The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.rz.Koval House.1982j Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd 2 February 1982 Ms. Cathy Snyder Aspen Historical Society 620 West Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Koval House Dear Cathy: I was particularly happy to learn that the Koval residence had become available again and am very pleased to submit a proposal to acquire, relocate and restore the building. I currently own a 2 lot (6000 sf) parcel comprised of lots E and F on block 18, City of Aspen, which is where I propose to relocate the structure. '1he parcel is located directly in back of the Hickory House and is currently zoned R-6 which permits Floor Area Ratio of 3126 sq. ft. It is my intention to completely renovate the structure with strict com- pliance to its detailed restoration. As a practicing architect of 10 years in Aspen, I feel I have the design and construction knowledge requisite to a successful completion in this regard. In addition to the restoration of 1750 sq. ft. of original structure, I would construct an addition, most likely in the form of a carriage house, which I would be happy to submit to the Historical Society for design approval prior to construction. For all the physical improvements on the Koval property, I propose to pay the Historical Society a sum of $5,000 and underwrite all moving expenses. As a great deal of preplanning and design work are necessary prior to the actual moving of the structure, I would appreciate an expeditious review of this proposal so that I may initiate work accordingly or seek other solution. I am most excited about the possibility of working with you on this worthwhile historic project. V ry trul urs, h V VALarry w LY ; sd 210 tiOL EH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPIN. COLORA 0 303 925 2867 • 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Colette Penne, Planning Office Re: Bed and Breakfast Lodge Discussion - 135 E. Cooper Date: January 5, 1982 Location: 135 East Cooper Street (Lots H and I and Easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70) SW corner of Aspen and Cooper Streets Zoning: RMF Lot Size: 6500 square feet Background: In the Spring of 1981, City Council enacted a moratorium on the demolition of Victorian structures in Aspen to permit completion of a planning process to designate certain of these structures as historic and reduce the threat to their demolition. One of the structures which was a key to the adoption of that moratorium, the Koval House, at 135 E. Cooper, received a demolition permit prior to the effective date of that moratorium. Despite the efforts of the owner, the Historical Society, concerned citizens and the Planning Office, no solution has yet been found to preserve the house at its present location. The owner, who has donated the house to the Historical Society, has stated that the issue must be resolved by April 30 or he will be forced to follow through with the demolition permit he has obtained so that he can construct a new structure on the site. At this time, the most promising option available for preservation is that three persons have offered to move the house to another site, though two of these people do not own lots on which it can be moved. The third party owns a lot, but its location may not be compatible with the structure because of a strong corner orientation. On October 27, Tom Wells sent a letter to the Planning Office, on behalf of Marc Friedberg, which offered a new alternative which appeared to permit the preservation of the house in its present location. Tom asked that Council consider permitting the house to be used as a 6 room "Bed and Breakfast" lodge. Tom suggested that we consider taking some type of zoning action which will preserve this house on its present location and which will fill a need in our accommodation mix which he believes is currently unmet. A request such as the one by Tom Wells has various implications on the adopted planning policies and zoning code of the City of Aspen. The request also has an air or "imminency" about it, since it concerns the preservation of a significant historic structure in an important location in Aspen. We have therefore structured this memo to introduce you to the positive and negative aspects of the proposal as they relate to planning and historical preservation issues. The City Council unanimously and wholeheartedly supported the concept of this use in this structure at this location in their discussion of the proposal at the November 23, 1981 meeting. Historic Perspective:The house was built in 1890 by J.M. Dixon, a miner. It was purchased in 1895 by J.C. Markle, a blacksmith. The house stands on its original site and is unaltered (except for the removal of the front porch to keep the present demolition permit active). Samuel Carter purchased the house in the 1930's and four generations of Carters lived there before it was sold to the Memo: Bed and Brea0ast Lodge Discussion Page Two January 5, 1982 Wilsons in 1976, who completely restored and redecorated it. Mr. Koval bought it four years ago. lie intended to move it to a lot at Francis and Garmisch for a new construction project. He was unsucessful in GP1P competition and also was denied a RBO request in March, 1981. There are several unique aspects of this structure which make its preservation in its present location a desirable objective. There are very few remaining Victorians in town with their carriage houses intact. More importantly, on this major thoroughfare leading to the Lift 1-A area, this particular lot with the iron fence surrounding it, the widows walk reflecting the same iron treatment, and the mature vegetation, is one of the few reminders of the past. Additionally, the unique architectural feature of this house -- double - stacked bay windows which have a corner orientation, is particularly appropriate for this corner lot. The house has been donated to the Historical Society and in determining criteria for the purchase of it from them by a private individual, they feel strongly that to be as historically appropriate as possible, it should remain on its original site, and that the remaining remnants of "Old Aspen" should not be easily dismissed and removed. This structure was the initial object of the "Save the Victorians" movement, which centered largely around maintaining it at its present location. In fact, saving this house in its present location would be one stabilizing influence on a neighborhood which has been in transition due to the impact of several new duplex structures. The Bed and Breakfast Lodge concept appears to offer one option for retaining the Koval House in place. At the time of the "Save the Victorians" movement, letters from tourists came in supporting the retention of the old buildings and the mix of old and new. It seems reasonable that some of our visitors might well find that accommodations available in a small-scale Victorian are a desirable alternative to a hotel room or new condominium. The atmosphere of a six -room, bed and breakfast lodge is one which has been shown to be popular in other cities and is not offered widely in Aspen. When there exists a structure nearly 100 years old two blocks from a lift and an investor willing to provide such a facility, it deserves close scrutiny. Planning Issues:The subject property is currently located in the R-MF zone district. The area surrounding the Koval House is zoned L-1 to the south, east and northeast, R-MF to the north and northeast and R-15 to the west. In essence, the areas east and south of the subject property are zoned for lodging uses while the areas north and west of the property are zoned for long term residential uses. The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan designated this site (and most of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood) for accommodations/recreation uses. This designation, and the resultant zoning, led to the construction of many of the lodges which are found in this area. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan constitutes the major revision to our land use policies in Aspen. This Plan eliminated the accommodations/recreation designation from both the western and eastern portions of Aspen and suggested that we centralize all of our tourist accommodations at the Base of Aspen Mountain. The 1973 Plan designated this area as mixed residential", intended for a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodations uses in places where they presently exist. The transition from the 1966 to 1973 Land Use Plan and the subsequent rezoning to bring zoning into compliance with the new plan, created a mix of many different and often non -conforming uses. Since there were many non -conforming uses created by rezoning the subject area to R-MF, it does not appear to us to be appropriate to evaluate the Koval House simply on the basis of surrounding land uses. This issue cannot be separated from the larger issue of the desire of some lodge owners throughout the Shadow Mountain neighborhood to rezone their properties to conforming uses, thus permitting their expansion. This issue, however, should not be affected by the fact that we have, as yet, not been entirely successful in establishing this neighborhood as one with a long term residential character, but instead should be judged on the intent of that policy, and whether it still has meaning for the future. Memo: Bed and Brea9ast Lodge Discussion • Page Three January 5, 1982 Despite the above concerns which we perceive in terms of our adopted policies, it is also important to note that the 1973 Land Use Plan can be used to argue in favor of preserving the Koval House at its present location. One important policy in the Plan supports the preservation of those buildings recommended by the HPC for historic designation. The Koval House has been designated by the HPC as a structure of historic significance. Since we have been led to believe that it is uneconomical to maintain the house where it stands as a single family residence, the possibility of using it as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge takes on a new significance. Several other land use policies from the 1973 Plan also provide rationales for the use of the Koval house as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge, including the following: 1. Increase the number of housing units constructed for permanent employees -- there are two employee units in the carriage house on the Koval parcel. These units are proposed to be maintained for continued use as employee housing if the structure is preserved on site, while if it is moved or demolished, we will likely see a free market duplex on the site and no employee housing. 2. Encourage diversification of quality recreational and cultural pursuits -- smaller lodging facilities such as bed and breakfast, especially when found in a preserved Victorian structure, provide a diversification in lodging facilities which expand the Aspen experience. These structures help maintain the flavor of old Aspen. 3. Place primary emphasis on the pedestrian mode of transportation -- a lodge unit so close to Lift 1-A, the mall and other commercial facilities encourages walking as opposed to autos. 4. Preserve the community's wealth of natural resources by maintain- ing a pleasant aesthetic appearance - a restored Victorian helps maintain the aesthetic qualities that make Aspen a unique area. The corner lot containing the Koval House at Aspen Street and Cooper Avenue is a highly visible location for pedestrian and automobile traffic to and from Lift 1-A. Preserving such a desirable structure at this location would work toward main- taining the aesthetic qualities of the community. The Planning Office has formulated five alternative actions which would allow a Bed and Breakfast Lodge at 135 E. Cooper. These are: 1. Tying the use to individually -designated structures in non-specific zone categories. 2. Tying the use to individually -designated structures in the RMF zone. 3. Rezoning to L-1. 4. Rezoning to L-2. 5. Rezoning to a newly -developed zone category of L-3 for low -intensity lodge use. Alternative #1 can be easily dismissed. Although incentives do need to be offered to encourage preservation of our historic structures, the bed and breakfast lodge concept is not necessarily suited to many areas. In the Koval case, the use is justified by its proximity to other lodges and to the base of Aspen Mountain. Furthermore, in view of the tax incentives offered by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, if this use was allowed throughout town, investors might complete conversion of a structure for the substantial write-offs, and not because of a real need or viability for the lodge. Memo: Bed and Brea st Lodge Discussion • Page Four January 5, 1982 Alternative #2 -- Tying the use to individually -designated structures in the RMF zone. An advantage of this alternative is that it would not require rezoning. A code amendment process could add this use as a conditional use in the R-MF zone category (much the same as the commercial provision in the 0-Office zone). If this alternative was used, it would affect only three properties in this specific area of R-MF zoning, these being the Koval House, the Little Red Ski Haus, and the Snow Queen Lodge. This fits the situation very well, since the other two affected properties are already in use as Bed and Breakfast Lodges. The other R-MF zones contain a total of 19 historic structures which could be affected. Most are in the East Aspen area and would most likely not receive conditional use approval for lodge use in their locations. The biggest problem with this alternative is that specifying this use in a residential multi -family zone is contrary to the basic thrust of the zone category. Alternative #3 -- Rezoning to L-1 L-1 zoning exists on the blocks to the south, southeast, east, northeast and the southern half of the block that the Victorian is located in. Extending the L-1 zone line along the western property line (between the Victorian and the Aspen Wild Condominiums) is a logical extension of the surrounding zoning. Cutting through the middle of the block would be important to retain the R-MF zone on the condominium complex. This mid -block treatment is in evidence one block north where an 0-office zoning treatment is on the Herron Victorian, but not the other half of the block. The obvious disadvantages of rezoning the parcel to L-1 are the possibilities for property expansion that are opened up. This ability for an increase in units (and FAR) may place severe development pressure on the property which makes it unattractive to do a low -intensity lodge. If the applicant who is proposing this 6-room guest lodge does not follow through on his proposal, the ability for the present owner or a potential buyer to build a higher -density lodge use could be a very real problem and threaten the existence of the Victorian house to a greater degree. The house is historically designated and the protection of that designation should make its removal for a new construction project unlikely. Another major drawback of L-1 zoning is that it does not allow for a later conversion back to a residential use if the lodge use does not fly. Alternative #4 -- Rezoning to L-2 Rezoning the property to L-2 makes sense as a transition between the surrounding L-1 and R-MF zones. Area and bulk requirements of the L-2 zone are the same as in the L-1 zone, so many of the problems discussed in Alternative #3 apply to this alternative. The most important difference is that an L-2 zoning provides for a later permitted conversion to single-family, duplex, or multi- family use if the lodge proves to be uneconomical. External FAR in the L-1 and L-2 zones is 1:1. With a 25" open space requirement, 4875 square feet of the lot can be developed. The internal FAR is .5:1 and can go to .75:1 with employee housing, for a total of 4875 square feet of rentable space, which must be split at a minimun of 520 square feet of employee housing and a maximum of 4355 square feet of tourist space, with the remaining 1625 square feet being designated as non -unit space. Memo: Bed and Breast Lodge Discussion Page Five January 5, 1982 Alternative #5 -- Rezoning to a newly -developed zone category of L-3 for low -intensity lodge use. The timeliness of developing a completely new zone category is not ideal. If we were at the point of reviewing the comprehensive plan and could easily add a new lodge category, this might be the best alternative. Under the circumstances, it will definitely accomplish our purpose in this case, but is an especially accommodating action. It opens up the argument for other small lodges in the neighborhood to become conforming, and have the accompanying ability to expand. This L-3 concept can certainly be developed and instituted, but more likely should be considered when the comprehensive plan is reviewed in 1982. Planninq Office Recommendation Although none of the above alternatives appear to represent a perfect solution, the Planning Office recommends that we make the Bed and Breakfast Lodge a conditional use in the R-MF zone in individually -designated historic structures. This action would have the effect of making the two lodges across the street (the Little Red Ski Flaus and the Snow Queen) conditional uses if and when the structures are designated. This approach of allow- ing this low -intensity lodge use as a conditional use will protect the house at its original site, allow for its later conversion back to a residence if necessary, and will only set the precedent that we are willing to act flexible when we can preserve a historic structure. 6kM I SC-H r� i 4- J -Z W AWc%l/ ► �' I October 27, 1981 Nis. Colette Penne Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Colette: As you suggested, I am writing to outline the presentation I intend to make to the City Council. The subject was brought to my attention through the potential project of restoring the historic Koval house at Aspen and Cooper Streets. Restoring the house in its present historic location is an exciting and meaningful project to me. One thing that has been occurring in the central Aspen area has been the removal of historic houses to west end locations which bit by bit dilutes the character of the center of town. If some structures are truly historic by nature, I feel that their location as well as their architecture is equally important, and I only wish there were some way to make the retaining of such structures economically feasible. In many cities, especially San Francisco, the high quality bed and breakfast inn approach has been one means of preserving old residential structures. The main point of my presentation, in addition to these general issues, is that I feel the division between the RI, and RMF zones is one block in the wrong location. Although I fully agree with the Planning Office policy of creating long term housing in town, I feel the line has simply been drawn in the wrong place. This is particularly true with the addition of the new signal in town which was placed with the intent of slowing traffic into the central area. The first signal which intercepts shuttles and auto traffic is at Aspen Street which connects with Lift 1A. Both sides of the street are predominately lodge uses as well as some of the smaller houses in the first block behind. I feel that perhaps a special transition zone could be created which would make the bed and breakfast idea possible and salvage some of the smaller scale historic structures existing in this and similar areas. Ms. Colette Panne October 27, 1981 Page 2 If possible I would like to be placed on the Council Is agenda for a general discussion of this matter. If not, I can make my thoughts known at the citizen's comment time. Very truly yours, T omas O. Wells cc: Mayor Herman Edel Sunny Vann Alarc Friedberg • • MEMORA14DUM TO: Planning Office FROM: Colette Penne RE: Koval House DATE: November 16, 1981 The house at 135 E. Cooper Avenue was built in 1890 by J.M. Dixon, a miner. It was purchased in 1895 by J.C. Markle, a blacksmith. The house stands on its original site and is unaltered (except for the removal of the front porch to keep the present demolition permit active). Samuel Carter purchased the house in the 1930's and four generations of Carters lived there before it was sold to the Wilsons in 1976, who completely restored and redecorated it. There are very few remaining Victorians in town with their carriage houses intact, and more importantly, on this major thoroughfare leading to the Lift IA area, this particular lot with the iron fence surrounding it, the widows walk reflecting the same iron treatment, and the mature vegetation, is one of the few reminders of the past. The house has been donated to the Historical Society and in determining criteria for the purchase of it from them by a private individual, they feel strongly that to be as historically appropriate as possible, it should remain on its original site. The remaining remnants of "old Aspen" should not be easily dismissed and removed. This structure was the initial object of the "Save the Victorians" movement, which centered largely around maintaining it at its present location. The Historical Society has a deadline of April 30, 1982, to find a buyer for the house and a suitable location. Three people have expressed an interest in acquiring the structure to move it. Two of these prospective owners do not own lots to move the house to, and one party owns a lot in the middle of a block where proper situating of the house may be a real problem. The house has the unique feature of double -stacked bay windows which have a corner orientation. Picking the structure up and moving it to a location that does not suit it is possibly a worse alternative than allowing its demolition, which will happen on May 1 if a solution for it to stay where it is or a favorable new site is not found. A comment about the Bed and Breakfast Lodge concept: At the time of the "Save the Victorians" movement, letters from tourists came in supporting the retention of the old buildings and the mix of old and new. Many visitors would no doubt prefer to stay in a small-scale Victorian accommo- dation rather than a hotel room or new condominium. The atmosphere of a six - room, bed and breakfast lodge is one sought out by many skiers and is not offered widely in Aspen. When there exists a structure over 100 years old two blocks from a lift and an investor willing to provide such a facility, it deserves close scrutiny. The economics of the situation and the high density of the surrounding neighbor- hood do not encourage single-family use of the house. Unless we provide incen- tives or exercise flexibility in situations like this one, the City of Aspen can say goodbye •to its Victorian structures that are in zone districts where an investor can maximize profits with their demise. