change
Accessory Buildin s
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan (30%) Add small cabin
Floor Area Ratio Allowable floor azea shall not Add 700 sq. ft. for
exceed 14,000 squaze feet the affordable
housin cabin
Off-Street Pazking 3 garage spaces, 10 outdoor 3 garage spaces, 20
s aces outdoors aces
PROJECT SLTNIlVIARY:
The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA (in a consolidated review) in order to convert the existing
Silver Lining Ranch into a Jewish Community Center. The applicant proposes few changes to the
property. The existing building wiil be remodeled, but only on the interior - no exterior changes are
proposed. Minor changes to the site plan aze proposed including; the addition of a small affordable
housing cabin located northwest of the existing building, adding pazking to the west edge (the Aspen
Club common lot line), modifying the vehiculaz entry/exit loop with associated landscape
improvements, and adding a ten (10) foot wide sidewalk connecting the property to Ute Avenue.
The applicant is requesting minor changes to the dimensional requirements in the SPA for the
property. The building envelope would need to be amended to allow for the new pazking along the
west edge of the property (as shown on the site plan), and the maximum allowable floor azea is
proposed to be amended to allow for the addition of a small affordable housing cabin -approximately
700 squaze feet (please see the chart above).
The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA in order to add to the permitted uses for the property in
the Academic (A) zone district. The requested uses aze: Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses; and Affordable
housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. The proposed activities in the Jewish
Community Center include; apre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious services, and
special events (please see the summary of activities in the chart below).
crTrr~R ~ uv nr a ~TrvrTrF.c .aT THF..TF.WISH COMMUNITY CENTER
Activity y v Time Period Frequency Attendance Proposed TDM*
measures
Pre-School Sam to Spm 5 days per week 35-40 children Pick-up and drop off
at Koch Lumber Yazd
Pazk
Hebrew 3:30pm to Spm 2 days per week 8-10 children Aspen Club & Cross
School Town Shuttle
Teen Program 6pm to Spm 1 night per 20-25 persons Aspen Club & Cross
month Town Shuttle
Adult 10:30am to 11:30 azn 1 day per week 5-10 persons Aspen Club & Cross
Education 7:30 m to 9 m 1 ni t er 15-20 ersons Town Shuttle
P14
week
Religious Friday azound sundown every week 10-20 persons No special
services Saturda gam to Noon 10-40 ersons measures**
Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less Pick-up and drop off
year than 200 per at Rio Grande
event Parking Gazage and
Little Nell Hotel
Affordable Year round 3 units on-site 5.75 employees Bicycles will be
Housing provided. Caz sharing
with Aspen Club
em to ees?
*Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
* *A significant percentage of the persons who attend religious services in the congregation are observant Jews and will
not drive a car or take a shuttle to services. These persons can be expected to walk to and from the facility.
***Schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on current plans and may vary slightly.
Substantial changes to the schedule or frequency of activities, as determined by the Community Development Director,
may require an amendment to be submitted to this application.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives
outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone
district's land uses and dimensional requirements for the benefit of the public. The parcel currently
exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development must be
amended to allow the additional development.
In the Arts, Culture, and Education section in the AACP, the ftrst and last goals are to "encourage
collaboration in Arts, Culture, and Education" and to "ensure the provision of public facilities and
services to sustain art, culture, and education in the community. "The creation of affordable housing
meets a Housing section goal to "reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community
and enhance the character and charm of Aspen. "
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission amend the SPA to allow for the addition of a
small cabin -approximately 700 square feet -for the creation of an affordable housing unit.
Staff recommends amending the SPA in order to add to the permitted uses for the property in the
Academic (A) zone district to allow Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses and Affordable housing for
employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses to promote and encourage diversity and education in
the community.
Staff, based on the previous determination for the Specially Planned Area for the Stillwater Ranch in
Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, and recommends that the proposed conversion to the Jewish
Community Center be recommended for approval.
The Land Use Code states; "the dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and
conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual
development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. "
7
P15
Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the underlying Academic (A) zone district, is
compatible, and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of
land use, height, bulb architecture, landscaping and open space.
See Exhibit A for SPA review criteria and Staff findings
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM:
With Ordinance 11, Series of 1997 (Exhibit #7 of the application -Exhibit G), the City Council
granted final approval of the Stillwater Ranch Specially Planned Area (SPA), which also granted a
Growth Management exemption for an Essential Public Facility. The Jewish Community Center was
reviewed and approved as an essential public facility in Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006 (Exhibit
#8 in the application -Exhibit G). As the Jewish Community Center and the Stillwater Ranch have
been determined to be essential public facilities in the past, it is logical to continue to consider the
relocated center an essential public facility.
When determined to be "an essential public facility, upon recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission" "the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing
mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and wazranted for the purposes of promoting civic
uses and in consideration of broader community goals".
Pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations, "each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be
evaluated for actual employee generation". The applicant proposes providing housing for,5.75, a
mitigation of approximately 60% for the 9-10 employees that will be generated. In the employee
analysis provided with the application (see page 20 of the application -Exhibit G) a calculation from
the Land Use Code using 1.75 employees for each one-bedroom unit and 2.25 employees for each
two-bedroom unit would equa15.75 for the proposed on-site affordable housing.