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planners FROM: Alice Davis Y RE: Planning Issues Involved in the Koval House Project DATE: November 16, 1981 The Koval House, located at 135 East Cooper Avenue, is currently located in an R-MF zone district. Under the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan, the site was in an area designated for accommodations/recreation uses. The 1973 Land Use Plan changed the designation from accommodations/recreation uses to mixed residential uses. The transition from the 1966 to 1973 Land Use Plan and the subsequent rezonings to bring zoning into compliance with the new plan, created a mix of many different and often non -conforming uses. Since there were many non -conforming uses created by rezoning the subject area to R-MF, it is not appropriate to evaluate the Koval House based on surrounding land uses. To properly evaluate the future of the Koval House, the City's planning policies on the R-MF zone district, lodging districts, historical structures and the area in general should be studied. The area surrounding the Koval House is zoned L-1 to the south, east and north- east, R-MF to the north and northeast and R-15 to the west. In essence, the areas east and south of the subject property are zoned for lodging uses while the areas north and west of the property are zoned for long term residential uses. In order to reduce the diverse mix of uses in the subject area, the City has followed the policies of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan in trying to obtain a strong multi -family, long term residential neighborhood in this area. The 1973 Plan calls for a mix of residential uses in the subject area interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodation uses in places where they presently exist. Only existing lodges should be considered for expansion. To rezone the Koval house property for lodging uses either by expanding the L-1 zone west from Aspen Street or north to Cooper Avenue, would contradict this policy by expanding lodging in an area that the 1973 Plan desig- nated for long term residential uses. An increased commitment by the City to long term residences in this neighborhood came with the requirement for six month minimum leases in the R-MF zone district. To reduce the mix of different uses and to establish a strong, long term resi- dential area in the Koval li:)use neighborhood, the City has been attempting to abate the many non -conforming uses created by the transition from the 1966 to 1973 Land Use Plans and the subsequent rezonings. The expansion of lodging in this area zoned for residential uses would contradict the efforts of abate- ment of non -conforming lodges and undermine the establishment of a stable, long term residential area. Also, there are several other lodges in the surrounding R-MF and R-15 districts that would like to be brought into conform- ity by a rezoning. It would be inconsistent to allow short term lodging units at the Koval douse and not allow them within the other R-MF and R-15 zone districts. Another important consideration in allowing the rezoning of the Koval parcel to a lodge district is the precedent that will be set. A rezoning will set a precedent against the established policy of long term residential uses. Owners of non -conforming lodges may use this rezoning as an argument in favor of rezoning their existing lodges so that they,too, will be conforming uses. This precedent may also affect the zoning of the annexed Koch Lumber Company site where the owners may request an L-2 zoning on the property. Another policy in the 1973 Plan emphasizes that lodging should be concentrated at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Koval House is located very near but not at the base of Aspen Mountain. The site is five blocks from Lift 1-A. By maintaining an R-MF zoning on the subject parcel, the Koval House will probably be moved or demolished and a new structure developed. The new units will provide long term housing as they will be subject to the six month minimum lease require- ment of the R-MF district. This will increase the number of employee housing units, another important concern in the policies of the 1973 Plan. • Memo: Planning Issues Involved in the Koval House Project Page Two November 16, 1981 It is very important to note, however, that the 1973 Land Use Plan can also be used to argue in favor of preserving the Koval House at its pres-nt location. One important policy in the Plan supports the preservation of those buildings recommended by the HPC for historic designation. The Koval House has been designated by the HPC as a structure of historical significance. Since it is uneconomical to maintain the Koval House as a single family structure, the issue of restoring it as a lodge in order to preserve the structure arises. A possible solution may be to allow a lodge as a conditional use for structures of historical significance in the R-MF zone district. There are only a few structures that could fall into this category including the neighboring Little Red Ski Haus and the Snow Queen. These two lodges are not yet designated by the HPC, but may possibly be designated in the future. However, due to area and bulk requirements in the R-MF district, the expansion possibilities of these lodges are very limited. Since a lodge in an historical structure in an R-MF district would be a conditional use, a review on that use would be required as a safeguard against undesired lodge units. Several other City land use policies from the 1973 Plan support the preservation of the Koval House. These are discussed below: 1. Increase the number of housing units constructed for permanent employees -- there are two employee units in a carriage house on the Koval parcel. These units will be maintained for continued use as employee housing if the structure is preserved. 2. Encourage diversification of quality recreational and cultural pursuits -- smaller lodging facilities such as a bed and breakfast, especially when found in a preserved Victorian structure, provides a diversification in lodging facilities which expands the Aspen experience. These struc- tures help maintain the flavor of old Aspen. 3. Place primary emphasis on the pedestrian mode of transportation -- a lodge unit so close to Lift 1-A, the mall and other commercial facilities encourages walking as opposed to automobile transportation. 4. Preserve the community's wealth of natural resources by maintaining a pleasant aesthetic appearance -- a restored Victorian helps maintain the aesthetic qualities that make Aspen a unique area. The corner lot containing the Koval House at Aspen Street and Cooper Avenue is a very visible location for pedestrian and automobile traffic to and from Lift 1-A. Preserving such a desirable structure at this location would work toward maintaining desirable aesthetic appearances within the community. These arguments are based on adopted planning policies found in the 1973 Plan which have been enforced throughout the years by Council action. It may be that these policies are outdated or at least should be reevaluated to deter- mine if they need to be modified to reflect recent growth and changes in Aspen. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Files FROM: Colette Penne RE: Zoning Alternatives for the Koval House DATE: December 7, 1981 In view of surrounding zoning and the implications of this zoning action for other properties in this zone and throughout town, the alternatives appear to boil down to two that are most advantageous. The five alternatives that I see are: 1) Tying use to individually -designated structures in the R-MF zone. 2) Tying use to individually -designated structures in non-specific zone categories. 3) Rezoning to L-1 4) Rezoning to L-2 5) Rezoning to a newly -developed zone category of L-3 for low -intensity lodge use. Alternative #2 can be easily dismissed. Although incentives do need to be offered to encourage preservation of our historic structures, the bed and breakfast lodge concept is not necessarily suited to many areas. In the Koval case, the use is justified by its proximity to other lodges and to the base of Aspen Mountain. Furthermore, in view of the tax incentives offered by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, if this use was allowed throughout town, investors might complete conversion of a sturcture for the substantial write-offs, and not because of a real need or viability for the lodge. Alternative #1 -- Tying the use to i.ndividually-designated structures in the R-MF zone. An advantage of this alternative is that it would not require rezoning. A code amendment process could add this use as a conditional use in the R-MF zone category (much the same as the commercial provision in the 0-Office zone). If this alternative was used, it would affect only three properties in this specific area of R-MF zoning, these being the Koval house, the Little Red Ski Haus, and the Snow Queen Lodge. This fits the situation very well, since the other two affected properties are already i.n use as Bed and Breakfast Lodges. The other R-MF zones may contain historic structures which would be affected. If, in the final analysis, this alternative is the direction to pursue, the existence of historic structures in the zone will have to be researched. I do not believe this is the best alternative because it is so arbitrary. Specifying a zone in which this use is contrary to its basic thrust does not make very much sense. The only justification for this treatment in this zone is the nearness of the area to the base of Aspen Mountain and the importance of this particular site to the neighborhood. ,_—Alternative #3 -- Rezoning to L-1 Rationale L-1 zoning exists on the blocks to the south, southeast, east, northeast and the southern half of the block that the Victorian is located in. Extending the L-1 zone line along the western property line (between the Victorian and the Aspen Wild Condominiums) is a logical extension of the surrounding zoning. Cut- ting through the middle of the block is important to retain the R-MF zone on the condominium complex. This mid -block treatment is in evidence one block north where an 0 - office zoning treatment is on the Herron Victorian, but not the other half of the block. • Memo: Zoning Alternatives for the Koval house Page Two December 7, 1981 The obvious disadvantages of rezoning the parcel to L-1 are the possibilities for property expansion that are opened up. This ability for an increase in units (and FAR) may place severe development pressure on the property which makes it unattractive to do a low -intensity Bed and Breakfast Lodge. If the applicant who is proposing this 6-room guest lodge does not follow through on his proposal, the ability for the present owner or a potential buyer to build a higher -density lodge use could be a very real problem. However, the house is historically designated and the demolition permit is no longer active, so with the protection of designation, the possibility of this house being removed for a new construction project is unlikely. This alternative is a logical extension of the the designation of the structure, modifications ture protected. One of the major drawbacks to does not allow for its later conversion back to use does not fly. Alternative #4 -- Rezoning to L-2 surrounding zoning. Because of will be reviewed and the struc- zoning the site L-1 is that it a residential use if the lodge Makes sense as a transition between the surrounding L-1 and R-MF zones. Area and bulk requirements are the same as in the L-1 zone, so many of the problems discussed in Alternative #3 apply to this alternative. The most important difference is that an L-2 zoning provides for a later, permitted conversion to single-family, duplex or multi -family use if the lodge use proves to be uneconomical. Alternative #5 -- Rezoning to a newly -developed zone category of L-3 for low - intensity lodge use. The timeliness of developing a completely new zone category is not ideal. If we were at the point of reviewing the comprehensive plan and could easily add a new lodge category, this might be the best alternative. Under the circumstances, it will definitely accomplish our purpose in this case, but is an especially accommodating action. It opens up the argument for other small lodges in the neighborhood to become conforming, and have the accompanying ability to expand. This L-3 concept can certainly be developed and instituted. The political conse- quences of this action should be discussed (in light of the other alternatives). Area and Bulk Considerations Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Minimum 10' 5' 10' Actual 26' 12' & 24' On line The plans for expansion as outlined by Tom Wells affect the setbacks on the south and west sides. As long as the historic house stands on the site, there is no potential for further growth into the front yard of east side yard, only into the west side yard. The house is on two lots (6000 sq. ft.). If this parcel is rezoned to L-1 or L-2, the house was torn down, and a new lodge building erected, it could cover the parcel right out to the minimum side, front and rear yards and still main- tain the 25% open space requirement. Tom feels that the parking requirement should be waived because of the layout and aesthetics of the site. I would recommend consideration of that approach. 0 0 ASPEN LODGING ASSOCIATION c/o Chuck Torinus P.O. Box 2125 Aspen, CO 81612 December 4, 1981 To the }Tanning Department for the City of Aspen: At a meeting of the Aspen Lodging Association held this week, the topic of a bed/breakfast lodge application to the City of Aspen came up for discussion. Obviously I am referring to the "Markle House"/Koval/Friedberg project now before ,you for consideration. At the end of the lengthy discussion, the following; motion was adopted. I pass it along to you for consideration. And our Association sees alot of merit in its content and is hopeful ,you will consider taking action accordingly. _'he motion, then, read as follows: "The Aspen Lodging Association endorses the application for a bed and breakfast lodging facility being made by Mssrs. Friedberg and Koval for the "Markle House" site at Aspen and Cooper Streets... and that the six room proposal be allowed by making lodging in Aspen a conditional use in the ?IMF zone and by making existing lodges in Aspen a fully legal use in the RMF zone." Thank you for ,your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Chuc l us Secretary A.L.A. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office RE: Use of the Victorian House at 135 E. Cooper as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge DATE: November 20, 1981 Background In the Spring of 1981, City Council enacted a moratorium on the demolition of Victorian structures in Aspen to permit completion of a planning process to designate certain of these structures as historic and reduce the threat to their demolition. One of the structures which was a key to the adoption of that moratorium, the Koval House, at 135 E. Cooper, received a demolition permit prior to the effective date of that moratorium. Despite the efforts of the owner, the Historical Society, concerned citizens and the Planning Office no solution has yet been found to preserving this house at its present location. The owner, who has donated the house to the Historical Society, has stated that the issue must be resolved by May 1 or he will be forced to follow through with the demolition permit he has obtained so that he can, most likely construct a duplex on the site. At this time, the most promising option available for preservation is that three persons have offered to move the house to another site, though two of these persons do not own lots on which it can be moved. The third party owns a lot, but its location may not be compatible with the structure itself. On October Friedberg, tion of th permitting suggested this house mix which 27, Tom Wells sent a letter to which offered a new alternative e house in its present location. the house to be used as a 6 roo that we consider taking some typ on its present location and whi he believes is currently unmet. Review Process the Planning Office, on behalf of Marc which appeared to permit the preserva- Tom asked that Council consider m "Bed and Breakfast" type lodge. Tom e of zoning action which will preserve ch will fill a need in our accommodation A request such as the one by Tom Wells has various implications on the adopted planning policies and zoning code of the City of Aspen. The request also has an air of "imminency" about it, since it concerns the preservation of a significant historic structure in an important location in Aspen. Due to the very sensitive nature of the tradeoffs implied by this request, the Planning Office Staff as a whole has taken on this issue, in the hopes of addressing the total spectrum of pros and cons with which it is associated. We have therefore structured this memo to introduce you to the positive and negative aspects of the proposal as they relate to planning and historical preservation issues. Historic Perspective The house was built in 1890 by J.M. Dixon, a miner. It was purchased in 1u95 by J.C. Markle, a blacksmith. The house stands on its original site and is unaltered (except for the removal of the front porch to keep the present demolition permit active). Samuel Carter purchased the house in the 1930's and four generations of Carters lived there before it was sold to the Wilsons in 1976, who completely restored and redecorated it. There are several unique aspects of this structure which make its preservation in its present location a desirable objective. There are very few More importantly, o particular lot with same iron treatment the past. Addition stacked bay windows for this corner lot. remaining Victo n this major tho the iron fence and the mature ally, the unique which have a co rians in town with their carriage houses int roughfare leading to the Lift 1-A area, thi surrounding it, the widows walk reflecting vegetation, is one of the few reminders of architectural feature of this house -- dou rner orientation, is particularly appropria act. s the ble- te Memo: Use of the VictVian House at 135 E. Cooper as Pled and Breakfast Lodge Page Two November 20, 1981 The house has been donated to the Historical Society and in determining criteria for the purchase of it from them by a private individual, they feel strongly that to be as historically appropriate as possible, it should remain on its original site, and that the remaining remnants of "old Aspen" should not be easily dismissed and removed. This structure was the initial object of the "Save the Victorians" movement, which centered largely around maintaining it at its present location. The Bed and Breakfast Lodge concept appears to offer one option for retaining the Koval house in place. At the time of the "Save the Victorians" movement, letters from tourists came in supporting the retention of the old buildings and the mix of old and new. It seems reasonable that some of our visitors might well find that accommodations available in a small-scale Victorian are a desirable alternative to a hotel room or new condominium. The atmosphere of a six -room, bed and breakfast lodge is one which has been shown to be popular in other cities and is not offered widely in Aspen. When there exists a structure nearly 100 years old two blocks from a lift and an investor willing to provide such a facility, it deserves close scrutiny. Planninq Issues Counter to the Proposal The subject property is currently located in the R-MF zone district. The area surrounding the Koval House is zoned L-1 to the south, east and northeast, R-MF to the north and northeast and R-15 to the west. In essence, the areas east and south of the subject property are zoned for lodging uses while the areas north and west of the property are zoned for long term residential uses. The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan designated this site (and most of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood) for accommodations/recreation uses. This designation, and the resultant zoning, led to the construction of many of the lodges whicn are found in this area. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan constitutes the major revision to our land use poli- cies in Aspen. Thi.s Plan eliminated the accommodations/recreation designation from both the western and eastern portions of Aspen and suggested that we centralize all of our tourist accommodations at the Base of Aspen Mountain. The 1973 Plan designated this area as "mixed residential", intended for a mix of residential ueses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodations uses in places where they persently exist. The transition from the 1966 to 1973 Land Use Plan and the subsequent rezoning to bring zoning into compliance with the new plan, created a mix of many different and often non -conforming uses. Since there were many non -conforming uses created by rezoning the subject area to R-MF, it does not appear to us to be appropriate to evaluate the Koval House simply on the basis of surrounding land uses. Instead, the Planning Office views the proposal to use the Koval House as a Bed and Breakfast operation as a test of our policy to encourage the establishment of stable resi- dential neighborhoods and to concentrate short term accommodations at the Base of the Mountain. This issue cannot be separated from the larger issue of the desire of some lodge owners throughout the Shadow Mountain neighborhood to rezone their properties to use, thus permitting their expansion. This issue, should not, however, be affected by the fact that we have, as yet, not been entirely successful in establishing this neighborhood as one with a long term, residential character, but instead should be judged on the intent of that policy, and whether the policy still has meaning for the future of Aspen. The most direct impact of the land use policy has been that the lodges in this neighborhood were zoned non -conforming, and as a result, have been prohibited from expanding. The City has not adopted any policy to abate the non -conforming lodges, instead indicating that those which are lost through attrition should only be replaced in the conforming zones which are found at the Base of Aspen Mountain. The City has provided incentives (lodge condominiumization, lodge preservation) to those lodges who wish to upgrade the quality of their operations, without any expansion of rooms or square footage. However, the City has taken a policy stand that these lodges not be allowed to expand due to the impact of short term usage on a neighborhood which we would intend to have a stable, residential character. Alternatives Constrained by the Policies We have considered various alternatives which might accomplish the objective of the Tom Wells letter without having a negative implication upon our land use policies. We can conceive of two sets of alternatives to implement the Bed and Memo: Use of the Victorian House at 135 E. Cooper as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge Page Three November 20, 1981 Breakfast Lodge concept. One set of solutions would include allowing Bed and Breakfast Lodges either only in historically designated structures or only in individually designated historic structures in the R-MF. The first option opens a pandoras box for lodges throughout Aspen, while the second (which would likely only be available to this house and possibly the Snow Queen and Little Red Ski Haus) is arbitrary by singling out a zone district for a use totally unrelated to its basic intent. A second set of alternatives involves shifting the zoning boundaries to include this property within a lodge district or establishing a new, low intensity lodge zone district. We felt that the arbitrary shifting of a zoning line to accommo- date the problem we currently face would set a precedent by which surrounding lodge owners could easily argue for a rezoning. We feel incapable of responding, in a timely fashion, to the request for a new zone district, particularly in the absence of firm data on our current tourist bed capacity and the need for expan- sion. We will be in a position to better evaluate these alternatives by mid-1982, when we will be presenting new GMP quotas and initiating our revisions to the Land Use Plan. Planni.nq Issues in Favor of the Proposal Despite the above concerns which we perceive in terms of our adopted policies, it is also important to note that the 1973 Land Use Plan can be used to argue in favor of preserving the Koval House at its present location. One important policy in the Plan supports the preservation of those buildings recommended by the HPC for historic designation. The Koval House has been designated by the HPC as a structure of historical significance. Since we have been led to believe that it is uneconomical to maintain the Koval House as a single family structure, the possibility of using it as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge takes on a new significance. Several other land use policies from the 1973 Plan also provide rationales for the use of the Koval House as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge, including the following: 1. Increase the number of housing units constructed for permanent employees -- there are two employee units in a carriage house on the Koval parcel. These units would possibly be maintained for continued use as employee housing if the structure i.s preserved, while if it is moved or demolished, we will likely see a free market duplex on the site and no employee housing. 2. Encourage diversification of quality recreational and cultural pursuits -- smaller lodging facilities such as a bed and breakfast, especially when found in a preserved Victorian structure, provides a diversification in lodging facilities which expands the Aspen experience. These structures help maintain the flavor of old Aspen. 