APCHA Staff recommends that the applicant submit an employee audit prior to building permit
issuance and two yeazs after issuance of C.O. the form and methodology of the audit shall be
reviewed by APCHA and be consistent for both audits. The applicant shall provide mitigation for any
increase in employees unless otherwise waived by City Council.
Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of "a facility which serves an essential public
purpose is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the need of the
community". The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the essential public facility to
determine employee generation. The applicant is not seeking a "waiver" of the affordable housing
requirement, but is proposing to house 5.75 employees on-site (1.75 employees for (2) one-bedroom
units and 2.25 employees for the two-bedroom unit). Approximately 9 to 10 full time employees
(FTE's) will be generated, therefore, approximately 60% (5.75/9.5=0.6) of the affordable housing
demand will be mitigated by the applicant.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 granted a GMQS exemption for a non profit entity for the Kids
Stuff Foundation, which qualified as an essential public facility. In 2006, Ordinance 36 was
approved, determining that "9.63 FTE's shall be generated by the Jewish Community Center (at the
435 W. Main street location), and established mitigation for 4.25 employees (three category 2 rental
affordable housing units). It is important to note that the new request to convert the existing facility
(which was allowed to waive the mitigation) is proposing to provide mitigation for affordable
housing rather than request a waiver.
P16
8
APCHA Staff is requiring that an employee audit be submitted prior to building permit issuance and
two years after C O.
Staff, based on the previous determination in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, recommends that the
proposed affordable housing mitigation of 60% (5.75 employees) be recommended for approval.
See Exhibit B for GMQS review criteria and Stafff:ndings
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING:
In the application for Special Review to establish pazldng requirements, a proposal of twenty-one (21)
surface spaces and three (3) gazage spaces is requested to be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. According to the American Planning Association (APA) publication "Off Street Pazking
Requirements," an average amount of spaces provided per seat in the sanctuary ranges from 1 space per
2.5 sanctuary seats to 1 space per 8 sanctuary seats. The proposal for the Jewish Community Center at
the Silver lining Ranch is approximately 1 space per 4 sanctuary seats. The proposed facility will have a
sanctuary capacity (posted occupancy) of 88 seats, which at a 1:4 ratio would have a requirement of 22
spaces, which is exceeded in the proposals total of twenty-three (23) off-sheet pazlcing spaces.
The proposed Jewish Community Center will increase traffic (see Exhibit #9 of the application).
Additional traffic loads associated with the Jewish Community Center have been mitigated through
several transportation demand management (TDM) measures by the applicant (see Table 3, page 13
of the. application -Exhibit G). The proposed traffic mitigation plan includes: A new free shuttle
service for pre-school and special events, coordination with the Aspen Club existing and proposed
shuttle, the City of Aspen Cross Town shuttle, a new ten (10) foot wide bike/pedestrian path to the
facility, and disincentives to personal auto use (see page 13 -table 3 of the application -Exhibit G).
Through coordination with City departments, the applicant has widened the pedestrian/bikewaypath
to ten (10) feet to comply with Parks department standards, providing an incentive and a safe access
route to the facility.
Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation
Departments to establish a .`Traffic Mitigation Plan' (with a transportation plan independent of the
Aspen Club) to be presented and reviewed prior to City Council Review.
See Exhibit Cfor Special Review criteria and Stafffindings
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW:
Any development located 150' (measured horizontally) of the 8040 elevation is subject to heightened
review as an environmentally sensitive area. A mound on the southern triangle of the property has been
surveyed to be an elevation of 8048, therefore the application is subject to 8040 greenline review. In
1997, the suitability of the site for development was determined, allowing for the creation of the Silver
Lining Ranch building. The new 10' wide pedestrian bike path is within both red and blue avalanche
hazard zones and the reconfiguration of the driveway is within the blue avalanche hazard zone.
The application to add an affordable housing cabin will avoid the steeply sloping portions of the site. No
buildings or new uses aze proposed within the mapped red or blue avalanche hazazd zones.
9 P17
The avalanche danger from the "Ute Chutes" (drawing A.01 in the application) does not reach the
buildings, but does reach the property. The applicant has worked with both Engineering and the
Parks Departments to establish proper pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed community
center. Although the new 10' wide pedestrian bikeway crosses through avalanche zones, the Parks
and Engineering Departments have determined the location to be acceptable. Although there is new
development (and the parcel is potentially exposed to the edge of an avalanche) the cabin will be
located adjacent (20) to the top of slope of the Roaring Fork River on the northern most location
allowed within the approved building envelope, and is not in immediate danger of mudflow, rock
falls, avalanche, or flood hazards.
Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline review for the proposal to allow a reconfiguration
of vehicular access and for the construction of a new pedestrian and bike path.
See Exhibit D for 8040 Greenline review criteria and Staff findings
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW:
Development within the stream mazgin of the Roaring Fork River shall be subject to heightened review
as an environmentally sensitive azea. Although there is no proposed development on the lower bench of
the property and the triangulaz portion that crosses the Roaring Fork River, the application for the
construction of the affordable housing small cabin is subject to stream mazgin review. According to the
materials submitted by the applicant, the cabin will be located twenty (20) feet from the top of slope.
Steam margin standards state that "there is no development other than approved vegetation planting
taking place below the top of slope or within 15 feet of top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is
most restrictive."
The exiting facility has several previously approved elements on the lower bench, in the 100 yeaz flood
plain; a split rail fence, "tiny town," which is a small movie set facade backstop on the southeast comer
of the corral, and a shed. The applicant requests to keep the elements to be used in association with the
proposed (day caze) center.