3. Place primary emphasis on the pedestrian mode of transportation -- a lodge unit so close to Lift 1-A, the mall and other commercial facilities encourages walking as opposed to automobile transportation. 4. Preserve the community's wealth of natural resources by maintaining a pleasant aesthetic appearance a restored Victorian helps maintain the aesthetic qualities that make Aspen a unique area. The corner lot containing the Koval House at Aspen Street and Cooper Avenue is a very visible location for pedestrian and automobile traffic to and from Lift 1-A. Preserving such a desirable structure at this location would work toward maintaining aesthetic appearances within the community. Summary Based on all of the above discussions, following is a summary of the issues involved in this proposal: 1. From an historical standpoint, there are a variety of reasons supporting the desirability of maintaining this house on its current site. 2. Unless an economically attractive alternative can be devised for the struc- ture, it appears that the house will be moved on May 1, 1982. If a suitable site can not be found to which the house can be moved, it will likely be demolished. 0 • Memo: Use of the Victorian House at 135 E. Cooper as a Bed and Breakfast Lodge Page Four November 20, 1981 3. The Bed and Breakfast Lodge concept appears to offer an alternative which will permit its upgrading and preservation on site, at least for the near -term. This action would guarantee that the structure would not be demolished without HPC review since its demolition permit would expire and it would be an historically designated structure. 4. We cannot, at this point, identify a regulatory approach to permitting this proposed use which is not constrained by our adopted land use policies. We believe that it is in the best interests of the future of Aspen to remain consistent in our policies toward our neighborhoods and our tourist uses, rather than to sacrifice them in the interests of maintaining a house on its present site. 5. To accommodate the request by Tom Wells, you would have to direct the Planning Office to reverse your adopted policy toward non -conforming lodges in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The Planning Office is unable to support such a reversal at this time in the absence of a detailed evaluation of our existing policies. Planning Office Recommendation We cannot, as responsible planners, recommend that you simply ignore an adopted land use policy of the City of Aspen which may still represent the appropriate direction for us to follow in the future. Neither can we, in good conscience, recommend that you take steps which will prevent this neighborhood from retaining one of its last true links with its past by rejecting a proposal which we feel has a certain degree of merit. Therefore, should you also see merit in this proposal and wish to support it, we would ask you to do so by specifically recog- nizing that due to the clear community benefit involved, this is one time when a policy must bend. We are unprepared, at this time, to challenge the basic validity of the policy, and would recommend that you not do so at this time. Instead, if you choose to sponsor a zoning code amendment to implement this pro- posal, we believe that it should not go forward as a reversal of policy but as an exception for a necessary community purpose. One alternative which might achieve this objective would be an L-3 zone district, formulated for low intensity lodge uses and only permitted in structures which are individually historically designated. Of course, this is just one possible approach to the issue, among the many we would consider should you direct us to try to accommodate this proposal. THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 330 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817 October 27, 1981 Ms. Colette Penne Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Colette: F - rI �Y CT2 91981 ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PUNNING OFFICE As you suggested, I am writing to outline the presentation I intend to make to the City Council. The subject was brought to my attention through the potential project of restoring the historic Koval house at Aspen and Cooper Streets. Restoring the house in its present historic location is an exciting and meaningful project to me. One thing that has been occurring in the central Aspen area has been the removal of historic houses to west end locations which bit by bit dilutes the character of the center of town. If some structures are truly historic by nature, I feel that their location as well as their architecture is equally important, and I only wish there were some way to make the retaining of such structures economically feasible. In many cities, especially San Francisco, the high quality bed and breakfast inn approach has been one means of preserving old residential structures. The main point of my presentation, in addition to these general issues, is that I feel the division between the RL and RMF zones is one block in the wrong location. Although I fully agree with the Planning Office policy of creating long term housing in town, I feel the line has simply been drawn in the wrong place. This is particularly true with the addition of the new signal in town which was placed with the intent of slowing traffic into the central area. The first signal which intercepts shuttles and auto traffic is at Aspen Street which connects with Lift IA. Both sides of the street are predominately lodge uses as well as some of the smaller houses in the first block behind. I feel that perhaps a special transition zone could be created which would make the bed and breakfast idea possible and salvage some of the smaller scale historic structures existing in this and similar areas. Ms. Colette Penne October 27, 1981 Page 2 If possible I would like to be placed on the Council's agenda for a general discussion of this matter. If not, I can make my thoughts known at the citizen's comment time. Very truly yours, �u Thomas O. Wells cc: Mayor Herman Edel Sunny Vann Marc Friedberg v�. t N I i� GIFT AGREEMENT �I KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that LEONARD KOVAL, ;whose address is c/o Michigan Avenue Management, 910 South Michi- gan, Suite 101, Chicago, Illinois 60605 ("!;oval"), without consi- deration or compensation and intending to donate the property :;described herein, by these presents does cive, transfer and ;deliver unto the ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, a non-profit corpora- iition organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, whose i' :address is 620 West Bleeker, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("Society"), ; i.its successors and assigns, the following personal property, to - wit: � f Carriage House building located i� at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen, I! Pitkin County, Colorado, together with the furnishings and fixtures i� located therein. ` I; ! To have and to hold the absolute o,.; ershiv of the same ii ;unto the.Society, its successors and assigns, from this time �I !!forward subject, however, to an existing residential lease which i' �Iishall expire of its own terms April 30, 1982, whereupon the Society shall cause the Carriage House and its contents to be removed from its location at 135 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado, on :or before May 31, 1982, and, in the evert the Society is unable 'to cause removal of the Carriage House and its contents on or ;!before May 31, 1982, the Society hereby authorizes Koval to !removo the Carriage House from its location thereafter. All ii !;costs of removal shall be paid by the Society. It is under- istood and agreed that from and after this date, the Society ':shall be entitled to the rents and profits derived from the ;Carriage Iiouse and that the Society shall also assume responsi- t ;'bility for expenses of its management and maintenance; provided, i ;;however, Koval shall reimburse the Society for out-of-pocket .;expenses over the rental income received fro__, the current tenant. i In the event the Lease with the existing tenant is sooner termi- !,nested, the Society shall not re -let the Carriage House or replace the tenant but shall. move the Carriage House as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 21,ay 31, 1982. i, i i By this Gift Agreement, Koval for himself, his heirs, 'executors, administrators, successors and assigns covenants and agrees that he has good title to the property conveyed; that he !has full power and authority to make this gift; that except for the above -described :lease, the title to the property is free and 1�clear of liens and encumbrances; that he will defend the title l� to the property against all and every person whomsoever. By signature below, the Society hereby accepts the j1donation of the Carriage House and contents subject to the ;!existing Lease and -the other terms and conditions contained I !herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Gift Agreement this � day of Septemb r,�_ 981. {1STATE OF COLORADO !!COUNTY OF PITKIN l� RD R(T\7AL ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. By ss. I The foregoing Gift Agreement was subscribed and sworn i'i:d 'li.Eore me this day of September, 1981, b,,7 I.':Oti=:RD KOVAL. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' My commission expires:'511)4 � I Notary nubl,e'+ j Pay address is: ok yrJ';,t � ��l �� C,4 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) LLB ,J �.'� �� l/! ss. r ;,COUNTY OF PITKIN ) j The foregoing Gift Agreement was subscribed and sw riz t before, me this p:1 fj day of September, 1981, by ' on behalf of the ASPS\ HI rORICAL C1L'I'Y. 77 WITNESS my hand and official seal. t,, t My commission expires: /A/�� Notary Public i� C? My address is: p�.r !I i i GIFT AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that LEONARD KOVAL, �i whose address is c/o Michigan Avenue Management, 910 South Michi- gan, Suite 101, Chicago, Illinois 60605 ("Koval"), without consi- deration or compensation and intending to donate the personal „ property described herein to the ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, a non- profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of 'i Colorado, whose address is 620 West Bleeker, Aspen, Colorado ("Society"), by these presents does give, transfer and deliver unto the Society, -its successors and assigns, the following j personal property, to -wit: The two-story Victorian -style dwelling building located at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, together with the furnishings and fixtures located therein. To have and to hold the absolute ownership of this property unto the Society, its successors and assigns from this time forward; provided, however, following an M.L.A. certified appraisal of the property to be paid for by Koval, the Society shall cause the building and its contents to be removed from its II I '! location at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen, Colorado, on or before April 30, 1982 and, in the event the Society has failed to remove the building and contents by that date, the*Society hereby autY.Jrizes Koval to remove the building and contents from li its location thereafter. All costs of removal shall be paid by the Society. By this Gift Agreement, Koval for himself, his I; heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, cove- nants and agrees that he has good title to this property; that i title to the same is free from liens and encumbrances; and that he will defend title to this property against all and every I person whomsoever. By sign- ure below, the Society accepts the donation of the building and its contents on the-..+rms and conditions set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties Gift Agreement this �)�D day of Septem r :i LEONAR ave executed this / I 1981. KOVAL t I If f i -Ah 40 ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY By Y(— I i STATE OF COLORADO ) { `t ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Gift Agreement was subscribed and sworn to before me this �� day of September, 1981, by LEONARD KOVAL. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires,:.cc_%�� ,•� cc- .c Notary Public Ply address is: ! . STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I'' The fore goi Gift Agreement was subscribe and sworn tq—Iefore me this !vday of September, 1981, by l yE_r on behalf of the ASPEN HIST ICAL S, CIETY. L� WITNESS my hand and offic�ial seal. My commission expires: A��` A�x i Notdry Public My address is: u I MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management (Condominiumization) Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception DATE: March 31, 1981 Location: 135 East Cooper Street (Lots H and I and Easterly 5 feet Aspen and of Lot G, Block 70, O.A.T.) S.W. corner of Cooper Street Zoning: RMF - Residential Multi -Family Case History: This application was originally heard by the P & Z on The P & Z tabled the item for one FLU, 1981. month in order to permit time for modifications of the site plan to accomodate additional parking. At the Marc_ 17th P & Z meeting the Planning Office informed P & Z of a defective notice and the need to continue the hearing on this application until April 7, 1981. the ed the Febrii� ry 1 Zth meet raI citizens _ addres _sue mm anging a a e arkin and t o chP 3hara�tej: of "Vic _Arian Aspen". Background: The subject property is currently occupied by a single buildings which family Victorian structure with accessory the applicant proposes to relocate to a vacant site on N. Garmisch and ;J. Francis. On the the southwest corner of 65' x 100' parcel the applicant proposes the construction of a three story, eleven one -bedroom unit condominium pro- (moderate) restricted units and ject; eight deed and price three free market units. Approvals Requested: The following approvals are being requested simultaneously: Rezoning to (RMF) Residential Multi-Family/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) (Ordinance No. 16, Series 1980). 2. Exemption of the Growth Management Plan via 70:30 Deed Restricted Housing (Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980). (3. Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual before City Council and Preliminary Plat before P & Z, i.e., short subdivision (Sec. 20-19). Referral Agency Continents: Aspen Sanitation District: This development can be provided service. Water Department: The project proposes to be connected by a 1-1/2 inch service line to -the City main in Cooper Street. 'rui6 oC&OkAA 0.11 The subject property is at the end of a dead-end main in 11 units r� 'Wj% S�yrw�Qa f„� Cooper Street. The construction of an additional at this location would aggravate a marginal situation and P� RQ ac;cs Swould therefore necessitate improvements to the system as follows: interconnect or extend the existing 6" main the 5-1/2" westerly along Cooper Street to a juncture with existing steel line on South Aspen Street. City housing Office: This office supports the rezoning re- "moderate quest to RL'O and the deed restrictions to the E Memo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Page Two March 31, 1981 income" guidelines. The benefit to the Community of eight deed restricted moderate units outweighs any im- pact of the RBO development. City Attorney's Office: No objections, providing full compliance with Ordinance No. 16-1980. Area and bulk requirements under Ordinance No. 16 for RNF lots under 9,000 square feet may be exceeded with 11 one -bedroom units. Compliance with Ordinance No. 20-1980, "the 70/30 ordinance," is required. Park dedication fees are to be determined. Building Department: The elevation of this proposed building shows the mean height of the sloping roof to be 28 feet and the ridge height to be 31 feet. This building as presented would meet the 28 foot maximum height limit in the RMF Zoning District. Engineering Department: - The site is located on an existing transportation route. - The site is insufficient for 11 one -bedroom units even with an RBO needing 600 square feet of lot area per unit. A subdivision exception procedure is appropriate for this multi -family structure. An electric/ communications easement between the property line and the structurelextending 10 feet north of the proposed parking space number 7 as well as an access across the space,and a final plat will be required after construction is complete. The revised site plan shows parking to be adequate and includes proper configurations. Provision of four spaces off Cooper Street will require installa- tion of a maximum 10 foot curb cut and minimum 6 inch concrete slab at the sidewalk crossing. Planning Office: The proposed use of an RBO for this site permits area and bulk reductions in tradeoff for 50% deed restricted "employee" housing. In addition to RBO applica- tion, an exemption for G.M.P. competition via Ordinance No. 20-1980 is proposed which increases the ratio of deed restricted housing from 50-50 to 70-30. This application proposes the construction of a three story, 11 one -bedroom complex with eight deed restricted, moderate income units and three free market units. The rezoning to RMF/RBO request for this site would not be out of character and scale with the general neighborhood. Lodge and multi -family structures predominate. Two nearby Victorian structures are being used for short-term rental lodge purposes. This application is not in compliance with the Municipal Code as follows: RBO District - Sec. 24-I0.5(b)(5) Area and Bulk Re- quirements. For lots less than 9,000 square feet in Menlo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Page Three March 31, 1981 size, there shall be 600 square feet per bedroom. This 11 one -bedroom complex needs 6,600 square feet of lot area where only 6,500 square feet exists. Solution: A studio unit only requires 500 square feet of lot area. Eliminate a one -bedroom unit in place of a studio unit which would require 6,500 square feet of lot area (the applicant's repre- sentatives concur with this solution). The building height and F.A.R. calculations for the building are satisfactory. Off Street Parking - Sec. 24-4.5 Numbered Spaces ! Required. One parking space for each bedroom is required. Eleven (11) bedrooms requires 11 parking spaces. The revised site plan as submitted meets this requirement. Park dedication fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. These fees will be calculated and levied by the Building Department at the appropriate time. Under Sec. 7-143(7), the City Council may use its discretion to exempt all together or reduce by any amount these fees when a bona fide moderate or low income housing development is proposed, (The P & Z at its February 17th meeting had discussions about recommending a total exemption of park dedication fees for this project). Recommendations: The Planning Office recommends approval of the following " � r ue is with conditions attached. �'jj_ D q 6AA - Approval to rezone from RMF to RMF/RBO 2, - Approval for exemption of the G.M.P. via Ordinance �►,-� ,mow � No. 20-1980 ("70 :30" Deed Restricted Housing) - Approval of Subdivision Exception for Condominiumiza- tion Waiving Conceptual before City Council and Preliminary Plat before P & Z (Planning Office, in lieu of full subdivision procedure and upon approval r \ of exception request by P & Z, intends to submit all U( three of the components of this application to City Council for both 1st and 2nd reading to provide adequate opportunity for review). Approval of the foregoing should be conditioned upon the following: Providing improvements to the water system as per Water Department memo dated January 14, 1981. Deed restricting eight (8) units of this project to the City's "moderate income" guidelines. Either elimination of a one -bedroom unit or alteration of a one -bedroom into a studio in order to comply with RBO area and bulk requirements. The P & Z may also provide recommendations to the City Council relative to: - Appropriateness of park dedication fees associated with this project. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 7, 1981 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CLAMBERS Regular Meeting I. COMMISSION'S COMMENTS II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Parker Quillen Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Submission B. Koval Residential Bonus Overlay - 70:30 - Subdivision Exception III. OLD BUSINESS A. Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Submission B. Resolution for Code Amendment, Employee Units in NonConforming Lodges IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Dietsch Subdivision Exception B. Pitkin Reserve Conceptual PUD Submission V. ADJOURN MEETING *Minutes are not included in your packet. AND .3 FLOOR 'TYPtcA-L faSPE-KI STREET 511DE 1s+ Ft-OOR -I YPIGAL E- TEWNAL FLOOR ltEP. 432.1of� t 84$ LE55 MCIIArJt�L - 2 TO IP•L t� 1 2 S PF ROCKY MOU"YAI.1 HIGH 1 LOTS H i 1, F•A5T S' LET G , ASPEN 'TOWN5I-rE -PRELiMtNARY FLOOR PLAN <oS 70 Q1 L_OT ^V L i � CITY OF ASPEN _n''9�' 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Johnson, Planning Office \� FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: March 19, 1981 RE: Aspen Street Apartments Amended Site Plan, Lots H, I, East 5' Lot G, Block 70, O.A.T. Having reviewed the revised site plan dated February 28, 1981, for the Aspen Street Apartments at Aspen and Cooper, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking as revised is now adequate and includes proper configurations. This satisfies my first comment in the Subdivision Exception portion of my January 27, 1981 memorandum. 2. Provision of four space off Cooper Street will require installation of a maximum 10-foot curb cut and minimum 6-inch concrete slab at the sidewalk crossing. 3. Owner/applicant should still provide an electric/communication easement between the property line and the structure extending 10 feet north of the proposed parking space number 7 as well as an access across the space. • MEMORANDUM • TO: Jack Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: January 27, 1981 RE: Koval Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay; Exception from Full Subdivision, and Employee Housing Special Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay: 2.4-I01�Cb' 1. The site is located on an existing transportation route. 2. Utilities in the area should be available and adequate, however, I have not seen service comments from the various suppliers. 3. The site is insufficient for 11 one -bedroom units even with an RBO needing 600 square feet of lot per unit. W� 7 ,t a rf �d 4. Unit size data given in the application is contradic- tory, however using the 746 square feet/unit figure giving a total floor area of 8,206 square feet and an F.A.R. of 1.26:1 which is in excess of the per- mitted 1.25:1. Q(1 Subdivision Exception: 1. An exception procedure would be appropriate for this multi -family structure. In the event exception is granted we would require an electric/communications easement and preparation of a final plat following construction. The site plan as submitted is an adequate conceptual submission. Special Review: 1. Off-street parking is inadequate requiring one more space and the configuration shown on the plan is not consistent with the provisions of Section 24-4.2(a) requiring "...a public and unobstructed area for access to a street or alley." Koval Rezoning PAGE TWO �y,a 2. Height of the structure (measured to the mean height between the eaves and ridge of the pitched roof) is in excess of the code maximum. ? ASPEN*PITKI,t REGIONAL BUILE&G DEPARTMENT TO: Jack Jackson, Planning Department FROM: Clayton Meyring, Building Department DATE: February 5, 1981 RE: Aspen Street Apartments I reviewed the height limit of a proposed multi family dwelling to be built on lots H,I and East 5' of G Block 70 with Garry Starnes of the Great Divide Contractors yesterday February 4, 1981. The elevation of the proposed building showed the mean height of the sloping roof to be 28 feet and the ridge height to be 31 feet. This building as presented would meet the 28 foot maximum height limit in the RMF Zoning District. 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 • • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen - rado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 1981 TO: Jack Johnson FROM: Bob Edmondson RE: Koval Rezoning This application must comply with Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980. Please check Section 24-3.7(k) of to Code and Section 24- 10.3 Area and Bulk Requirements which is in Ordinance No. i6 which states minimum lot area for lots in RMF under 9,000 square feet. The applicant requests 11 units and this may he over maximum use. Is it in compliance with 70/30; also park dedication fees; rental restriction and deed restriction to itioderate income. They are asking for moderate income. Discuss this with Jim Reents. Coun- cil has been favoring low. RBE:mc • C� TO: Jack Johnson FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director t 1Qaj �S DATE: February 2, 1981 r o. SUBJECT: Koval Application With regard to the above mentioned project, the Housing Office supports the applicant in a request for the RBO and that the housing be deed restricted as "moderate income". The benefit to the community of eight deed restricted moderate units outweighs in my opinion any impact of the RBO development. JR: ds • CJ MEMORANDUM ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT TO: JACK JOHNSON-PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: KOVAL RE -ZONING DATE: JANUARY 14, 1981 ! 1 � JAN 1 6 1931 ' c _ -.. t :�PEiJ i "KIN CG. r:"Ll, NNi.'JL 1; rli;t As stated in the application, the project is being supplied by a 1 1/2" service line connected to the City main in Cooper Street. However, it should be noted that in checking our water utilities maps, Lots H-I are located at the very end of a dead-end main in Cooper. We think that the construction of an additional 11 units would appgravate a marginal situation and recommend that the developer be required to interconnect or extend the 6" main westerly to a juncture with the 5 1/2" steel line on S. Aspen St. The Aspen Water Department would attempt to assist in such an improvement. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE; Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: February 12, 1981 Location: 135 East Cooper Street (Lots H and I and Easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Blk 70, O.A.T.) S.W. Corner of Aspen and Cooper Street Zoning: RMF - Residential Multi -Family Background: The subject property is currently occupied by a single family Victorian structure with accessory buildings which the applicant proposes to relocate to a vacant site on the south- west corner of N. Garmisch and W. Francis. On the 65' x 100' parcel the applicant proposes the construction of a three story, eleven one -bedroom unit condominium project; eight deed and price (moderate) restricted units and three free market units. Approvals The following approvals are being requested simultaneously: Requested: 1. Rezoning to (RMF) Residential Multi-Family/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) (Ordinance No. 16, Series 1980). Referral Agency Comments: 2. Exemption of the Growth Management Plan via 70:30 Deed Restricted Housing (Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980). 3. Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual Before City Council and Preliminary Plat Before P & Z, i.e., short subdivision (Sec. 20-19). Aspen Sanitation District - This development can be provided service. Water Department - The project proposes to be connected by a 12" service line to the City main in Cooper Street. The subject property is at the end of a dead-end main in Cooper Street. The construction of an additional 11 units at this location would aggravate a marginal situation and would therefore necessitate improvements to the system as follows: interconnect or extend the existing 6" main westerly along Cooper Street to a juncture with the 51-," existing steel line on South Aspen Street. City Housing Office - This office supports the rezoning request to RBO and the deed restrictions to the "moderate income" guidelines. The benefit to the Community of eight deed restricted moderate units outweighs any impact of the RBO development. City Attorney's Office - No objections, providing full compliance with Ordinance No. 16-1980. Area and bulk require- ments under Ordinance No. 16 for RMF lots under 9,000 square feet may be exceeded with 11 one -bedroom units. Compliance with Ordinance No. 20-1980, "the 70/30 ordinance," is required. Park dedication fees are to be determined. Memo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) February 12, 1981 Page Two Building Department - The elevation of this proposed building shows the mean height of the sloping roof to be 28 feet and the ridge height to be 31 feet. This building as presented would meet the 28 foot maximum height limit in the RMF Zoning District. Engineering Department - The site is located on an existing transportation route. - The site is insufficient for 11 one -bedroom units even with an RBO needing 600 square feet of lot area per unit. - A subdivision exception procedure is appropriate for this multi -family structure. An electric/communications ease- ment and a final plat will be required after construction is complete. - Off-street parking is inadequate by Code requirements and the parking layout is inconsistent with provisions of Sec. 24-4.2(a) which requires . . a public and unobstructed area for access to a street or alley." Planning Office - The proposed use of an RBO for this site permits area and bulk reductions in tradeoff for 50% deed restricted "employee" housing. In addition to RBO applica- tion, an exemption from G.M.P. competition via Ordinance No. 20-1980 is proposed which increases the ratio of deed restricted housing from 50-50 to 70-30. This application proposes the construction of a three story, 11 one -bedroom complex with eight deed restricted, moderate income units and three free market units. The rezoning to RMF/RBO request for this site would not be out of character and scale with the general neighborhood. Lodge and multi -family structures predominate. Two nearby Victorian structures are being used for short-term rental lodge purposes. This application is not in compliance with the Municipal Code as follows: RBO District - Sec. 24-10.5(b)(5) Area and Bulk Requirements. For lots less than 9,000 square feet in size, there shall be 600 square feet per bedroom. This 11 one -bedroom complex needs 6,600 square feet of lot area where only 6,500 square feet exists. Solution: A studio unit only requires 500 square feet of lot area. Eliminate a one -bedroom unit in place of a studio unit which would require 6,500 square feet of lot area. The building height and F.A.R. calculations for the building are satisfactory. Off Street Parking - Sec. 24-4.5 Numbered Spaces Required. One parking space for each bedroom is required. Eleven (11) bedrooms requires 11 parking spaces. This application pro- poses six parking spaces with additional parking storage. Generally a P.U.D. is the only mechanism to vary this 1 to 1 parking requirement. However, under the parking section of the Code, Sec. 24-4.1(c), specifically where RBO deed restricted units are being proposed, "off-street parking shall be established by special review of the City Council upon the recommendation of the P & Z." The applicant has yet to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Office the legality of ownership of this parcel and right to build as per Sec. 20-4(c) of the Code. This is a very basic requirement which must be satisfied. 0 0 Memo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) February 12, 1981 Page Three Park dedication fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. These fees will be calculated and levied by the Building Department at the appropriate time. Under Sec. 7-143(7), the City Council may use its discretion to exempt all together or reduce by any amount these fees when a bona fide moderate or low income housing development is proposed. Recommendations: The Planning Office recommends approval of the following requests with conditions attached. - Approval to rezone from RMF to RMF/RBO - Approval for exemption of the G.M.P. via Ordinance No. 20-1980 ("70:30" Deed Restricted Housing) - Approval of Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual Before City Council and Preliminary Plat Before P & Z. Approval of the foregoing should be conditioned upon the following: - providing improvements to the water system as per Water Department memo dated January 14, 1981. - deed restricting eight (8) units of this project to the City's "moderate income" guidelines - either elimination of a one -bedroom unit or alteration of a one -bedroom into a studio in order to comply with RBO area and bulk requirements. - demonstrate the property owners right to develop as per Sec. 20-4(c) prior to final plat. The P & Z may also provide recommendations to the City Council relative to: appropriate number of off-street parking spaces necessary for this project - appropriateness of park dedication fees associated with this project. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: March 31, 1981 Location: 135 East Cooper Street (Lots H and I and Easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, O.A.T.) S.W. corner of Aspen and Cooper Street Zoning: RMF - Residential Multi -Family Case History: This application was originally heard by the P & Z on February 17, 1981. The P & Z tabled the item for one month in order to permit time for modifications of the site plan to accomodate additional parking. At the March 17th P & Z meeting the Planning Office informed P & Z of a defective notice and the need to continue the hearing on this application until April 7, 1981. At the February 17th meeting several citizens addressed the P & Z regarding concerns over inadequate parking and the changing character of "Victorian Aspen". Background: The subject property is currently occupied by a single family Victorian structure with accessory buildings which the applicant proposes to relocate to a vacant site on the southwest corner of N. Garmisch and W. Francis. On the 65' x 100' parcel the applicant proposes the construction of a three story, eleven one -bedroom unit condominium pro- ject; eight deed and price (moderate) restricted units and three free market units. Approvals Requested: The following approvals are being requested simultaneously: 1. Rezoning to (RMF) Residential Multi-Family/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) (Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980). 2. Exemption of the Growth Management Plan via 70:30 Deed Restricted Housing (Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980). 3. Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual before City Council and Preliminary Plat before P & Z, i.e., short subdivision (Sec. 20-19). Referral Agency Comments: Aspen Sanitation District: This development can be provided service. Water Department: The project proposes to be connected by a 1-1/2 inch service line to the City main in Cooper Street. The subject property is at the end of a dead-end main in Cooper Street. The construction of an additional 11 units at this location would aggravate a marginal situation and would therefore necessitate improvements to the system as follows: interconnect or extend the existing 6" main westerly along Cooper Street to a juncture with the 5-1/2" existing steel line on South Aspen Street. City Housing Office: This office supports the rezoning re- quest to RBO and the deed restrictions to the "moderate Memo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Page Two March 31, 1981 income" guidelines. The benefit to the Community of eight deed restricted moderate units outweighs any im- pact of the RBO development. City Attorney's Office: No objections, providing full compliance with Ordinance No. 16-1980. Area and bulk requirements under Ordinance iJo. 16 for RMF lots under 9,000 square feet may be exceeded with 11 one -bedroom units. Compliance with Ordinance No. 20-1980, "the 70/30 ordinance," is required. Park dedication fees are to be determined. Building Department: The elevation of this proposed building shows the mean height of the sloping roof to be 28 feet and the ridge height to be 31 feet. This building as presented would meet the 28 foot maximum height limit in the RMF Zoning District. Engineering Department: - The site is located on an existing transportation route. - The site is insufficient for 11 one -bedroom units even with an RBO needing 600 square feet of lot area per unit. - A subdivision exception procedure is appropriate for this multi -family structure. An electric/ communications easement between the property line and the structure extending 10 feet north of the proposed parking space number 7 as well as an access across the space,and a final plat will be required after construction is complete. - The revised site plan shows parking to be adequate and includes proper configurations. Provision of four spaces off Cooper Street will require installa- tion of a maximum 10 foot curb cut and minimum 6 inch concrete slab at the sidewalk crossing. Planning Office: The proposed use of an RBO for this site permits area and bulk reductions in tradeoff for 50% deed restricted "employee" housing. In addition to RBO applica- tion, an exemption for G.M.P. competition via Ordinance No. 20-1980 is proposed which increases the ratio of deed restricted housing from 50-50 to 70-30. This application proposes the construction of a three story, 11 one -bedroom complex with eight deed restricted, moderate income units and three free market units. The rezoning to RMF/RBO request for this site would not be out of character and scale with the general neighborhood. Lodge and multi -family structures predominate. Two nearby Victorian structures are being used for short-term rental lodge purposes. This application is not in compliance with the Municipal Code as follows: RBO District - Sec. 24-10.5(b)(5) Area and Bulk Re- quirements. For lots less than 9,000 square feet in Memo: Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Page Three March 31, 1981 size, there shall be 600 square feet per bedroom. This 11 one -bedroom complex needs 6,600 square feet of lot area where only 6,500 square feet exists. Solution: A studio unit only requires 500 square feet of lot area. Eliminate a one -bedroom unit in place of a studio unit which would require 6,500 square feet of lot area (the applicant's repre- sentatives concur with this solution). The building height and F.A.R. calculations for the building are satisfactory. Off Street Parking - Sec. 24-4.5 Numbered Spaces Required. One parking space for each bedroom is required. Eleven (11) bedrooms requires 11 parking spaces. The revised site plan as submitted meets this requirement. Park dedication fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. These fees will be calculated and levied by the Building Department at the appropriate time. Under Sec. 7-143(7), the City Council may use its discretion to exempt all together or reduce by any amount these fees when a bona fide moderate or low income housing development is proposed, (The P & Z at its February 17th meeting had discussions about recommending a total exemption of park dedication fees for this project). Recommendations: The Planning Office recommends approval of the following requests with conditions attached. Approval to rezone from RMF to RMF/RBO - Approval for exemption of the G.M.P. via Ordinance No. 20-1980 ("70:30" Deed Restricted Housing) - Approval of Subdivision Exception for Condominiumiza- tion Waiving Conceptual before City Council and Preliminary Plat before P & Z (Planning Office, in lieu of full subdivision procedure and upon approval of exception request by P & Z, intends to submit all three of the components of this application to City Council for both 1st and 2nd reading to provide adequate opportunity for review). Approval of the foregoing should be conditioned upon the following: - Providing improvements to the water system as per Water Department memo dated January 14, 1981. - Deed restricting eight (8) units of this project to the City's "moderate income" guidelines. - Either elimination of a one -bedroom unit or alteration of a one -bedroom into a studio in order to comply with RBO area and bulk requirements. The P & Z may also provide recommendations to the City Council relative to: - Appropriateness of park dedication fees associated with this project. lI • 0 JAMES ROBERT BARASH PATRIC J. LKHOUILLIER ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE WALSH BARAsH, LEHouILLIER & WALSH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 728 SOUTH CASCADE AVENUE COLORADO SPRINOB, COLORADO 80003 October 9, 1980 Mr. Wayne Chapman City Manager Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Chapman: OF COUNSEL: JACK A. SOSTRIN TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 471-1330 Enclosed please ind a narrative description of the project for which my c ient Mr. Koval has requested the authorization for an industrial development bond. This will confirm our telephone conversation of October 9 in which I indicated I wou d send you this information as soon as possible with the understanding that you would present it to the City Couicil. I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this description to Jim Re ntz and Sonny Vann. I would also request that should the City of Aspen adopt guidelines for applications for industrial development bonds, that a copy of these guidelines be sent to me as soon as possible. Thanking you for your coopera- tion in this matter, I remain Sincerely yours, Arthur B. Walsh ABW/ds Enclosures cc: Jim Reentz Sonny Vann PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location This project is located on a lot at 135 East Cooper in the original Aspen town site. There is a 6,500 square foot lot currently zoned R-MF. The lot contains a single family victorian home and detached building which would be moved to another site in Aspen. Developer The developer is Leonard W. Koval who is the owner of the lot. Mr. Koval is president of Michigan Avenue Management, Inc., 910 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. In addition to the victorian home described above, Mr. Koval also maintains a condominium in Aspen and has owned property in Aspen for the past six years. He is currently a permanent resident of Illinois. Rui 1 clers A proposed builder would be Great Divide Contractors, Inc. of P. 0. Box 1139, Breckenridge, Colorado. They are an authorized dealer for Boise Cascade Homes, and all materials and basic design would be provided by Boise Cascade. Finance It is proposed that the project would be financed by an industrial development bond. The bond would be sold privately, or offered publicly. It is contemplated that the developer, Mr. Koval, or a business entity he would form for this specific purpose, would purchase a percentage of the bonds, whatever percentage was permissible by the guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue Service. The interest rate on the bond would be set at the prevailing market rate or a figure as close to it as possible. It is estimated that the project would cost slightly less than $1,000,000. Building Description The overall building size would be 60 feet by 51.2 feet, including corridors and garage. It would be three stories in elevation, to yield 3,070 square feet per floor, or 9,210 square feet total, less enclosed parking. The building would have channel rustic cedar exterior siding. Units The project would contain 11 unitsL_2i,,ght of which would be deed_ restricted one bedroom apartments, and three of which would be studio apartments sold on the free The outside wall dimension of the apartments would be 26 feet 10 inches by 25 feet 7 inches. The units would contain Hot Point ranges, dishwashers and refrigerators, Bus Boy garbage disposals, and Broan range hoods. The eight upper units would contain 6 foot by 4 foot sliding doors leading to small (8 foot by 4 foot) redwood decks. Additional Information Additional information will be available on request. Aspen 1:'-Flex Joh Proposal Loc-,t` on Lots H 3r J, 51ock 70 , Cw.r r Leon-rl K-)v?.l o1 2 S. virhi:--n We. ROOM 101 Chinavo, I11. fin,<.OF Ph. 31-31st-t550 Auvust Job D�-scr; pt: on: Co-- , deliver, set, an,:'. stitrh 11 unity - extr,nted froz the Wi l i-�ood Sixnlex as built -ir.d desit-ned by the Boise ^,q-cnde Corp. EQcv: unit to be re:'.uced 1.: sire by to'sl of 54 sq. ft. for an ci,tside w311 dimension of P6110" b./ =17" cq fare. The rnm^ini n unit, co..IrJL ting tre 1 -FleX, to be a site built 4 car c-a.ratTe. Overfill building- size to be 60' by 51'2", includi, corridors and Qara?e, 3 stories in elevation. Buildin- to ,yield 3070 sq. ft. per floor, 921-10 sq. ft. per buj 1din -. Proposal to include the fo'_lowin, : �. 11 _ 'jildwood5'- -its, delivered, cox..plete and in place Site "ou-.lt�car r-ira "c complete and in place Footing fcundation complete and in place i ramin-, labor, d tn-terials to be done on site for the folio :in7: a. n' by 4' rcdwnoa deck^ and r:i.ils upper b. corridcrC, incl,11-f- stairs c. Para e, inc. doors, rouc-h-{ rs, d. roof depluned for 1CO lb. load e. fourdation stub walls Type K sheetrock, 1 hour throu!*hout R-19 floors and walls R-38 ceiling upper floor 100 t;p^reps +emperature differential floors end floor sl,.b 'Je^thershielj au�l -laze :.good �(rindo.•::: and slidin.- A:'i tine of 9 rOx4o` sli,4i.nn oloorc C'.:a--ne1. ru-tic cedar exte- or sidin *,. desi �-3 n, e ,01los�in7 Hotpoint aplliances a. range 5?r..1 b. dish'. !-her YHDA 780 c. refri crztor YCT. 17C 3usto� garba:,e aic„oval Bn 30 Broan ranee nrod `}A1300 Taxes a 'd delivery -lass doors (coat. followir- r.^i.c too 4 t K E_(�LAL �i opo�E-L 4spen 1?-Fl,-x Job Fropos-1 (pn,~e 2) Electrical and plumbin- hook-ups 1 fc. ; irnwe wiririr- Stavid.Zrd features rs 11sted on noise Cascade Tezture sheet Unit Proposal: 9,328,696* # Adjusted to reflect Spring of 1981 costs Does rot Incllade loi- interest or fees, permit fees, park dv1p. fees, or tip fees Aspen 12-Flex Site Development Proposal Site clearir,- Inc. trees ind existir- foundat: on Demolition o° existinp- c^bin and removal from cite Basemen`. excavation and dirt remov?l, Inc. back`_11-1 12,440 Hook-up water service bld-. to main complete Hook-up se,,.er : rvice b11F. to main com^lete Street cuts Curb installation 2,500+ Hook-up u-d. el-.ct. service trans. to blda. coT—let« 2,480 Grading, s-ravel spreading and. compaction decignod for asphalt paving at parking an] drive area 4CO Final site grading and landscapinD- 1,000 Concrete sidewalk Inc. ramp along aspen and Cooper St. 2,520 Er.rineering and construction analysis ** 69000 #* Frofession-' prep-irationof all data pertinent to the construction, develormer.t, ^nd Accel`t,'nce of tre proposer; 4spen 12-Flex including construction dr Tin ^, surveying-, and site pl•,n + Deduct If not required Site Development Proposal: �, 27,340++ Total Job Proposal35c,C�26 a+ Does not include asphalt paving Terms: a15,OGO down payment from which to draw all projoct related expenses both to date and in t%e future Balance of ?341,026 to be distributed to Great Divide Contrnetors Inc. on the 1st and the 15th of the month as conf�truction dra!-., requests --re received by the owner Note: Froros-il. is based on cnrre-t information available znd is cub le-' to change contin�-ent upon final site and builainc a-tni1 nrproval by the of Aspen. ' Y r Asper. 1% Ples Job Proposal (page 3) Owner to cprry Extended Coverage insurance ircluding fire, weather damn;-e, vandalism, etc. to become effective as soon as the unite are set upon the found•ttion. -Great Divide Contrs. Inc. will be responsible for Public Liability insurance as well as Workmen's Compensation. Respect ully sub-.itted Per D?te ACCEPTANCE OFF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications, and conditions are satisfantory and are hereby accepted. I hereby authorize Great Divide Con— V tractors Incorporated to do the work and provide the Wildwood units as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Accented L'-!te Additior.,ql Conditions Accepted Date Accepted Date PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is being rescheduled to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in The City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext.. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 12, 1981. City of Aspen Account. ADDENDUM ,ADJACENT OWNERS REPORT DATED 10MBER 31, 1980 Block 69 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Lots R & S Cooper Street Loft Condominiums 710 E. Durant Street Aspen, CO 81611 BLOCK 77. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Lots A & B Augustus Felton Hallum Margery L. Hallum 410 South Aspen Street Aspen, CO 81611 Lots C,D,E,F,G,H,I Leroy G. Paas 228 E. Cooper Street Aspen, CO 81611 Lots K,L,M,N,O Helen R. & Ricahrd E. Sabbatini 204 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Lots P,Q,R,S Canada House of Aspen, Ltd. 411 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 BLOCK 3, EAMES ADDITION TO CITY OF ASPEN Lots 1,2,3,4,5 SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS (30 units) Nancy Adsit Box 3304 Aspen, CO, 81611 Lots 6,7,8,9 Herbert P. Balderson Alfred E. Bent Joseph B. Cabell Box 493 Aspen, CO 81611 BLOCK 4 EAMES ADDITION TO CITY OF ASPEN Lots 1,2,3,4 TIMBER RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS (21 units) c/o Vilcor 555 North Mill Aspen, CO 81611 Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS (31 units) 131 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 BLOCK 62, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parts of Lots C,D,E,F,G,H,I Dorothy Koch Shaw Box 510 Aspen, CO 81611 BLOCK 1, EAMES ADDITION TO CITY OF ASPEN Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 Dorothy Koch Shaw Box 510 Aspen, CO 81611 MAR 91981 ASPEN / PiTKIN CO. PLANNING OFF;CE NOTE: Although we beleive the facts stated are true, this list is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title. • BLOCK 69, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN T-*- A JZ. P HYMAN APARTMENTS CONDOMINIUMS c/o Gene Law Total Units=4 Box 3572 Aspen, CO 81612 T r r_ n Rodney E. Berle (�4 interest) Sharon F. Berle (14 interest) Wayne Ariola (12 interest) 534 S. Westgate Los Angeles, CA 90052 Lots E & F C. M. Clark Box 566 Aspen, CO 81612 Lots G, H & I Brixia, Inc. a Nevada Corporation c/o Dan Hindelang Box 8502 Aspen, CO 81612 Lots K,L,M,N DER BERGHOF CONDOMINIUMS Total Units=12 c/o Coates, Reid & Waldron 700 W. Hyman Street Aspen, CO 81611 LOT 0 & West 2 of P Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. & Associates P.C. Trustee of the James N. Babcock Inter Vivos Trust 118 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 E 2 of Lot P and Lot Q Norma L. Dolle Box 4901 Aspen, CO 81612 BLOCK 76. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Lots A, B, & W 20' of C Frances Willoughby Herron Box 545 Aspen, CO 81612 E 10' of Lot C, All Lots D,E,F,G,H,I ;Snow Flake Lodge, Inc. 221 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Lots K, L, M, & N 210 COOPER (a Condominium) Box 2051 Total Units=21 Aspen, CO 81612 Lots O,P,Q,R, & S Limelite, Inc. c/o Leroy G. Paas 228 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Lots A, B, & C ASPEN WILD CONDOMINIUMS Total Units=9 c/o Lyle Reeder Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Lots D, E, F & W 25' of G W/J Ranch, Inc. Box 4765 Aspen, CO 81612 E 5' of Lot G, all of H & I Leonard W. & Barbara W. Koval 920 Forest Glen West Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Lots K, L, M, N, & 0 ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CENTRAL CONDOMINIUM Inverness Lodge Total Units=ll 122 East Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Lots P & Q Clifford J. & Karen L. Llweellyn 122 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Lots R & S Richard E. & Helen R. Sabbatini c/o Hamdi Al-Zahid Box 738 Aspen, CO 81612 EAMES ADDITION Lots 1 - 5 , BLOCK 3 SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS Total Units=30 Nancy Adsit Box 3304 Aspen, CO 81612 Lots 1 - 4, BLOCK 4 TIMBER RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS Total Units=21 c/o Vilcor 555 North Mill Aspen, CO 81611 Lots 5 - 11, BLOCK 4 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS Total Units=31 131 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 OC� _ 1Zee� R�wdw Spa Loda� i .1 • 5' IqSrl - �ItN k�<< sal ILO . N Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado .81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Condominium Associations, Representatives FROM: Kathleen McCormick, Planning Office RE: Adjacent Property Owner Notices for Public Hearings - City of Aspen Enclosed you will find copies of City of Aspen notices for public hearings. A notice has been included for each owner of a condominium in your buil- ding; please distribute them. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to contact me at the Planni'ng Off ice, 925-2020, extension 283. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is.being rescheduled to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in The City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 12, 1981. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is being rescheduled to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in The City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 12, 1981. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is being rescheduled to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in The City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 12, 1981. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is being rescheduled to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in The City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 12, 1981. City of Aspen Account. lospen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south gale street aspen, color 81611 Hyman Apartments Condominiums c/o Gene Law Box 3572 Aspen•, CO 81612 0 VAR10'fl -�}3'T .� /. .�_..._ 'J CORRECTION PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, ' 130 So Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East (rather than West, as published earlier) Cooper Street, Aspen, For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published originally in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1981. City of Aspen account. Correction published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1981. CORRECTION PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East (rather than West, as published earlier) Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published originally in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1981. City of Aspen account. Correction published in the Aspen Times on.February 5, 1981. CORRECTION PUBLIC NOTICE , RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, ' 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East (rather than Test, as published earlier) Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published originally in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1981. City of Aspen account. Correction published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1981. I CORRECTION PUBLIC NOTICE . RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GI':►EN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Asper.,, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East (rather than West, as published earlier) Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published originally in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1981. City of Aspen account. Correction published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1981. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 s . Oth gales street aspen, lorado" 81611 ETVA/y� TO O' WRITER NOT DELIVER''':-' AS ADDRFS;;....) UNABLE TO W,+ YiARD Hyman Apartments c/o Gene Law Box 3572 Aspen, CO 81612 0 S P9�A a"- ----------------- nF; r 12 19II{ t�rc,� -- I* OL MEMORUINDUM Asper. Planning and Zoning CcOlmi :psi o►r V .I<Ot4: Jack JotInsc,rl, Planning Offilce � t QQA RE; Koval Re.sidentitrl Bonus Overlay Rtczoninq, GrolstMa <<g t la Exemption (70:30), Subdivision Exception kCondotiniul'' do 1 � LATE. 'February 12, 1981 G :G Location: 13_ 5 East_ Cooper at_,et-(Lots H and I and Easterly 5 feet of O.A.T.) S.W. Corner of Aspen and Cooper Street Lot G, Blk 70, Zoning: +RMF - Residential Multi-Family� Background: The subject property is currently occupied by a single family buildings which the Victorian structure with accessory to relocate to a vacant site on the south- applicant proposes west corner of N. Garmisch and W,. Francis. On the 65' x 100' parcel the applicant proposes the construction of a three_ unit condominium roject; e'i ht story, el. n. one--)e room eed and price (moderate) restricte urn?' s an -three free m a r7 et un7 T 9 Approvals The following approvals are being reques-ced simultaneously: Requested: 1. R(E�• Residential Multi--Family/Residential ��n anus overlay QR (Ordinance No. 16, Series 1980). 2. � +n inn of the Growth Management Pj an via 70:30 Deed 20, Series 980). Restricted Housing (Ordinanc No. 3. Sub ' n Exc n Wajvip.L Conceptual Before CiLy &M79 i.e., short Council nd D liminar Plat eT'ore.P subdivision (So.c. - Referral Agency Comments: Aspen Sanitation District - This development q�aa be provided servi ce.. Water Department - The project proposes to be connected by a 12" service line to the City main in Cooper Street. The subject property i.s at the end of a dead-end main in Cooper Street. The construction of an additional 11 units at this location would aggravate a marginal situation and would therefore necessitate improvements to the system as follows. interconnect or extend the g�i.sk. 6 '��a U westerly al nc Coo er Street to a ,juncture_with thg_ a xiSti.n Steel, ne on South %spcn ,i;reet. ri ty H O fr.i Ce _. This office supFo:t� the rezoning request to ,Q�and—the deed restrictSon;, to the "moderate inc guideli , s, T r�enefii t to the Community of 'ei�ii� eed restMT tedmoderate units outweighs any impact of the RBO development. City Attorne 's Office - No objections, providing full compliance with 30. Area and bulk redoire - compl � ance w� th Ordinance ,�o. 1 �-19.� ments under Ordinance 1110. 16 for fth11 lots under 9,000 square feet may be exceeded with 11 oric-hedroom units. Compliance with Ordinance No.. 20-1980, "tile 70/30 ordinance," is required. Park dedicj-, .ior, fees are to be determined. I Memo: Koval Residontial Bonus Ov^rlay Rezoning, Growth Management Plan Exemption (70:30), Su!jdiv sign Exception (Cendominiumizatioil) February 12, 1981 Page Two Buildin Dc Zrt.ment - ThIc elevation of this proposed building j ows the rneari height of the sloping roof to be 28 feet and the ridge height to be 31 feet. This hijilding as presented would mee the 28 moot maximu^, height linj in_,the�� Zoning? strict. `""" Ens inerrir, Department - The site is located on an existing transportation route. - The site is insufficient, for 11 one -bedroom units even with an RBO needing 600 square feet of lot area per unit. - A subdivision exception procedure is appropriate for this multi -family structure. An r ZQgj ram;,_ cations .q" ment and a final plat wil be er gui r d after construction is complete. - off-street par ,,, deg by = anT Me''fjarking ayout is inconsistent with provisions of Sec. 24-4,2(a) which requires ". . a public and unobstructed area for access to a street or alley." Plannina_Office - The proposed use of an.RBO for this site permits, area and bulk reductions in tradeoff for 50, deed restricted "employee" housing. In addition to RBO applica- tion; an exemption from G.M.P. competition via Ordinance No. 20-1980 is proposed which increases the ratio of deed restricted housing from 50-50 to 70-30. This appl.i_cati.on_. Wposes the construction of a three stony,, 11 one -bedroom complex with e i g�ht. deed res-cr,i cted, moderate i ncoiiie uni t �1'f Mr`ee free market units, The rezoning to RMF/RBO request for this site would not be out of character and scale with the general neighborhood. Lodge arid multi -family structures predominate. Two nearby Victorian structures are being used for short-term rental lodge purposes, This application is not in compliance with the Municipal Code as follows: RBO District - Sec. 24-10.5(b)(5) Area and Bulk Requirements, 700 For lots less than 9,000 square feet in size, there shall be 600 square feet per bedroom, This 11 one -bedroom -complex needs 6,600 square feet of lot area where,only.6,500 square feet exists, Solution: A studio unit only requires 500 square feet of lot area. Eliminate a one -bedroom unit in place of a studio unit which would require 6,500 square feet of lot area. The building height and F,",.R, calculations for the building are satisfactory, Off Street Parkin - Sec. 24-4.5 Numbered Spaces Required. Qne parking space fo.r each bedroom is required. U.L. en (11 ) r_drooms requires 11 parking spaces. This app,lica ion pro- poses six parking spaces with additional Larking storage. Generally a P.U,D, is the only mechanism to vary th-i.s 1 to 1 parking requirement, However, under the parking section of the Code, Sec. 24--4.1(c), specifically where RBO deed restricted units are being proposed, "off --street parking sti,,11 be established by speci;,l review of the City Council pun the recommendation of the P & Z." The applicant has yet to demonstrate to the satisfaction h of thr, Planning Office the legality of ownership of this or -parcel arid right to build as per Sec. 20-4(c) of the Code. This is a very basic requirement which must be satisfied. i } rav,11 1�Csidur 'l i:t)IiU'.i OYCI'li;y ile'�UI11i1!, CII.Q0 fl,knauoment Man rX,111ption (70), Subdivision Except�ic;il (Coll iniunrization) 12, 1981 •,,,�� Thr•ce Park dedication fees wili be required prior to the issuance of a bui l ding penili t. These fees will be calculated and""` " levied by the hluilding Department at the appropriate time. Under Sec. 7-143(7), the City Council may use its discretion to exempt all tote I h•ar— r reduce by any bmount these fees when a bona fide mod�,rate or low income housing development is proposed. Recommend ati pns : The Planning Office recommends approval of the following w-0,, requests with conditions attached. Approval to rezone from RMF to RMF/RBO Approval for exemption of the G.M.P. via Ordinance 0Z No. 20-1980 ("70:30" Deed Restricted Housing) keQi I `�/ n �F Approval of Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual ��, w� Cve Before City Council and Preliminary Plat Before P & Z. Approval of the foregoing should be conditioned upon the V following: V% providing improvements to the water system as per Water Department memo dated January 14, 1981. deed restricting eight (8) units of this project to the City's "moderate income" guidelines either elimination of a one -bedroom unit or alteration of a one -bedroom into a studio in order to comply with RBO area and bulk requirements. -��'demonstrate the property owners right to develop as per Sec. 20--4(c) prior to Final plat. The P & 7 may also provide recommendations to the City CUllnCil relative to: appropriate number of off-street parking spaces necessary for this project appropriateness of park dedication fees as/sogfated with this project. 're-�^-�t�-°-> r V�X�v �1Va a>r its ff j� I G� (ac�.►�E�,� of ��"`� �`�� J 1 t RE'N4'U �ob� er�od�;, Nam.. r F: : _r r. cuF ;t 2:09 P.M. JanoAry W. 1964 i17;r,. P"KKy F. C,+I. , Recurd,r IN TIRE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR T'iE Colftm* OF PITKIN AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 3414 THOKAS J. CARTER, also known as T Gt-M J. CARTER, and JAMES W. CARTER, Plaintiffs, Vs. ARTHLRt B. EADSIV MORCE W. TnO ERMAN; JAMES WEBSTER; MARY V. EMIGH; THOMAS KIRWIN; BELLE ScLAUCHLIN; C. R. FOSTER; FR.Ah'K HAMLINTON; J. C. MARKLE; J. V. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; HELEN 20RDEL, Treasurer and as Public Trustee for Pitkin County, Colorado, her predecessors in off4.ce and her assigns; M. J. CARRISH as "tayor of the City of Aspen, and as such Trustee under the Townsite Patent; and' ALL I171,40VU PERWNIS W11C CLAD! ANY INTEREST :N THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION, Defendants. ) THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard, D]��r -�rrl ai FEB 13 1981 ASPEN PF1 DECREE THE COURT FINDS: Thor oath defendant herein has been properly serve( a: required >,y law and rule of Court; that attorney at law, has been heretofore appointed and ap1c-tim' any and All defendants who are in, or who lay be in, or c,n, have Geer ordered to report for induction into, the mili-:,r: service as dr-fined by the :,oldiers' and Sailors' Civf.l of 1940, rs amended; that each and every defendant nrr�t 11;d e pear within .-he legal time ncrra'_"d - a plrar' �• has filed his disclaimer herein; Ac_ion i- r,-n Affecting specific real prop,rty; rt : ha3 jurisd-r-ion of all prr,ies to this suit and of the sLL:', C 61 '-"r+b-ate✓'^-�'.`^►.,- �'+ ` TV or matter thereof; that this allegations of the complaint are true; t`lut r.-,ry clef ,Mde by said defeu4antc is unlawful and without A right; that no d*f4n4nt herein has any title or interest in or to the property described herein or any part thereof; that ncmas J. Carter (Senior) died intesta'_est Aspen, Colorado, on or about the 19th day of July, 19-58, as a resident c` Aspen, Colorado; that all or the heirs of the decedent entitled to any interesr in the real property herein described are Mabel V. Carter, Thomas J. Carter, also known as Tommy J. Carter, and James w. C rter; that the said Habel V. Carter has cenveyed all of her right, title and interest in and to the real property herein described to Thomas J. Carter, also known as Tommy J. Carter, and James W. Cuter, therefore: IT IS ORDFRED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that THn—mAS J. CARTER, also known no TOh4tifY J. CARTER and JAMES W. CARTER, plaintiffs, at the time Of the comenceownt of this proceeding, were and :;ley now are, the owners in fee simple, with right to possession, of the real property situate in Pitkin County, State of Colorado, described as follows - The Easterly S feet of Lot C and all of Lots H and I in Block 70 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, County or Pitkin, State of Colorado; that comple-e fee simple title in and to said real proper:v be and the sew hereby is quieted V &od to the gbove named ;Taint a, and that each of the defeniauta has no right, title, cr interest is -2- A in or to :he said real property or any part thereof, and that they ar_ "crever enjoined from asserting any claim, right, title, o� interest in or to tic said real property or any part thereof. Done in Cham!)ers at Aspen, Colorado, this 23rd day of January, 1964. BY THE COURT: r Cam" JUDGE STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, LOUISE M. BERG, Clerk of the District Court within and for the Counry of Pitkin in the Ninth Judicial District in and for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that tiie above and fore- go hg instrument is a true, full and correct copy of DECREE in evil Action No. 3414, wherein Thomas J. Carter, et al, are Plaintiffs 4n ARTHUR B. FADS, et al, are Defendants. ct WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Court affixed at -Aspen, Colorado, in said County, this _ day of .196k. ;. Clerk of the District Court Gj{�-vim �du55 �o L M Ts, 2. �- p,l ��- -� �-C��u-C�.. (N�� -r.�,a-�.� w•e��h ---� .. W. 14Q.. �.G.tie.�,o �c,�, . At o- I ludJ + I �h-d� G .scaF': Gsao� Fe I I a,, T[ Wt KCVAI,- ; -4- -8 1 e 14 - 0 • oT5 ,y, T -Z71L2�C,ef 7a fF��C0e-4-7-i0Al .Ex rF,eio2 /�E.Q�•+��,�.P 6D yC O� = 30 7v -o 70 P' X 3 F/ O ass ��12 Ca vOiefflD E.rrR� ru n� Iry, .1,ofazye4, r w lQ,iri L, K l� l�1MrUri� �'�' WILdt�� a5 �� LOc Ve iiPt-vIG+�Z1j'"C,�M ' If. f�-N✓ �WGI�% 1M �'" I r � �� I V r� I�+�'CGtSS W M� r' RM F = 28 = 5 L _ (o �ri 5 3z+� = 10 W,6111� 1 S v v�9✓ I+ I vequI 67 u M I rxm00�1 HRH I`� , o-vJ '� (�► G� - � �� -� 'STD 'j, lion rrct vq \ , I � i� eve {G� �aow� ww•'� � e-.�t� ��y �c t �l� 3 �Li+ o �e-R- �' � � {'�� ,5mu�T�kAL ff M-nt Gl^p , At f� = �Z I � '� ; ►2h= 76 � �� )66 • • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 22, 1980 Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 1980, on first reading; seconded I by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael, i aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye. Motion carried. 1 1 Councilman Isaac told Council P & Z member, Joan Klar, is living in Brush Creek at Snowmass and should resign from P & Z. i CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Van Ness opened the public hearing on all items on the consent agenda; Liquor License renewal for Aspen Bar & Grill; Appointment of Special Counsel (Tom Crumpacker for Maco Stewart case); and Section reading on Ordinance #49, Board of Examiners and Appeals. There were no comments. Councilman Van Ness closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to approve all items on the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, aye;, Van Ness, aye. Motion carried. 1 ARTS & TOURISM CONFERENCE ;I Councilwoman Michael said it would take about $800 to send someone to Toronto for this conference and suggested someone from staff or Council go. City Manager Chapman said there is money in Council's travel budget for this. Chapman said it would be appropriate for Monroe Summers to go as he is liason to the Chamber, the commercial sector and is in charge of marketing and communications for the city. %Councilman Isaac moved to send Monroe Summers to the conference; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Councilman Collins said he did not feel the city should send anybody. Councilman Parry agreed. Councilman Isaac said he felt this was important looking into the situation of the Rio Grande. Councilwoman Michael said the city needs someone who can assess the status; this is almost a protective device in a positive way. Councilman Van Ness said the city should be careful of committing money just to get tourists. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. COLORADO WATER CONGRESS Councilman Collins moved to approve expenditure of plane tickets for attendance of the Colorado Water Congree; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Council requested Councilman Isaac come back with a budget as to how much regular attendance will cost. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Collins, All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S,. Koch, City Clerk Regular Meetinq Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Kinsley called the joint meeting to order with Commissioner Child, Council- mmebers Isaac, Parry, Behrendt and Mayor Edel present. i 1. Recycling Program. Jere Rood told the Boards he would like to see the recycling pro- gram re-established as a viable option in this County. There is some research which has been done which is available. Rood said he would like recycling re-established as a statement of Pitkin County's way of life, this item has been neglected for the last couple of years. Mayor Edel asked what the trouble was with the last program. Kinsley said it was started with the expectation the program would cost less each year and would begin to make a profit, which it did not. Kinsley said the markets were uncertain, and -they never got a consistent trend going; this is probably changing. Kinsley said he felt this is worth taking another look at; energy is the issue here. Kinsley said the city and county should get time to analyze this as they should not go with the program unless there is a level of certainty it could break even. Child said there is sme seed money from aluminium cans at the dump. This could be used to explore the program., The Boards decided to look into the program. 2. A-95 Review: CETA Balance of State. Phyllis Kenny requested approval of the Boards regarding this balance of State, which is CETA monies coming through the state and passed out to the regions. l Councilman Issa moved for favorable comment on the CETA A-95; seconded by Councilman Parry: All in favor, motion carried. ;I 3. Open Space Issues. Jolene Vrchota, planning office, said this issue concerns the cirection of the Open Space Advisory Board and the management of open space lands. The OSAB has completed the master planning and are at a stand still trying to figure out their role. Jim Breasted said there are four proposed actions for the OSAB. One is to abolish the OSAB. They have prepared the master plan and have attempted negotiations on property. They could give the job to the PCPA. Two is a shift from planning and acquisi- tion, to an emphasis cn land r nagement. Breasted said some properties are not being well managed, in his opinion. Third, the OSAB could actively pursue acquisition. The original' direction was to plan open space, then act in acquisition. Fourth, a more aggressive role for the OSAB would be for them to overlay an open space zoning in the county. 