An existing fisherman's easement on the west bank of the river has been previously approved.
Staff finds that the applicant has worked to meet the goals of the Engineering and Parks
Departments for compliance with the standards of the stream margin review. For the proposed
changes to the driveway, the Engineering Department is requiring a drainage and stormwater study
for all impervious area on the site. The Code requires dedication of a fisherman's easement, and one
has been previously provided along the western bank of the Roaring Fork River.
Staff recommends approval of the stream margin review, as the small cabin, minor reconfiguration
of the driveway and proposed landscaping are minor in nature compared to the size and scale of the
existing, previously approved development, and do not negatively affect the river or riparian zone.
See Exhibit E for Stream Margin review criteria and Staff findings
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Zoning Officer, Pazks Departrnent, Fire Mazshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, Building Department, Housing Department, Utilities, Transportation, and Pazking
10
P18
Depat-tments have all reviewed the proposed a
as conditions of approval when a pplication
ppropriate. and their requirements have been included
X1.1 ~ ~-~.~~
'~' ; ~
` ~`:.,
.~ ~~ t
x' i
~,
,1.i~
Photo: The
~~ ~.~ ~~
4 M
~~~'
~: ..
,~ .a
~.f ~y
,,. ~t;
~,"
~..
'~
r~ r
,~
. ~ ~! . .
+~,~
11
RESOLUTION N0. _~
(SERIES OF 2009)
EN PLANNING AND ZONING CO gENIENTS,
VIEW OF PAg~NG REQ
A RESOLUTION OF THL FOR PECIAL RE IN REVIEW FOR THE ASP ER
GRANTING APPROVA AND STREAM MARL
GREENLINE REVIEW LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF T NCIL AP ROVE A
8040
JEWISH COMMU ION, AND RECOMMENDING~A (SPA)CO MENDMENTY FOR
RANCH SUBDIVIS SPECIALLY PLANNED A
CONSOLIDATED VIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL CH UNTO CA I JEWISH
GROWTH MANS ON OF THE SILVER LINING RAN
NVER ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWN H R 4 0 UTE
THE CO
COMMUNITY CENTERO,N OC~EOWN AS THE SILVER LINING ~'
SUBDIVISION, COMM
AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
_ __ ~ , o:~ n~_R(15
YAn~.I,,., .., . -
artment received an application from the
re resented by Alan Richman of Alan
WHEREAS The Community Development Dep p Use in the Academic zone
Aspen Jewish Resource Center Chabad of spen,
or review for Art, Cultural, and Civic
p ments in the Academic zone distA t; $040 Greenlme
Ding Services, f rea (SPA) Review
Richman arking require ecially Planned
district; Special Review for p and Conceptual/Final Sp Ranch" which has
Stream Margin Review; "Silver Lining
Review; and referred tO SPAeon the City of Aspen Official Zone
for the property commonly ~ e ally planned area ( )
previously been designated a sP
District Map; and and Zoning Commission
4 Series of 1997, of the Planning
REAS, Resolution No. ~ of 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivisio eCOaICR°e aew f r
WHE royal of the L
of Aspen, granted app Stream Margin
of the City ultural, and Civic Use in the Acgp40 iGr enline tReview;
Use Review for Art, C
arking requirements in the Academic zone district,
p of Aspen,
Review; and SPA)
No. 11, Series of 1997, of the Citys ecially Planned Area
WHEREAS, Ordinance ualif ing as an
Stillwater Ranch Subdivision rofit entity q y
royal of the Lotrant a GMQS exemption for anon-p
granted final app lan, and to g
final development p
essential public facility; and and Zoning Commission
Series of 2006, the Planning to ee generation, and
WHEREAS, Resolution NO. 2anag a royal to City
' ns a Growth M ement Review to determine emp y
approved with conditio off-street parking requirements; and recommending op the Jewish
essential public facility
Special Review to establish ement Review as an
Council of a Growth Manag f As en,
enter, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; an e Cit o p
Community C Council of th Y
Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006, of the City ublic facility for the Jewish
WHEREAS, a ement Review as an essential p
granted approval of the Growth Man g
enter, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; an
Community C
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standazds, the
Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of a Specially
Planned Area (SPA); and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2009, continued to
February 17, 2009, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and
Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. _, Series of 2009 by a to ~-~
vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standazds and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF.THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
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 City Council approval of a Consolidated
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review for
an Essential Public Facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the application for
Special Review for Pazking, 8040 Greenline Review, and Stream Mazgin Review.
Section 2: Eneineerin¢
The building permit application shall include a drainage and stormwater study for all impervious
azea on site. The developer will be required to be granted permission from the Aspen Club to
construct the retaining wall on the western side of the property. Impacts of construction outside
the sites property boundary must be agreed upon with neighboring properties and addressed in
the .construction management plan. A construction management plan must be submitted in
conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of
construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe
mitigation fot: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment
pollution. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21, and all design and construction standazds published by the Engineering
Department. '
Section 3: Affordable Housin¢ Audit
The applicant shall submit an employee audit prior to building permit issuance and two yeazs
after issuance. of C.O. The form and methodology of the audit shall be reviewed by APCHA and
be consistent for both audits. The applicant shall be required to provide housing for a minimum
of 60% of the employees generated by the project, based on the results of the initial employee
audits. The applicant shall provide mitigation for 60% of any increase in employees found to be
generated in the audit completed two yeazs after issuance of the C.O., unless otherwise waived by
City Council. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the audits.