26 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 Breasted pointed out there is a sixth penny, whichis the capital fund established to purchase open space around the city of Aspen in order to preserve the rural character around the city. Breasted said he felt there was an erosion of budgeting in the sixth penny; a lot of it is being spent for thingsnot of an open space nature, such as the Visual Arts Center and Wheeler Opera House. Ms. Vrchota told the Boards the OSAB has had two years experience working on open space, there are memebers from other interested groups. A firm planning statement has been made; this statement could be used for acquisitions. Mr. Vrchota recommended a four -pronged direction for the OSAB; (1) act as sounding board for acquisitions, (2) monitor the use of city and county open space funds and comment on priorities of purchases, (3) continue to review subdivisions where there is a major amount of open space involved, (4) act as watchdog for management, review management of properties and suggest at budgetting time what the parks department might do on certain properties. Kinsley said he did not feel the OSAB should be abolished; however, number 4 above is inappropriate. Kinsley said he did not want management of the lands by committee. If the county is making a mistake, he would like to hear it but does not want management per se. Councilman Behrendt agreed the interpretation of the use of sixth penny taxes is being distorted and would like to have a study session to determine the guidelines for this funds. City Manager Chapman said he was going to take the open space plan and work it into the five-year plan to work against the five-year financial plan. This should be done in conjunction with the OSAB. Mayor Edel said he was opposed to financial monitoring. Chapman said as the city and county buy more open space, they have to think about what to do with it_ The OSAB is suited to developing maintenance standards and long range planning of the sixth penny funds for what is needed in terms of maintenance. Ms. Vrchota suggested the OSAB could help set up guidelines and review on an annual basis the status of the sixth penny funds. Child said the Boards have not made a mechanism for the OSAB to report to them, and this should be dones. 4. A-95 Review; Family Planning. Gene Marsh told the Boards this is Federal funding which is distributed throughout the state. The money for Pitkin County is administration for AVVNA which services about 400 people a year. Councilman Behrendt moved to favorable comment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 5. Ruedi Reservoir. John Musick said he had been requested to file opposition to the power generation at Ruedi and to address the power issue in a positive sense and also to follow through on the previous hydro -electric lowhead generation request made for the diversion dam on Maroon Creek. Musick said he would like the city and county managers to follow up on lowhead hydro -electric power on existing city facilities. Musick told the Boards that the State of Colorado is a net power importer; they only generate in this state approximately 4200 megawatts of power. The power needed for the future will be constructed at $1,000 a kilowatt, which is more than twice today's construction cost. In ten years the bills will be at 60 mils without any energy development whatsoever; this will go from 2.7 mils to. 6 mils. The state will have to develop 4800 megawatts of power 4.8 billion dollars in 1980 money by 2005. Musick recommended to the Boards to develop consistent with the water management plan implementation the lowhead hydro -electric power in the diversion dams that are built. Under legislation that is being considered, they city can average down the cost of the power bills if their cost of power generation is less than the avoided cost for the power generation by the utility they buy the power from. The city manager needs to investigate this and to update previous reports. Musick said this proposal was turned down before as impractical. It is not impractical at today's costs, which is based upon representations by Colorado-Ute who has determined inflationary costs for power are far greater than was felt. Musick said under the windfall profits tax and other methods, the city can get a private investor to purchase the facility, recognize a 21 per cent tax credits and finance the facility for the city. Musick told the city if this means they will generate power by this process cheaper than the city can buy it from Holy Cross, the city can use the difference to lower the costs of the citizens' bills. Musick said for the long-range planning for this valley, as power goes up and water becomes more scarce, this valley will suffer increased power costs. Musick recommended the Boards direct the city manager to enter into an agreement with the rest of the communities in the lower valley to take over the operation of Ruedi reservoir for power generation and water supply for all of the citizens of the Valley. Jim Markalunas, water department director, said he felt the Ruedi concept and feels it is exciting and viable. Markalunas said he felt the recreational pool could be maintained and by managing the minimum stream flows and fishery by-passes could develop an economically feasible hydro -electric plant. Markalunas told the Boards in 1958 they hyddo-electric plant was shut down. For 73 years, Aspen generated its own hydro -electric power, and was the first community west of the Mississippi to generate it own power to operate a trolley system and mining operations. Markalunas outlined a three year old memorandum to the Boards stating Aspen had a long history of generating hydro -electric power. In 1958 the hydro-electricl facilities located under the Castle Creek Bridge were thrown out. In hindsight because of increasing energy costs, this was a mistake. Until recently, cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy has precluded the econcomical development of small hydro- electric facilities. The increasing cost and dwindling supplies of this energy makes the development of small on -stream generating plants viable. Along with this is the need to preserve existing water rights and maintain stream flows. The City of Aspen has large water rights adjudicated for the generation of power, it seems appropriate for the develop- ment for generation facilities. Markalunas said these facilities can be placed to be environmentally acceptable. These could be at one or several locations,on existing city facilities. JV� Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 Rich Cassens, Rea, Cassens & Associates, has represented the city on water projects since 1956. In July 1980 the water management plan was presented to Council and listed in priority the collection, treatment and distribution facilities that should be constructed by the city to maintain the current status and to meet the growth management plan object- ives. This was divided into a five year, $10,000,000 program and a ten-year $28,000,000 program. These numbers of exclusive of power costs. Cassens said in the projected construction of diversion dams on Maroon and Hunter Creek and The Roaring Fork River low head power could be adapted into these facilities. The most critical structure listed in the water management plan was the Maroon Creak diversion dam. This would be almost the same size as the existing dam and at the same location; it is where the electrical power will be. Ted Miller, representing among other things Allis-Chalmers, told the Board the technology is available for shipping hydro -turbans of any size and the hydro -turban market is growing. Ruedi is a great opportunity. Miller said they would install the unit for $3,000,000; the city would have a $300,000 a year debt service and could realize $600,000 a year in revenues. Miller told the Boards that Ruedi is the most desirable location in the state of Colorado so far as the cost/benefit ratio. „ Mayor Edel asked if there had been any consideration of costs to get this project going. Chapman said initially the city and county have to get together with other communities in the valley to see if a coordinated effort could be formulated. Chapman pointed out the electric fund does have sufficient funds available if the city feels they need to do an engineering study. The city and county have filed a notice of intent on Ruedi reservoir to generate power, and have until December to file an application. Musick said one cannot file an application without a feasibility study. Councilman Behrendt moved to have the city and county managers jointly fast track, keeping the Council and Commissioners up to date; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING (Councilmembers Collins and Van Ness also present). Bob Grueter, interim city attorney, brought up the Smuggler Trailer Park agreement which was approved subject to a change in the language suggested by Councilman Van Ness. Grueter said he had gone over this language and feels it protects the city against law suits. Councilman Van Ness said this does give the city some protection they would not otherwise have; however, this is still a binding agreement and they -could take the city to court in order to force the city's part of the agreement but would not be able to sue for money damages. MINUTES Councilman Isaac said in the September 22nd meeting he had made a comment that P & Z member Joan Klar was living in Brusk Creek village and should be off P & Z and apparently this is not true and should be striken from the minutes. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 14, 18, 20, 25, September 8 and 22, 1980; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Parry moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Jon Busch brought up the Silverking bus route and told Council the bus stops at the 100 building and not at the 900 building. There is not stop there and more people live up in the 900 building area. In the winter this will be a problem and an inconvenience for people at silverking. Busch said he did not feel the city should allow a single individual to have the bus system function in a less efficient manner. 2. Busch also pointed out for almost a year at the intersection of Mill and Cooper in the mall there has been one street light pole with no top on it. This does not look good. Councilman Behrendt said he would like an up date on all the antique lights, what is wrong and a program to correct it. Busch said he would like to see about the possibility of raising money privately to put together electric light poles to light South Mill. Mayor Edel agreed to allow Busch to go out and look for money for the poles. '3. Dick Wilhelm complemented the City on the North Mill project and the street. Edel brought up a memorandum from the planning office regarding the post office. said this is not on the agenda because there will be follow up. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Mayor Chapman 1. Councilman Isaac asked what had happened to the downtown commission and the ordinance to form it. Chapman said he had been working on a draft charter but had put it aside until the budget is done. 2. Councilman Isaac reminded Council of a busing conference in Vail next THursday. l 3. Councilman Isaac told Council COG had initiated a regional transportion study, espec- ially addressing bus service from Denver airport to ski areas. i 4. Councilman Isaac reported at the Water Congress meeting they had discussed the Colorado Water Quality Act. Councilman Isaac had said he wanted diversions to be included as a pollutant. Tom Dunlop said this is also in the stream classifications, and in our standards diversions was included. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 5. Councilman Isaac said some citizens are concerned with the electric power plant. built two years ago on North Mill. The city is getting trees for the water plant and maybe they' could put some down there. Chapman said that is included in the budget as finish land- scaping.' I 6. Councilman Parry moved to put the Hotel Jerome on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved that the Council initiate rezoning application on behald of the Hotel Jerome from O, office, to CC, mandatory PUD; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Joe Wells, planning office, told Council once a year there is a deadline to file rezoning requests; that deadline is past. Either P & Z or Council can choose to initiate a rezoning request and that applicant can be heard. Council is simply allowing the Jerome to start the process.. :� II All in favor, motion carried. 7. Councilman Behrendt moved to put on the agenda the appointment of intermin counsel; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to appoint the law firm of Grueter and Edmonson as interim counsel of the City of Aspen; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Isaac asked about the conflict of interest as Grueter is also Municipal Judge. Grueter said this has not come up as much as he thought and he had disqualified himself from one case. i All in favor, motion carried. 8. Councilman Behrendt asked the status of the cases the city has been served with. Grueter told Council he was going through pending litigation and writing opinions for Council. i 9. Councilman Behrendt said he would like Ordinance #50, Series of 1980, Employee Units in Lodges, removed from the consent agenda. Councilman Van Ness moved to table Ordinance #50, Series of 1980, until the next meeting; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. 10. Councilman Van Ness said in most intersections in this town it is not clear who has the right of way; this is a very dangerous situation. The staff ought to look at this. The las has been changed recently, and it was assumed every intersection was signed. Councilman Van Ness said the city ought to get proper signs. City Manager Chapman said the city engineer had gone to school on signs in preparation for developing a 5 year program for traffic signing, this will be included as part of the 5 year capital program. Councilman Van Ness said every intersection shoudl have signs at least in one direction. I 11. Mayor Edel outlined the budget hearings coming up. I 12. Councilman Behrendt moved to add the Jolly Jester liquor license transfer to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 13. Mayor Edel said he had been working with the police chief, Michael Chandler, KSPN and the superintendent of schools to possibly start a drug information campaign. Mayor Edel said he felt this was very appropos. Councilman Behrendt moved to put this item onthe agenda; seconded by Councilman Parry. k All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel said he felt Council should endorse this effort and look for someone in the community to lead the program. They should bring the campaign to Council. Mayor Edel said he felt it important to go on record and to promote the campaign primarily amoung the young people in Aspen. The work will be done outside city staff by citizens and media and helping the Council. There is material all across the county available at no r costs. j Councilman Behrendt moved to endorse this concept by Council and encourage a program to I be brought to Council to see what they can do to help further; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Van Ness said he wanted to see this before the program goes out. Mayor Edel said that was emphasized. All in favor, motion carried. 14. Mayor Edel requested Council stay after the meeting for an executive session on a legal matter. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COMMITTEE COMMENTS it Esther Beamer, committee member, told Council that Main street had problems; it is too wide, too long, blocks are too short with traffic feeding in frequently. There are too many signs on Main street; they are obscured, lane lines cannot be seen at night; the lights are beautiful but dim. Mrs. Beamer told Council she would like some action before the highway department meeting Friday. Mrs. Beamer requested a 25 m.p.h. speed limit all over town, especially on Main street with traffic enforcement. Second, Mrs. Beamer would like the staff to pick out 5 to 8 cross walks with slash lines and suggested hanging cross walks signs. Another suggestion is to set traffic lights for safe walk intervals so that all traffic comes to a stop all four ways and all pedestrians go. This will require signs saying "no right turn on red". J70 M Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 A traffic engineer suggested setting the traffic lights at 23-25 m.p.h. flow. Mrs. Beamer pointed out there are too many poles and signs on Main street, there are 97 poles on the two sides some with two and three signs. Some of the unnecessary signs should be taken down. A list of pedestrian does and don'ts should be compiled. Another suggestion is that bicycle traffic should be routed on parallel streets rather than Main street. Some other suggestions are to have a park -like median down Main; close alternate inter- sections to the alley, one on the north side one.of the south side. Professional people are needed to guide a long-range program. Rob McClung, police chief, told Council he is on the committee and had met with the director of highways on the Western Slope. McClung said there is a lot of red tape to go through for highway approval; it is a time consuming and tedious task. McClung said they will remove 52 signs off Main street. A traffic signal has been suggested at Third and Main. The highway department will study Main street for two days. Councilman Behrendt suggested trimming the trees that are into the intersections. City Manager Chapman said he would have someone look into this and to see how much it will cost. Councilman Behrendt asked about the striping of crosswalks. City engineer McArthur said the state will re - stripe the crosswalks in the spring but will not put in X bars because they would have to cut up the asphalt. Councilman Van Ness pointed out that crosswalks cannot be seen in the winter time. McArthur told Council he had asked the state to put in more pedestrian signs, and they said they would. Mayor Edel asked if the city could reduce the speed limit to 25 m.p.h. McClung said the state has concluded that 30 m.p.h. is appropriate. Councilman Behrendt moved the city be responsible to paint X-bars in crosswalks. Motion DIED for lack of a second. Mayor Edel reminded Council there was a meeting with the highway department this friday and most comments should be saved for that meeting. Hans Gramiger said the blocks are too short and the city should have a trial period and barricade every third intersection to no traffic. Jon Busch said the street lights on Main are too dark and suggested putting in higher wattage bulbs. McArthur said he had purchased the bulbs; it costs $175 to $200 per light to change. Councilman Collins suggested the committee continue with their suggestions and coordinate with planning, engineering and police. AUTO -FREE DAY ENDORSEMENT Esther McElfish said that Thursday,October 16, was to be auto -free day and asked the Council endorse the idea. Ms. McElfish had fliers to pass out; this has been endorsed by other cities and organizations. Councilman Isaac moved to endorse auto -free day; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. McClung pointed out that is probably the day the highway department will be doing its traffic study on Main street. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Van Ness and Isaac. SILVERKING REPORT City Manager Chapman said the issue was the county requested the city to participate in the consummation of the Silverking deal by deeding over to the county a parcel of land the city owns at the top of Mill street. In exchange, the city would get control of 30 units at Silverking. The consensus of Councilmembers was there were not in favor of this. Gail Mahoney, assistant housing director, told Council that VOICE has decided to intercede and to continue with negotiations and an attempt to purchase Silverking. REPORT ON TROLLEY CARS Monroe Summers reminded Council in June 1980 they had accepted a gift of six trolley cars from Aspen Street Railway company with the proviso the gift would cost the City of Aspen nothing. Summers said the City still does not own the trolleys as the paperwork is not complete. There is some debt outstanding to the county, and if the charges are levied it will total $3,000. Councilman Behrendt pointed out some of the original investors have liens against the trolley cars. Mayor Edel said if there is a conflict of interest with the City's interim attorney, the trolley owners should pay for outside legal advise to work out the sale contract. Summers told Council he had worked out an agreement that the city will accept the cars if Hernstadt will move the cars, liens taken care of, and cancel the debt at the airport. Councilman Behrendt said if the trolleys are part of the Little Annie proposal, then this is a viable on -going discussion; if not, this is a waste of time. Karen Smith told Council the planning office had received a letter from Dave Farney indicating the trolleys are not. currently part of his transportation program. Councilman Parry said the future is in electric trolley cars and he would hate to throw these away. Jon Busch said that fuel costs for trolleys are half the costs for diesel buses. It would be foolish to throw away, the trolleys without looking at a shuttle route for the trolley. Summers said this comes up because the county wants the trolleys moved; this is not the city's responsibility. i Grueter told Council he ha$ discussed this with Hernstadt and he is prepared to deliver the trolleys wherever the city wants them to be delivered. Curt Stewart, county manager, said the county does have another place in mind for the trolleys to be stored. ii Summers recommended to Council they instruct Hernstadt that final written acceptance of his gift of the trolleys is predicated on the following; the trolleys be removed from the airport and be covered for protection and the cost of moving be borne by Hernstadt; Hernstadt shall reach some agreement with the county for the past storage debt and give proof of same to the city; and papers of conveyance for three trolleys on December 1, 1§80 and the remaining three on January 15, 1981. ;i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 Mayor Edel said he wanted to make certain the city is not responsible for any debt whatso- ever. City Manager Chapman said he would assume, if Council passes this recommendation, he will tell other interested buyers that the city does not want to sell. Mayor Edel said this is another decision. Chapman said Council has to decide whether they are saving the trolley cars for future use or to possibly sell. Councilman Isaac moved to accept Summers' recommendation with the proviso that all debts and future claims be taken care of; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins and Mayor Edel. Motion carried. i Councilman Parry moved to keep the trolleys and do not pursue sale at this time; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilman Parry amended the motion to add review in one year; accepted by Councilman Behrendt. Councilmembers Collins, Van Ness, Isaac and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. CouncilmanVan Ness moved to instruct the city manager to actively pursue sale subject to the;l Council's final approval; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Collins and Parry. Motion carried. Monroe Summers brought up Earl Brown's request to use a trolley, which was tabled at the September 27 meeting. Councilman Behrendt moved that because the price was too low, because the city does not ! presently own the item and because the proposed location is an anathema, the Council not accept the offer; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. II REQUEST TO FUND HIGHWAY STUDY WIT4 COUNTY Curt Stewart, county manager, requested $25,000 from the city. The history of transporta- tion in the valley is that the city and county adopted an alternatives study for a busway first phase to the airport; second phase to Snowmass. This busway would cost $13,000,000 with funding from locals, highway department and UMTA. Stewart reminded Council UMTA has already said they will participate and the federal and state highway departments would provide the rights -of -way, which is about half the project. Stewart said the department of highways had some questions about this project. If the busway is built, would they noti have to four -lane highway 82. Second, can local government afford to operate a busway. Third, if the busway is a failure, could it be converted to highway use. Stewart said after a lot of negotiation, the