Section 4: Sanitation District Requirements
P21
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled commercial kitchens and food
processing establishments. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of
ways incl}xding hazd landscaping which will impact public ROW or easements owned by the
district. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage
plans to assure that cleaz water connections aze not connected• to the sanitary sewer system. On-
site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will not approve service to food processing
establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date. Driveway entrance drains must drain to
drywells, elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the
issuance of an excavation/foundation or access/infrastructure permit.
Section 5: Dimensional Standards
The dimensional requirements which shall apply to this property aze as fo]lows:
vuFVrnrrcr.v_errunvF.n niMF.NCinNAL REQUIREMENTS /PROPOSED CHANGES
Drmensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Proposed
Dimension Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 6 acres no change
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit no change
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet no change
Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet no change
Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet Amend building
envelope to
accommodate
revised arlcin
Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 20 feet no change
Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid- no change
point of the roof on all sides o
the building, except for the
east-facing elevation, which
was limited to 32.5 to the mid
oint of the roof
Minimum Distance Between Principal and No Requirement no change
Accesso Buildin s
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan (30%) Add small cabin
Floor Area Ratio Allowable floor area shall not Add 700 sq. ft. for
exceed 14,000 squaze feet the affordable
housin cabin
Off-Street Pazking 3 gazage spaces, 10 outdoor 3 garage spaces, 20
s aces outdoors aces
Section 6: Allowed Uses:
In addition to the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Academic and Conservation zone
districts, this property is also allowed to be used for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses, and
P22
Affordable housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. The proposed activities
in the Jewish Community Center include; apre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious
services, and special events. The uses which shall apply to this property aze as follows:
CiTMMARY OF ACTiYiTiF,S AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Proposed TDM*
measures
Pre-School Sam to Spm 5 days per week 35-40 children Pick-up and drop off
at Koch Lumber Yazd
Pazk
Hebrew 3:30pm to Spm 2 days per week 8-10 children Aspen Club & Cross
School Town Shuttle
Teen Program 6pm to Spm 1 night per 20-25 persons Aspen Club & Cross
month Town Shuttle
Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5-10 persons Aspen Club & Cross
Education 7:30pm to Spm 1 night per 15-20 persons Town Shuttle
week
Religious Friday azound sundown every week 10-20 persons No special
services Saturda gam to Noon 10-40 ersons measures**
Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less Pick-up and drop off
yeaz than 200 per at Rio Grande
event Parking Gazage and
Little Nell Hotel
Affordable Yeaz round 3 units on-site 5.75 employees Bicycles will be
Housing provided. Caz sharing
with Aspen Club
em to ees?
*Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
**A significant percentage of the persons who attend religious services in the congregation aze
observant Jews and will not drive a car or take a shuttle to services. These persons can be expected to
walk to and from the facility.
* **Schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on cun•ent plans and may vary
slightly. Substantial changes to the schedule or frequency of activities, as determined by the
Community Development Director, may require an amendment to be submitted to this application.
Section 7: Parks
An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set (decrease the
amount of spruce trees, increase in aspen, cottonwood, Douglas fir, and service berry bushes).
The new grading and planting will require City seed mixes and approval of the landscaping. All
new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by Pazks Department.
Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee
before any construction activities aze to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage
of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip
line of any tree on site. Hand work only will be approved within the protection zones and for the
re-opening of the imgation ditch.
P23
Section 8: Transuortation
Transportation requests that the Jewish Community Center meet with Staff prior to each summer
season to discuss their schedule of events and associated transportation/pazking impacts as well
as mitigation such as increased shuttle service, etc. Transportation requests that the Jewish
Community Center communicate with event staff/attendees about alternative transportation
options prior to large events.
Section 9•
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 10:
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 11:
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 17th day of
February, 2009.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, Special Counsel
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P24
-~ EXHIBIT J
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14.2007
Ferguson to the city attorney about restricting the hotel units under one ownership, and he
would like a legal opinion on what that means.
Councilman Torre said he is still concerned about the use of the interior spaces and this
could be a better project. Councilman Torre commended the applicant on where this
project has come. Councilman Torre said compatibility with other projects in this azea is
important.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2007 -Historic Designation - 827 Dean Street
Councihnembers Johnson and Tygre returned. Sara Adams, community development
department, told Council this is a voluntary designation for a residential neighborhood on
Dean street and it exemplifies the chalet style. Tlris was built in 1956 by Hatry
Poschman. Ms. Adams said this home illustrates two aspects of local post W WII history;
the chalet style and the significance of Harry Poschman to Aspen's cultwal heritage.
HPC found all review criteria were met and voted unanimously to recommend historic
designation.
Ms. Adams told Council Poschman was part of the Tenth Mountain Division along with
other local notables. Poschman developed an appreciation for chalet architecture while
serving overseas in W WII. Poschman helped built lift 1 in 1947. Poschman built and
operated the Edelweiss Chalet. Ms. Adams stated staff finds Poschman important to
`' Aspen, his representation of Aspen sentiment and his values which reflect the cultural
heritage of this town.
Ms. Adams presented color photographs of the house, pointing out this structure is
oriented toward the mountain, which is one thing the historic preservation officers look
for in the chalet style. Ms. Adams noted a generous gable roof, materials indicated of
chalet azchitecture -wood details and stucco. The house has had minor alterations.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Ms. Adams entered a letter into the record from Ada Lamont in favor of designation;
letter from Janet Boelen in favor and from Les Holst in favor of designation.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2007, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes;
Tygre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18. SERIES OF 2007 -Disconnect Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch
,^°
P25
Regular Meeting Aspen Ciri Council Mav 14, 2007
Councilwoman Tygre recused herself due to a connections to her other office. Jim True,
representing this city, stated this decision is within the sole discretion of Council finding
whether or not it is in the best interest of the community to allow disconnection of this
property.
Jessica Garrow, community development department, passed out a map of the subject
property with surrounding zoning. The subject property is zoned Academic and
Conservation with an SPA overlay. Ms. Darrow noted the delineation of the Stillwater
subdivision. Ms. Gazrow said this property is part of the Stillwater ranch subdivision and
its parcels aze zoned AR-2 in the county. This zone district is to create a moderate
density transition zone between moderate and low density residential uses. Ms. Gazrow
said it is presumed if this were to revert back to the county, it would be zoned AR-2 and
would abide by the subdivision covenants. This means it would be limited to 6500
square feet of FAR with 4,000 squaze feet exempt basement space, 700 squaze feet of
exempt gazage. The applicants would be required to provide on-site affordable housing
mitigation. Ms. Gazrow told Council this pazcel received a growth management
allotment when approved as part of the subdivision in the county.
Ms. Darrow said if it were to remain in the city and to revert to a single family home, it
would need to go through an administrative growth management review and to provide
affordable housing. Ms. Gazrow said a permitted use in the conservation zone is a single
family house; this is not a permitted use in the Academic zone district. Ms. Darrow
stated staff recommends against granting this request. If this does revert to a single
family home, it would pay property tastes to the city, if it remains in the city. Ms. Darrow
said the FARs aze comparable between the city and county.
Rick Neiley, representing the applicant Sister Andrea Jaeger, told Council Sister Andrea
started Little Staz Foundation in 1990. Sister Andrea received a gift of this land from
Fabienne Benedict in 1994 and through the zoning and annexation process established a
charitable foundation that provides caze for children with cancer and their families-
Neiley said there was no equivalent zoning in the county at that time, which is why it was
annexed to the city. Neiley said during the 16 years of operating the charitable
foundation in Aspen, it has become more difficult to get and treat patients at this altitude.
The objective is to disconnect the pazcel; rezone it in the county as a single family lot,
sell the property to create an endowment and allow construction of a new facility south of
Durango.
Neiley requested Council approve this ordinance de-annexing the property so that it can
revert to the Stillwater zoning. Neiley said the property taxes that maybe lost to the city
would be around $6,000/annually. Neiley told Council the applicants discussed rezoning
the property and leaving it in the city; however, all that is possible is what was approved
during annexation. The conservation zone is not intended to be developed. Neiley said
the rezoning process in the city would take much longer than the foundation can wait.
Sister Andrea said her foundation provides long term care of children with cancer. When
"" the foundation started, they provided housing at local hotels. Sister Andrea told Council
~.,
l0
P26
Reeulsr Meetiue Asuen City Couucil Mav 14, 2007
^, she contacted the Benedicts about land they owned east of town for this foundation. The
~ Benedicts gave the land to the foundation to sell or to use for a building for the
foundation. Sister Andrea said the high altitude affects the health of some of the
children. Sister Andrea told Council 9/11 has affected fund raising. Glenn Hom,
representing the applicant, told Council it will be a much shorter process in the county to
get the property marketable. Ms. Garrow said a single family house is not allowed in the
academic zone; it is allowed in the conservation zone but only if the SPA is lifted.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
The executive director of the Aspen Cancer survivor center told Council they looked at
this center as an opportunity to continue the work in town. The director said they have
discussed with other non-profits about purchasing this property and there is interest to
preserve this as a cancer retreat center.
Mayor Klandemd closed the public hearing.
Sister Andrea said this foundation has worked with a lot of non-profit organizations to
support children and young adults. Sister Andrea told Council they have a responsibility
to work with these children and to continue that work. Sister Andrea said they need this
endowment to carryon this work. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the access to the
property. Sister Andrea said Ute avenue is the only access. Councihnan DeVilbiss asked
if this could be sold for 3 single family houses in the county. Neiley said it was approved
in the county and the number of lots and density was established for one single family
"`" residence. This also has a growth management allocation in the county. There could be
a single family house with a deed restricted employee unit. No fitrther subdivision would
be permitted. Councilman DeVilbiss said the difference seems to be that the applicants
could get a single family house approved more quickly through the county process than
the city process.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2007, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Councilman Torre said he is not in favor of disconnection. Councilman Torre said he is
not in favor of properties being developed in the city and then when it is convenient for
disconnection, to apply for that. Councihnan Torre stated it is in the city's best interest to
retain this property under the city's guidelines. The property was deeded for non-profit
work; it was accepted by the city as such and was zoned for academic and conservation
and it should remain so and not revert to single family house usage not in line with the
original approvals. Mayor Klanderud said this was gilled with no stipulations from the
donor.
Mayor Klanderud said she has mixed feelings about this application. One decision is
made when it benefits the land owner and when it doesn't a different decision is sought.