department of highways has agreed to a preliminary engineer- ing work on the busway and include the answers to the three questions. Stewart told Council this is a $75,000 study to be split evenly between UMTA, highways and'' local. Stewart said at this time, UMTA is not willing to fund their share or would fund it in a year. Stewart requested the city to take UMTA's place and come up with $25,000. Stewart said this is important for Aspen in respect to access to Aspen; deal with the bridge issues; the major intersections; the alignment for access into town. Stewart said he felt if the City were a partner in this, it would go further toward working the problem, out. Councilman Parry asked if the busway could be used for cars in the off-season. Stewart said the study addresses many different issues, such as three -lanes, using the busway for taxis and hotel vans, high occupancy vehicle use. Councilman Isaac asked if UMTA will fund the project, as they have changed their mind on the study. If the city funds the $25,000 would they be throwing away their money. Stewart said no just in the answer of the access to Aspen is important. { Stewart said the highway department and this county have this money budgeted; if the city wanted to budget their $25,000 for next year it could be done. Councilman Van Ness asked what the local share of the entire project would be. Stewart answered $1,200,000. Councilman Van Ness said he has a problem with the division of responsibility between the city and county. Councilman Van Ness said this highway will be entirely in the county, except for Main street. Councilman Van Ness said he did not feel this is a city responsi- bility. Stewart said this study and busway is enough of a benefit to the -city, it would merit the city's participation. Councilman van Ness said he did not feel the busway would be used enough to justify the expense. Councilman Isaac said the city has annexed alot of the land this will be going through; also the highway is a disaster from Aspen to the airport. �I Councilman Isaac moved to support the county and contribute $25,000 city funds to the engineering study; to be addressed at 1981 budget time; seconded by Councilman Parry. I �i Mayor Edel said he had a problem with the city contributing; the citizens of Aspen are being asked to pay twice. City engineer Dan McArthur told Council the state highway department cannot afford to pay for a four -lane bridge for 10 years. If this study will get UMTA to pay for a four -lane highway and bridge, it is a good use of money. Stewart said the UMTA will only pay for rolling stock, maintenance facilities, stations, etc. not t the road. ` II Councilman Isaac said because UMTA will not pay for the highway, he withdrew the motion. McArthur suggested waiting to see what happens at the highway meeting Friday and reconsider this at the next Council muting. ii Councilman Van Ness moved to table; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. LA TORTUE - EXTENSION FOR DEMOLITION Planning director, Karen Smith, reminded Council they had acted on this several weeks ago; a request to allow La Tortue remain at their present site until April 15, 1981. The staff 9l2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 has been requested for extra information so Council could reconsider if they wished. Ms. i Smith outlined that the Ajax Mountain building had been given approval for 13,500 square feet commercial space under the 1979 growth management allotment. They only needed an allocation of 6,075 square feet because 7500 existing square feet would be demolished. La Tortue represents 1200 square feet of the 7500 square feet of demolition that was to be reconstructed. Ms. Smith said the legal question remains can one allow commercial square i footage to exist while new square footage is being occupied. Bob Grueter stated his opinion was you cannot double up square footage; it has to be one place or another. It could stay until there is a certificate of occupancy for the new building. Richie Cummins,; representing Ed Hicks, told Council Steve Marcus is applying for additional square footage for the project. Cummins suggested the legal problem might be solved by saying that as soon as Marcus gets that allocation, it will cover La Tortue. Ms. Smith pointed out Section 24.10.3(h) says a quota cannot be transferred from one owner to another without the assignment of property. Cummins disagreed as this property is still owned by Marcus. Mayor Edel said the sense of Council at the last meeting was to allow the shop to run through the winter season. Grueter said it is up to Council to make the policy decision if! La Tortue can occupy the space until the new building is built. Councilman Parry said he i would like to leave the decision the same as it was in September. Councilman Isaac moved to table this issue; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilmembers' Isaac and Collins in favor, everyone else opposed. Motion NOT carried i ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1980 - Nicholson Rezoning Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council this is one of the first projects under the j residential bonus ordinance. The applicant is requesting rezoning of a parcel of property at West Hyman to allow construction of an employee unit in an existing duplex, which unit will be exempt from the growth management plan. This will be identical to the project next door done by Ed Baker in the winter of 1979. Nicholson, at 119 West Hyman, wishes to construct an identical employee unit in his half of the duplex. The site contains 7500 square feet; 8,400 square feet would be needed to construct all 4 units. By rezoning the property from R/MF to R/MF-RBO, the area and bulk requirements are reduced and this will permit the construction of an additional unit. This will allow an employee unit without increasing the density or bulk of the neighborhood. In order to take advantage of this, 50 per cent of the units must be deed restricted - one already is. Vann reminded Council this is a discretionary ordinance and is reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Council must find the development is appropriate for the neighborhood and consider design, bulk and density. There is a list of criteria and purposes Council must review. Vann said the planning office has reviewed this request and finds it to be consistent with the residential bonus ordinance and the review criteria. The completion of the basement will not increase density of the neighborhood; it will increase site density but will not change the footprint of the building. The employee unit is consistent with the city's housing plan and with trying to disberse units throughout the community. Vann recommended the applicant's request be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum. P & Z held a public hearing and concurred with the planning office recommendation. This is to be deed restricted for 50 years as a moderate unit. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #54, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #54 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SEC. 24-2.2 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF LOTS C, D, AND THE WEST 1/2 OF E, BLOCK 61, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, INDEPENDENCE SUBDIVISION FROM R/MF TO R/MF RB was read by the city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #54, Series of 1980, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac asked if the six month minimum lease is attached. Vann said he thought that was required in the R/MF zone but would check. Roll call vote; Councilman Collins, nay; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Edel aye. Motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to exempt this unit from the grown management plan; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. SPECIAL REVIEW - Snare Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council this property is immediately next door and through a lot split process,the applicant has the right to construct a single family structure, which is under construction. This lot is also 7500 square feet, and the applicant is j requesting an exemption through gmp to construct employee housing in the basement of the 1 house. There is sufficient lot are to do this; the applicant does not need a rezoning to RBO. The proposed unit is one bedroom. This requires four parking spaces; there is j approval from the engineering department regarding the parking layout. The housing director approves with a deed restriction under moderate guidelines for 50 years. The planning i office and P & Z recommend this project be a,eproved. .i Councilman Behrendt moved to exempt the proposed employee housing unit to be located at 113 West Hyman Avenue from compliance with Growth Management allotment procedures subject to the following conditions: 1) The deed restriction of the approximately 800 square foot one bedroom employe unit for a period of 50 years under the city's moderate income guide- lines, said restriction to be executed prior to issuance of a building permit, and 2) the submission and approval of an appropriate site plan to the engineering department indicating a four -space parking arrangement and the subsequent provision thereof; seconded by Councilman Isaac. 'i 0 2t►"3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1980 Councilman Behrendt asked why this was moderate guidelines rather than low. Vann answered the city has not updated the housing guidelines. Councilman Behrendt asked if the six month minimum lease clause was included. Council discussed the low versus moderate income guidelines. Councilman Behrendt stated he felt more low income units were needed. Councilman Behrendt amended the "moderate" to "low"; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #53, SERIES OF 1980 - Commercial Photography Studio as a Condition Use in S/C/I Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #53, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #53 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-3.2 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE S/C/I ZONE DISTRICT was read by the city clerk Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #53, Series of 1980, on first reading; seconded ; by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Collins, aye; Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. II SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Abels Sunny Vann told Council this is an application for condominiumization of a duplex located at 218 North Monarch in the R-6 zone on 7400 square feet. There is 1400 square feet in the upper unit, which has been owner -occupied since 1950. The lower unit is 450 square feet and rents for $350, which is outside of the price guidelines. The engineering depart- ment recommends approval subject to resubmission of the survey to include a proper legal description and the location of all areas in excess of thirty degrees slope; agreeing to join a sidewalk improvement district; complying with Sec. 24-4.5 to provide on -site parking if there is new construction. The attorney recommends notice and option provisions and six month minimum lease. Mayor Edel question the slope reduction. Gideon Kaufman told Council the building permit was issued in 1962, this was clearly legal at that time. i Councilman Behrendt asked if in terms of the fire and health code, the building is occu- piable. Kaufman said once this rule is passed, he would abide by the inspections. However, this has not been applied to anyone. Council requested the staff to get P & Z to look into requiring inspections before any condominiumizations come before P & Z or Council. i Kaufman said he would not allow an inspection as a stipulation but his client would voluntarily go along with an inspection. Chapman said it was his position that the city could at any time require a building meet health and safety standards as they are part I of the adopted codes of the city of Aspen. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision exemption application of Abels subject to (1) compliance with notice and option provisions and the six month minimum lease, and i (2) compliance with the stipulations of the engineering department and that the property has been inspected as to health and safety; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor,; with the exception of Councilmembers Isaac and Collins. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Council requested Ordinance #50, Emplbyee Units in Lodges be removed. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing on Ordinance #5, Alarm Systems; Ordinance #51, Alternate P & Z Member, Ordinance #52, Meters in Taxi Cabs and Liquor License renewals for Final Exam and Souper. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. lI Councilman Isaac moved to adopt all items on the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Collins, aye; Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn ' . Koch, City Clerk Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the joint m-eting to order at 4:10 p.m. and commened the County for the Hunter Longhouse project. �f Bus__w_aYY- Curt Stewart reminded Council he had come before them at the last meeting asking �__ or -their participation in a busway and the Council chose to table it, pending the outcome of more information at the meeting with the highway department. Councilman Behrendt said he really wanted to see the county do the study but thought there was a problem of double taxation. Councilman Isaac said there is already city land - the Marolt property and on in. Councilman Isaac said the only problem he has is that the city may be throwing money away on a study that would never be carried through. Councilman Collins said the proposed study is an extension of what is in the Citizen's Advisory Board's report. It will develop more of the technical information and get the specifics in terms of actual alignment, inter- section details, cost information, etc. Councilman Collins said he assumed this program was intended to take the original report and refine it, bring it out into greater detail as far as the busway is concerned. )74 • • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Stewart told Council what they will get out of this is what their priorities are on moving people in and out of town. Stewart said they all went to the highway department meeting and heard they don't have enough money to do a tenth of what they would like to do, even if that. Stewart said his argument is a simple one. The community determines what they want to do so they have a basis on which to go -fight for something. Right now, if they had to get into a competition for funds, his view is they would be greatly weakened in that competition because they don't know whether they want to build a busway, highway or what. Mayor Edel said he didn't understand why Stewart was relating the problem to funds., Mayor Edel said he thoughty they had $6,000,000. Mayor Edel said they certainly have $6,000,000 worth of work on all parts of the highway. Mayor Edel said to relate it to not getting the funds, he didn't buy that. City Manager Chapman said that he through what Stewart was saying is that the $6,000,000 that is available for Highway 82 over the next five years has been, by priority, allocated by the highway department for spot safety improvements. Chapman thought Stewart was saying that it is going to take a lot more than $6,000,000 to do the kinds of things they want to do; the busway, four lane, etc. Anything more than spot safety improvements is going to take more than $6,000,000. In order to get. more than the $6,000,000 they would have to be in competition. Councilman Isaac asked if the $75,000 were spent for the study, would it increase their chances to get the extra money. Stewart said it would give them a very good chance because one of the partners in this is the highway department. What the city would be doing by participating is folding them into the process. The highway department would become an advocate for us. Councilman Collins asked if this study would help establish priorities as to what needs to be done on the highway and Stewart said the last element in the proposed work program is the implementation plan, and that's where the priorities could be established. Councilman Parry said that Main street needs to be extended very badly and if this study would help do that, he wants to see it done. Councilman Parry is very concerned about the bridge, which is the only way to get in and out of Aspen. Councilman Behrendt asked if this would be a four -lane bridge and Stewart gave a qualified yes. Stewart said they don't have a firm policy from the highway department but that is the direction they have been pushing toward. Councilman Behrendt asked who would pay for the bridge. Stewart said it would be about 2-3 million dollars and the highway department would construct the bridge. Chapman said that without increasing the gasoline tax, their chances of getting more than the $6,000,000 is about 20 per cent and their chances of getting extra monies without the study are probably zero. Tom Oken, county finance director, asked Stewart if he had a ballpark estimate of what the local share would be in total to build the busway and acquire the land. Stewart said the original estimate for local participation is around $1,500,000. Stewart said there are all sorts of satellite issues; for example, the need to push for transit district in the valley and things like that, which, in his mind, would clearly enable an agency like that to do it. The total cost of the project was also envisioned to be around $13,200,000. The busway would go from the airport to Aspen. Stewart said that it is a certainty that in one to three years there will not be enough money in the county for a bus system and this is not even a maybe. Stewart said the county's general costs are going up at a rate of $400,000 faster than their revenues are. Councilman Behrendt asked where the appropriations are coming from and Mayor Edel said they would come from the sixth penny whcih is for transportation. Commissioner Child said the county was will- ing to commit to their $25,000 for the study, and, at the same time, they are cutting some programs which are very dear to their hearts. The county -is cutting portions of their bus route, portions which do not directly affect Pitkin County citizens, plus cutting some things will will probably hurt a lot of people very deeply. However, they all see this as a priority, one which needs to be resolved, even at the sacrifice of some things which they feel are very important. Councilman Collins made a motion to join the County to authorize the report, assuming the city can come up with the funds; seconded by Councilman Parry. Stewart said the process is to finalize the agreement with the highway department and also to go through a tri-partite selection process of an engineering firm to do the work, which is the highway department's recommendation. This will be occurring over the next two to three weeks. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. City Manager Chapman told the Boards that on Friday, Aspen and Pitkin County filed their application with the Federal and Regulatory Commission to build a hydroplant at the base of Ruedi reservoir. Chapman said he has been contacting neighboring jurisdictions in the river district to schedule a meeting for November 5th to discuss the possibility of a valley wide benefit and possibly a valley wide cooperative effort to build it. COUNCIL MEETING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Robert Lamm, 423 N. Second, said he recently became a full time resident in Aspen. He has a two year old child and wanted to talk about Triangle Park. Lamm had done some read- ing and found out that a long time ago the City Council had made plans to landscape the park and install play areas. He found out there was about $20,000 worth of play toys and equipment being stored somewhere which the City bought but have not been used. Lamm said he would like to see these unused toys brou ht out and used in Triangle Park. Lamm said that the people in the nieghborhood three years ago, the ones who didn't want the park to . have a bunch of screaming kinds in the park, they are mostly gone. They have been replaced by people with kids. Councilman Behrendt said that the city acquired Triangle park partly as open space and partly for an active playground. Councilman Behrendt said they had an intense design program but the people in the nieghborhood didn't want their neighborhood to be the center of screaming kids. Therefore, Council took the line of least resistance, which was very moderate development on the park for the time being. Councilman Behrendt said that they decided if anyone came before them again, they would look into it. He did note that he would like to see the development completed and that most of the people who resisted the park improvement had moved on. i • 2 J <5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Lamm said that he has talked to most of the people in the nieghborhood, the ones with l kids and the ones without kids, and if necessary he said he could get their signatures I saying they approve of the installation of the other equipment. Fonda Patterson said she believed the equipment was stored at the city water plant right now. Councilman Collins said that he believed the original request was rather extensive, overly intensive given the size of the lot. Councilman Collins said tie thinks that perhaps it is time to look at the plans again and see what could be done to serve the needs of those with children. i Another question concerning the park had to do with maintenance and keeping the park shoveled from snow during the wintertime. Councilman Van Ness thinks the way to go about this would be for City Manager Chapman to find out where the equipment is, and if the equipment is still available, to go through a public hearing to save the Council from going through what it did last time, getting the equipment halfway in before the neighbors started screaming. i Councilwoman Michael said she remembered that the Council had decided that the children could be taken to the schools, which are right around the corner, for the active play- ground equipment, and Triangle park would be a more passive park. However, Councilwoman Michael said she went by the park after talking with Lamm and she thought it was so passive she couldn't see it. Councilwoman Michael suggested that the Council give this to Chapman to communicate with the parks department about the equipment and then to have a public hearing. Councilman Van Ness also suggested that the minutes be retrieved of the meeting where Council decided not to put all of the equipment in so that history would not repeat itself. Councilman Behrendt also suggested that Council remembers they have that equip- ment and installs it either at Triangle Park, if they chose, or at Ute park. Mayor Edel asked Lamm to continue calling on his neighborhs and get their signatures so the Council could have something concrete. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Van Ness had some comments about the post office traffic circulation; that both of the entrances/exits in the front have been made into entrances. Councilman Van !� Ness said that no one pays any attention anyway. Councilman Van Ness suggested that before a disaster occurs, that a couple of Do Not Enter signs are placed at one of the entrances. Councilman Van Ness also suggested that the stop sign be replaced at the l Truman area so people can go around the post office. All Councilmembers agreed that something had to be done about the traffic control at the post office. It was referred back to the staff. 2. Councilman Van Ness said that, although it is too late this year, since the City often; puts quite a few questions on the ballot, the Council should have debates on their views j of the issues. Councilman Van Ness also said he was opposed to the idea of cutting Councilmembers from seven to five, simply because there are so many diverse groups in Aspen it would be cutting down on the representation. ii 3. Councilman Behrendt moved to add approval of Resolution #21 on the agenda; seconded by', Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. The resolution was added to the consent agenda. 