Mayor IClanderud said it would be great if it were a winlwin for everyone. The property
W-
11
P27
Regular Meeting Asuen Clri Council Mav 14, 2007
is developed for certain uses and it would a good solution if it could be used for similaz
;~ uses by other non-profits.
Councilman Johnson stated he does not feel it is in the city's best interest to allow de-
annexation for the reasons stated by stab' nor is it wise public policy to set precedents of
de-annexation for the sole purpose of increasing value for free market residences.
Councilman Johnson noted there aze too many single family residence and too few non-
profit institutions like this. Councilman Torre asked if the conservation zone allows for a
single family residence. Ms. Garrow said it does but in this instance the SPA overlay
prevents it.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked the rationale for the SPA overlay. Chris Bendon,
community development deparhrrent, said this was a specific request and the zoning was
academic as most closely associated with the proposed use, and conservation zoning
because of the flood plain areas. The SPA was tailored to the applicant's proposal and it
meshed with the homeowners' covenants.
Mayor Klanderud noted there have been discussions on the traffic on Ute Avenue for
other projects. If this were a different non-profit use, there could be increases in traffic
on Ute Avenue which may not be in the best interests of the city. A single family
residence would be a wash city or county. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the best interests
of the city will not be served by disconnection.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, no; Torre, no; DeVilbiss, no; Mayor Klanderud,
yes. Motion NOT carried.
APPEAL OF P&Z RESOLUTION 1001 UTE AVENUE
Councilman Torre recused himself due to a connection with the Gant Jessica Garrow,
community development department, submitted two resolutions, #42, reversing the
decision of P&Z and Resolution #41, upholding the decision of PBcZ. Jim True,
representing the city, told Council this is an appeal of a decision made by PBcZ granting
8040 green line and residential design standard variance and a PUD amendment. The
appeal standard to be addressed by Council is based on a review of the record to
determine whether there was a denial of due process, abuse of discretion or finding that
PBcZ exceeded its jurisdiction. True stated no additional evidence other than the record
presented to P&Z should be considered by Council
Ms. Garrow outlined the documents in Council's packet that are part of the P&Z record
for this approval. Ms. Gatrow stated this is an appeal from Richard and Susan Wells of a
decision made Apri13, 2007, by P&Z where they granted approval of Resolution #9,
2007, granting 8040 green line review to two residences at 1001 Ute avenue; a residential
design standard variance from secondary mass and two PUD amendments; one for
building along the property line between the two residences and one to transfer a small
amount of FAR from lot 2 to lot 1.
12
P28
EXHIBIT K
MEMORANDUM
T0: David Hoefer, Attorney's Office
Joyce Ohfson, Community Development Department
FROM: Claude Morelli, Transportation Planner
CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
Lysa Usher, Transportation Coordinator
DATE: _ 19
RE: Potential Aspen Club Contribution to the Cross Town Shuttle
SUMMARY: The purpose of this memorandum is to develop a recommendation for a
~~nt >- = $~7~ :The recommended contribution is - ~ ~ ores .- a~ in which the
shuttle operates. Staff also recommends. however, that this amount be reduced by $2.00 for
each shuttle rider that the Aspen Club generates. The purpose of the reduction is to provide
an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote use of the service.
BACKGROUND:.9t a recent work session on transportation, Council nave preliminary
approval for [he operation and mazketins of a new in-town transit service called the Cross
Town Shuttle. This service will run during the winter of 1999/2000 between the east end of
Ute Avenue and the Music Associates bus stop in the West End via the Aspen Core Area (see
Figure A). Service will be provided every 30 minutes in each direction. The purposes of the
shuttle include (a) reducine traffic and demand for core-area pazking by providing an
alternative to automobile travel, and (b) filling gaps in transit service coverage that currently
exist in Aspen.
In a November 4, 1999 memorandum to Council, staff presented estimates of potential shuttle
ridership. Staff estimates that, on average, approximately ] 33 riders per day will use the
shuttle over the course of the operating season. Of this total, approximately 57 aze expected
to boazd or alight in the West End and 76 aze expected to boazd or alight along Ute Avenuc
(see Table 1).
Metm_ASp~ CIuD_Contrihutionl page 1 of 3
P29
' See the Aspen Club devtlopment approval documents for information on the Club's traffic-mitigation
• ~ RK
RECOMMENDED ASPEN CLUB CONTRIBUTION: Staffs methodology for
developing a reasonable Aspen Club contribution level is a iwo-step process. The first step
involves apportioning the total cost of the shuttle service between the west and east segments
of the shuttle route on a mileage basis. The west segment extends from the Music Associates
stop to Rubey Pazk, while the east segment extends from Rubey Park to the east end of Ute
Avenue. Step two involves further apponioning the cost of operating and marketing the east
segment to the Aspen Club. The apportionment of cost to the Aspen Club is based on its
estimated.shuttle rider generation rate relative to other land uses along Ute Avenue.
Step 1: When measured on a round-trip basis, the route of the Cross Town Shuttle is
approximately 3.9 miles long. That is, cach trip of the shuttle from the eas .. L
Avenue to the Music Associates bus stop and back totals about 3.9 miles. • a ~e'fria~
cost of
Step 2: Ute Avenue land uses are expected to generate about 76 shuttle riders per da}'. Of this
amount, at Least?0 riders are expected to board or alight at the AspeClub. Thu_ s,r~
u tp ytng a mileage-apportioned cost of the east segment of the Cross Town
Shuttle Service (_ $ 297.80) by the Aspen Club`s share of all lire Avenue riders (= 0.2b)
~.-- ~ ,mac-~~ ~.-•~
yields a ~ mmended,espen Cl_u~'i cdntr'tb nozl afi$7„~_`S„a~;per_ a -J~see Table 3).
SHUTTLE PROMOTION INCENTIVE: As an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote
use of the Cross Town Shuttle. staff recommends that the contribution level of $77.85 per day
be reduced by $2.00 for each rider generated by the club. For example. if the Aspen Club
were to generate an average of 30 riders per day. the required daily contribution would be
$17.85 (_ $77.85 - [$2.00 x 30)). Generation of 39 or more riders per day on average would
reduce the Aspen Club's daily contribution to zero. Measurement of ridership should be by
means of periodic random samples of shuttle boardines and alightings at the Aspen Club stop.
obligations: Crcdinance Number 20, Series of 1996, Section 2, hems 4 and 10. See also the July I5, 1996
memorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspen Ciry Council, referenced in Item ~ of Ordinance 20.
Mcmo Aspcn Clu6_Contributionl page 2 Of 2
P30
RECOMMENDED ASPEN CLUB CONTRIBUTION: Staff s methodology for
developing a reasonable Aspen Club contribution level is a two-step process. The first step
involves apportioning the total cost of the shuttle service between the west and east segments
of the shuttle route on a mileage basis. The west segment extends from the Music Associates
stop to Rubey Park, while the east segment extends from Rubey Pazk to the east end of Ute
Avenue. Step two involves further apportioning the cost of operating and mazketing the east
segment to the Aspen Club. The apportionment of cost to the Aspen Club is based on its
estimated shuttle rider generation rate relative to other land uses along Ute Avenue.
Step 1: When measured on a round-trip basis, the route of the Cross Town Shuttle is
approximately 3.9 miles long. That is, each trip of the shuttle fiom the east end ofUte
Avenue to the Music Associates bus stop and back totals about 3.9 miles. Traveling from
Rubey Park to the east end of Ute Avenue and back totals about 1.6 miles. Thus, the east
segment of the shuttle represents about 41 percent of total route mileage. Since the cost of
operating and marketing the shuttle is projected to total approximately $726 per day, the
mileage-apportioned cost of operating the service over the east portion is about $297.80 per
day (see Table 2).
Step 2: Ute Avenue land uses are expected to generate about 76 shuttle riders per day. Of this
amount, at least 20 riders are expected to board or alight at the Aspen Club. Thus, riders
generated 6y the Aspen Club are expected to represent about 26 percent of all Ute Avenue
riders. Multiplying the mileage-apportioned cost of the east segment of the Cross Town
Shuttle Service (_ $ 297.80) by the Aspen Club's shaze of all Ute Avenue riders (= 0.26)
yields a recommended Aspen Club contribution of $77.85 per day (see Table 3).
SHUTTLE PROMOTION INCENTIVE: As an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote
use of the Cross Town Shuttle, staff recommends that the contribution level of $77.85 per day
be reduced by $2.00 far each rider generated by the club, For example, if the Aspen Club
were to generate an average of 30 riders per day, the required daily contribution would be
$17.85 (_ $77.85 - [$2.00 x 30J). Generation of 39 or more riders per day on average would
reduce the Aspen Club's daily contribution to zero. Measurement of ridership should be by
means of periodic random samples of shuttle boazdings and alightings at the Aspen Club stop.
obligations: Ordinance Number 20, Series of 1996, Section 2, hems 4 and ] 0. See also the Iuly t 5, 1996
memorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspen City Council, rcfetenced in Item 4 of Ordinance 20.
memo_aspen_club cl shunle_<onvibulionl.doc page 2 of 2
P31
'r
~"~ri~" ~
December 3, 2003
Aspen Club and Spa
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, CO 8161 ]
Attn: General Manager
T~ cm ~ Amex
As the Aspen Club and Spa will not be contributing to the Cross Town Shuttle this season, the business
will be required to provide van services as represented as part of a 1996 approval for the relocation of
the Aspen Club pazking lot and expansion of the club. The requirements aze as follows:
I .Nature of service: The service will be point to point, between the Aspen Club Lodge and the
Aspen Club. The shuttle will also have at least one cross-town pick up point.
2. Route: Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for
therapy patients.
3. Timing: The service will operate during the morning (8-9:30am), mid-day (12-1:30pm) and
evening (4-6:OOpm) peak hours, on the half hour and the hour, for a total of 13 round trips
daily. It will be a year-round service. '
4. Vehicle type: Van service.
5. Public information: Members and employees will be given materials describing the shuttle
service and encouraging them to use it. Members and employees will also be reminded that
RFTA operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use. A sign will be posted in a
conspicuous place on the property describing the time and place of the Club's shuttle service.
6. Completion of former issues of compliance: City of Aspen records indicate that the Aspen
Club has not fulfilled its required 2003 Cross Town Shuttle contribution. The Club must
provide proof of payment of prior invoices, or alternatively, pay the enclosed invoice by
December 15, 2003.
A transportation management plan, including the following elements, will. also be due to the City of
Aspen Transportation Department by December 15, 2003.
1. Commencement date of van service
2: Detailed information on how the van service meets the above requirements
3. Remittance of 2003 Cross Town Shuttle contribution
4. Proposed plan for annual proof ofcompliance - ie annual report, meeting, etc.
Regards,
,~., ,8~.
Lynn Bader, Transportation Coordinator
c5',dra..f t~,otiv
Sazah Oates, Zoning Officer
P32
Aspen Club & Spa
Traffic Management Plan
Specific Requirements for Shuttle Service
Source: Alan Richman Memo dated July I5, 1996
Shuttle Service
1. Nature of service:
The service will be point to point, between the Aspen Club Lodge and the Aspen Club.
The shuttle will also have at ]east one cross-town pick up point.
2. Route:
Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for therapy
patients.
3. Timing:
The service will operate during the morning (8-9:30am), mid-day (12-1:30pm) and
evening (4-6:OOpm) peak hours, on the half hour and the hour, for a total of 13 round
trips daily. It will be a yeaz-round service.
4. Vehicle type:
Van service.
5. Public information:
Members and employees will be given materials describing the shuttle service and
encouraging them to use it. Members and employees will also be reminded that RFTA
operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use. A sign will be.posted in a
conspicuous place on the property describing the time and place of the Club's shuttle
service.
6. Reporting
A report including pazking lot counts, ridership data, etc was required to be submitted to
Council within one yeaz of construction completion. Is there any way to require similar
reporting to ensure compliance? (ex: annual check in with Transportation staff]
P33
ASPEN CLUB PRO RATA SHARE OF CROSSTOWN SERVICE
2003 CALCULATIONS
Total Annual Cost $ 163,823
Total Operating Days 190
Total Operating Cost/day $ 662.23
WINTER COST CALCULATIONS
Tota! Operating days
Hours of Operation
Roundtrips/hour to Aspen Club
Total Daily Trips
Total Winter Trips
Total Winter Cost
Cost per trip
Winter Aspen Club Cost per Day
Aspen Clubs Required Mitigation
($33.16 x .41 x .50x13 trips)
Aspen Club Cost for Total Winter Operations
(114 days x $89.00/day)
SUMMER COST CALCULATIONS
Total Operating days
Hours of Operation
Round trips hour to Aspen Club
Daily Trips
Total Summer Trips
Total Summer Cost
Cost per trip
Summer Aspen Club Cost per Day
Aspen Clubs Required Mitigation
($29.73 x .41 x .50x13 trips)
Aspen Club Cost for Total Winter Operations
(76 days x $79.24/day)
TOTAL WINTER & SUMMER COSTS
114
13
2
26
2964
$ 98,293.80
$ 33.16
13 trips per day
$ 88.38
$ 10,075.11 $
10,076.00
76
14.5
2
29
2204
$ 65,529.20
$ 29.73
13 trips/day
$ 79.24
$ 6,021.91 $ 6,022.00
$ 16,098.00
P34
~ ~ l
ASPEN CLUB
&SPA
December 30, 2003
The City of Aspen Club & Spa
Lynn Bader, Transportation Coordinator
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
Please consider the following in response to your letter dated December 3, 2003.
requesting a plan for our shuttle service:
~~. .~ ~
2. The Vehicle in use is a 2004 GMC Savannah 7-passeriger van.
3. From December 15 through April 15, and from June 15 through September 30, the
van will run continuously from 8:30 am until 8:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday and
until 9:00 pm on weekdays. This itinerary yields approximately 40-50 trips per day.
4. From April 16 through June 14, and from October 1 through December 14, the van
will run twice per hour, on the 10 and 40 minute past the hour, during the same
hours. This itinerary will yield approximately 20-30 trips per day.
5. We are currently testing a route that begins and ends at the Aspen Club and loops
through town, stopping at taxi pick-up points and at Rubey Park.
6. We are open to the City's recommendation of compliance proof-we can provide an
annual report, or attend a meeting, whichever pleases the Ciry. Please advise.
We have written a check in the amount of $10,000 that will be mailed on January 2,
2004. The remainder will follow on January 9.
Thank you so much for your consideration. Please call me with any questions,
comments, or concerns.
Linda Schmehl
General Manager
P35
Mazch 8, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL
Linda Schmehl
Aspen Club
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Payment for 2003 Cross Town Shuttle
Deaz Linda,
The City of Transportation Department has not received the final payment due for the
Aspen Club's contribution to operation of the Cross Town Shuttle in 2003. Per your
letter dated December 30, 2003, a payment was to be made January 2, 2004 and January
] 5, 2002: To our knowledge the January 15, 2004 payment has not been received.
Further, the Transportation Department staff has also not received information related to
a mazketing plan for the shuttle (i.e. how the Aspen Club is informing clients and staff of
the service).
As you aze awaze, the Aspen Club was required to provide some sort of public
transportation program as part of 1996 ap royals. ~ B '~" e ose3 ~~
.,~ ,.
r ~+'d - . dit~ #. " t3 ° 'aoss~ t- .Since payment has not been
r a portion~of the Cross Town Shuttle for 2003, the Aspen Club is violation of its
approvals. Please remit payment and a mazketing plan within ten (10) days from the date
of this letter or a court citation may be issued.
We appreciate your attention in this matter.
Regards,
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
City of Aspen
cc: Lynn Bader, Transportation Department
P36