4. Councilman Parry said he understood the Oden group i.s finishing up very nicely on �I their project and was wondering if the Council might ask staff for a meeting with tme to see what their final figures are coming out as and if the Council should start another project with them, if their figures are as good as they say. Mayor Edel said a meeting is' in order; Bob Oden will be out of town for ten days and he should be a part of the meeting., Therefore, a meeting can be set when he gets back into town. 11 5. Councilman Parry moved to put Hans Gramiger on the agenda for a five minute presenta- ;I tion on the extension of Main street; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Gramiger was put on the agenda after the Citizen's Action Group on Pedestrian Safety. j 6. Mayor Edel wanted to note that on November 24th, in Grand Junction, there will be a meeting with the highway department. Mayor Edel said that no one from Council has ever been to those meetings. Mayor Edel believes it has been a mistake for the Councilmembers not to attend and he believes the City should be represented. Councilman Parry indicated interest and Mayor Edel suggested that Councilman Parry and whoever else should attend the meeting. Gramiger said that he has gone with the Citizen's Group to these meetings. If the city wants to be on the agenda, they have to make it know now because there are about sizteen counties that attend. It was decided that Councilman Parry would follow up and find out all about it. 7. Mayor Edel also said that "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" was a marvelous play and he wanted to invite everyone to go see it. 8. Mayor Edel said he received a letter from Ford Schumann, who, on the basis of what happened at the meeting with the Wheeler, has asked to be relieved of his position as the representative of M.A.A. on the Wheeler Commission and also resigned from the Board of the-M.A.A. In his letter he asks that he be reappointed to the Wheeler Commission because: he is very interested in the whole process. Edel said he could attest to the fact that Schumann has not missed a meeting, he is knowledgeable and dedicated to the project. Mayor Edel thinks the Council should appoint Schumann to the Commission. and then advise the MA.A. that they should appoint someone else to the Commission. Councilman Behrendt moved to put this question on today's agenda; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. 97 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council CITIZEN'S ACTION GROUP ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY October 27, 1980 David Woodyard, Pastor of the Aspen Community Churs, was representative of the Citizen's Action Group this evening because Esther Beamer was out of town. Woodyard presented a set of recommendations.which the group would like to see acted upon. 1. Set a 25 m.p.h. speed zone on Main street from the Castle Creek bridge to the Roaring Fork bridge. They feel that it would be practical because of the numerous businesses. It would decrease noise and pollution. They feel that by lowering it to 25 mph it would slow people down to 30 mph. The requestto the Council would be to set an ordinance which would be in effect on November 1, 1980. Councilman Van Ness said that there is a law that requires the City to give the highway department advance notice and then they have to do a traffic survey. Chapman said they have done a study and it indicated that 30 mph was the correct speed limit. The highway department also indicated some reluctance to do another study but Chapman thought pressure. could be used to get another study done. Councilwoman Michael suggested a consensus to pursue this new study because she would likt to see the mechancis of where they take that ' survey. 1 Mark Skrotsky said that speed limits are set in one of two ways. Some are set down by law; 25 in business areas, 30 in residential areas, 55 in open spaces, 20 in mountain roads, etc. Another way of setting the limits is by what people are in fact actually travelling. This is determined by the study which has been mentioned. If the limit is set lower than the ones set by law, you can run into trouble. Councilman Van Ness said there are two "limits" on speed in Colorado. There is the 55 absolute limit. Any other limit lower than that, the law requires that you travel at a speed that is reasonable and proper. Councilman Van Ness said that conceivably, if the posted limit on Main street was ten miles per hour, you could go into court and protest it because the safe speed may be 35 mph. Councilman Van Ness found an article in Colorado Municipalities and it said that a municipality set a speed limit without telling the high- way department and the courts said the speed limit was void because there is a statutory citation where all traffic and parking regulations on a state highway within a municipal- ity are required to be approved in writing by the highway department. Mayor Edel said they were all in agreement that the Council wanted to go to the highway department. Councilman Behrendt said that maybe the highway department did not know that that area is zoned for business but our architecture makes it look more like a residential area. He thought the city should stress that the area is zoned for business. Councilman Behrendt said the man from the state was dubious but they might consider limiting the speed to 25 mph. Councilman Behrendt thought, also, that the highway department may have done the study on Auto Free Day. Mayor Edel said they also did it the day before. Skrotsky said they weren't doing anything on speed limits that day but it had to do with the traffic lights. Councilwoman Michael said the consensus was to have the staff clarify it with the highway department and do what can be done to get it down to 25 mph. 2. Pedestrian intervals at traffic lights - the Mill and Main walk sign is not even working and Woodyard said as far as he knows, it hasn't been working for the last three weeks. The request to the Council is that the traffic lights are set to allow all pedestrians to walk and cross safely at both of the traffic lights, and the third light should it be installed. This would be a four way`.stop of cars. i Mayor Edel said that the highway department would give the light to the city if it was wanted. Councilman Van Ness said they also noted that it was not the bargain it seemed because there would be such a back-up of cars. Councilwoman Michael asked Skrotsky what the disadvantages would be for the pedestrian intervals. Skrotsky said there would be a long time for a red light for each particular intersection. There would be quite a back up of cars. Skrotsky said it could be tried as an experiment. Councilwoman Michael said she would like to se a No Right Turn on Red. Councilman Van Ness said there are some other drawbacks to the problem; he does not want the four way pedes- trian stop of cars but he would like to see the no right turn on red. Councilwoman Michael moved to install pedestrian interval lighting on Main street; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilmembers Michael, Collins and Mayor Eded in favor; Councilmembers Behrendt, Van Ness, Isaac and Parry opposed. Motion NOT carried. 3. Concerns pedestrian signs - Woodyard requested that the City Council send a follow up letter to the highway department requesting that the new larger signs be in place by November 15, 1980. Chapman said they did follow up. The new signs have been ordered and will be installed as soon as weather permits. They are pedestrian oriented signs, a newer, version. They are symbol signs. 'I i 4. Painting of crosswalks - Woodyard said they would like to request they crosswalks to be repainted as soon as weather permits. Chapman said they would be repainted as soon as i weather permitted. 11 i 5. Pedestrian safety education program - The request is for the Council to place into 1981 a specific line item marked pedestrian safety education program that will be carried out during the year and that would include taking some of Monroe Summers' time to help put the program together. It would be funded by city money and hopefully some private funds. The Action Group is willing to go out and solicit funds to have the printing and distribution done. This would be a pamphlet passed out saying what pedestrian safety is about, what the rights and responsibilities of the driver and pedestrian are. Chapman said that Summers had agreed to spend as much time as necessary on the project. Councilman Behrendt asked what the program actually amounted to and Woodyard said it was simply an awareness program. i Councilman Van Ness moved to try to find the funds for the program; seconded by Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 0 297'7 Regular Meeting _ Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 �j 6. Long range task force - Woodyard said the action group is asking that a task force be composed to look at the long range deal on Main street that might include medians or whatever to beautify it. They would like to see 3 representatives from the city, 3 representatives of the Citizen's Action Group and 3 from the community -at -large. Council- woman Michael said they already had an informal task force. They have the action group along with Monroe Summers, Wayne Chapman, Rob McClung and Dan McArthur. Councilwoman Michael said she would be glad to come if someone would call her. Councilman Collins wanted to know if the Action Group had looked into the prohibiting parking and temporary isalnds on Main street because of the visibility problem. Council- man Collins also wanted to know if those were items that had to go through the highway department for approval. Mayor Edel said some of it is and some of it isn't. Councilwoman Michael moved to have Chapman check on the No Right on Red and come back with;, a report; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. PRESENTATION BY HANS GRAMIGER II Hans said that the city owns the land on both sides of the highway. This would be the golf, course, Thomas open space property and Marolt. Gramiger said that from Seventh and Main, j there are five points of inconvenience. They are Seventh and Main, the Forest Service corner, the bridge itself, Cemetery Lane and the Prince of Peace Chapel intersection. Gramiger said as soon as the Marolt Property has been settled, he would like to see the city look into some highway improvement. i ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 1980 - Employee Units in Lodges j Mayor Edel said that it was Council's decision in a meeting last week that this item be I+ tabled indefinitely. Councilman Behrendt moved to table this item number 15, consent agenda; Ordinance #50, Series of 1980, employee units in lodges, for an indefinite period; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Parry asked why it was tabled. City Manager Chapman said that there have been some suggestions, places where the ordinance might be changed. A representative of Mr. Cantrup thought there may be some improvements that could be made since this was the second reading. Chapman asked Sunny Vann to get together with Ashley Anderson and talk about these things, get a report into the City Council before the next Council meeting with the planning office recommendations. If there are some desirable amendments, they could be made at second reading. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #18, SERIES OF 1980 - Housing Price Guidelines Jim Reents, housing director, said that the Growth Management Plan and subsequent amend- ments to that plan requires the Council on an annual basis to adopt both sale and rental i price guidelines to be used for applicants through the GMP as well as evaluating condo- miniumization applications and any deed restricted employee housing applications. Reents I said that in the past year, the Council has approved an increase over the initial year, the 1979 guidelines of 8 per cent for existing units and 15 per cent for new construction and new applications. At that time, there was some disagreement about using a combination, of the national housing index and the Denver housing price index. Over the last year, Reemts said he has looked into what has been done in other communities; unfortunately, no one has any better answer than Aspen. Reents said he was before the Council to recommend the same type of increase for this year as was approved for last; that is, 8 per cent for existing units and 15 per cent for new construction. This, in both cases is below not only the consumer price index but the average between the Denver housing index and the national housing index. Reents said it was most important with new applications, either through the GMP or through the 70/30 process, in evaluating, if they can make the numbers work. Reents said there is no enforcement other than with Bill Drueding with the building department on a complaint only . basis for violations. Reents and the planning office propose to advertise all deed restricted units in the next year, what their rates should be and what their rate of increase should be. They would advertise twice to four times per. year. Councilman Behrendt wondered why realtors in town were advertising units that he knew were deed restricted for short term rental. Reents explained that with each unit that has a rental of a minimum of six months, it is allowed to be rented for two short term rentals, each short term meaning two weeks. Therefore, it is possible to rent a unit short term for one month of the year. Reents said that is is an issue that was discussed at budget time this year between the building department, city manager and Reents. It was decided at that point, because of the limitations within the budget, that enforcement would be dealt with on a complaint basis. I i Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #18, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #18 !I (Series of 1980) j WHEREAS, The City Council is required to establish housing price guidelines in October of each year for consideration in granting points within the therms of the Growth Management plan was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution #18, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman; Michael. 0 s D78 • • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Gideon Kaufman wanted to clarify an area to save the confusion of last time. The question' was, what price guidelines should be used for existing structures which are newly condo- miniumized. Reents said that by going through the tapes of last year, he felt the intent of Council was to go by the lower price guidelines for rental units which are condominium- ized. Mayor Edel suggested that a special section be added to Resolution #18 which applies to condominiumization. Vann was given a copy of the resolution to add the section. Bil Dunaway said that GMP also requires something to do with the salaries which will be low, moderate or middle income and he wondered why there was nothing to do with that in the resolution. Reents said the Code does not require that, other than to say that people will be qualified for these units. Reents said that they have used as a guideline in the past, when it has come up for new construction, a figure of 35 per cent of the persons net income, determining the rental rate as to whether it is low, moderate or middle income unit. The recommendations are based on the information provided by the applicant or his employees. Councilman Behrendt said the Council had been discussing the fact that they have been approving an inordinate number of units at moderate income that really should be low income. Reents said there were two separate occasions when people came to him and said they could not get their loan from the bank with these type of restrictions. He said the bankers are not even happy with the guidelines as they are now. They would rather see them up at the $1.00 per square foot range because there's a risk. Mayor Edel suggested Councilman Behrendt and Reents get togelter and discuss this thing privately because Councilman Behrendt has the feelings of all of Council. At this point, Sunny Vann read the amendment to Resolution #18. It now includes a new Section 3, which reads "For purposes of condominiumization of existing structures pursuant to Section 20-22, housing price guidelines shall be as outlined in Section 2 above. Housing price guidelines for new structures shall be the same as outlined in Section 1." The old Section 3 will not be Section 4. Councilman Behrendt amended his motion to include the new Section 3 and a renumbering of the old Section 3 to Section 4; Councilman Isaac seconded. Councilman Collins asked if the consumer housing index is a part of the consumer price index. Reents said it is one item that they isolate specifically. Councilman Collins also asked if the housing department sets the salary guidelines. Reents said they have been using the figure that the housing task force found acceptable, which is 35 per cent of annual income. All in favor of approval of Resolution #18, Series of 1980, as amended. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 1980 - Intent to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - Koval Project Jim Reents, housing director, said this was before the Council before but they were caught off guard because of a need to know some of the background, more about the people involved as opposed to the project. Councilwoman Michael said this inforamtion was exactly what she asked for and would like to move to read the Resolution. The problem was, no one had the resolution. Reents said he had discussed this previously with Wayne Chapmand and Chapman had suggested that because the resolution had already been approved as to form by the attorney and by the Council's bond advisors, the Council could vote giving a sense of approval. Chapman suggested a sense of Council for the developer's benefit, and then the legal steps could be taken care of at a later date. Mayor Edel said that he had a problem with the approach although he could understand the need. Councilman Behrendt said he understood that these were deed restricted and assumed that was to six month rental limitations. Councilman Behrendt said he wanted to have a meeting on that, to clarify for everyone' sake what that means. Councilman Behrendt said he thinks it is worthless, a stupid enforcement. Councilman Behrendt said'the city should. have something like that, but not that. Councilman Behrendt asked Reents to prepare a memo on it. Councilman Behrendt asked if there was a price restriction on the project, would they be moderate or low price units? Reents said it would be determined through the' review of the actual project. Councilman Behrendt asked how he could vote that it would be of the community's interest to build the units if he didn't know if the units were coming in under employee housing guidelines. Reents said it was a real chicken and egg situation. Without the resolution, any money the applicant spends cannot be funded under the 70/30 ordinance. It is intended to be employee housing so the applicant can get approval under the ordinance. Councilman Isaac asked if this would be a rental or a re -sale project. Reents said that under the provisions of the Industrial Development Bond Act at the present time, it can only be a rental project. Councilman Behrendt moved that at this time, the sense of Council is that this looks like an appropriate thing to do; Councilwoman Michael seconded. All in favor, motion carried.; RESOLUTION #19, SERIES OF 1980 - Park Dedication Fee Waivers Reents said that it had been brought up earlier by Council that, as opposed to seeing each" applicant on an individual basis that Council have some standard and consistent policy in granting waivers of park dedication fees foi subsidizing employee projects. This would be,, an all or none approach rather than being piecemeal and on an inconsistent basis.• The city attorney, city manager and Reents were directed by Council to get together on this. The attorney proposed that Council could adopt a fixed policy on this by resolution. Reents read: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: That in the future all park dedication fpec for deed restricted low, moderate and middle income housing be waived, and further, that shorter term restricted units (deed restricted for less than 50 years) receive a deferral of park dedication fees for this period of sherter term restriction, this deferral not to exceed five (5) years, at which time the fees determined at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be due and payable. AF 2971► Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Councilman Behrendt said that deferral of payment probably means non-payment. He said it is very difficult to follow-up on and there are probably a number outstanding at the present time. Also, he said he has real hesistation at this point. Councilman Behrendt thinks that when they call something an employee housing project, but just restricted for five years, Council is fooling themselves and the public and not making any gains in the long term problem. Councilman Behrendt said he has fought for years against giving any benefit on this particular program to employee housing. Councilman Behrendt said maybe it is right to give some benefit. Councilman Behrendt was wondering about making a Council policy that if it meets the guidelines and it is genuinely a deed restricted unit in terms of time, more than five years, and price, that there is an automatic reduction down to half. Councilwoman Michael said she was surprised at the wording of the resolution. She had thought they were doing this for all permanent deed restricted housing. Also, if sometime down the road - 20 or 30 years - it does go on the free market, the City would collect. Mayor Edel said he thinks any short term deferral is a mistake. If it is a permanement housing pool, fine, waive it, but if it is anything less than that, forget about it, they have to pay. City Manager Chapman said he thought Council was saying that any unit that is permanently restricted for employee housing should be exempted from paying the park dedication fee. Any unit that is constructed for use an employee housing and is not permanently deed restricted, should have the fee waived for so long as it remains employee housing. Mayor Edel said no, he feels that anything which is not permanently deed restrictec should have to pay. 'I Gideon Kaufman suggested a way to deal with the problem; that is, if it is put in the record that the fee must be payed if the units go on the free market, the title company will pick it up, so there would be that restriction on buying the property. Councilman Behrendt asked if they would pay in 1980 dollars or future dollars, and Council agreed they would pay the going rate at the time. Reents suggested that Council just drop the second section of the resolved section to read: That in the future all park dedication fees for deed restricted low, moderate and middle income housing be waived (deed restricted for at least 50 years). Councilman Parry said he would like to see Reent's policy recommendation in writing and returned to Council.' !I Al Nicholson, developer of Park Central West, said he has three employee housing units, low income rental, each unit going for $175 per month. Nicholson said he would like very much not to have to pay the park dedication fee until such time as he can rent at either market price or in such time as he can sell. Jolene Vrchota, planning office, said it was not her understanding from the previous dis- cussion that it was Council's intent to eliminate the deferral on projects like the Christ Episcopal Church and A.C.E.S., where there is no deed restriction or specific prices for any amount of years but there is an intended use for employee housing. Ms. Vrchota said that has been eliminated in this new proposal. Mayor Edel said the bind Council gets into, on a short term project that's going to be employee housing for a very short time and'then go free market, he is very bothered by the fact that its short term. Ms. Vrchota said there are two types of short term housing; the ones that are specifically restricted for five years or the ones with an indefinite time, not knowing if its' short or long. Chapman suggested that the resolution be read so that its' automatic for permanently deed restricted. Then, when other projects come in, such as A.C.E.S., they can come to Council separately. However, Council said this was the type of thing they were trying to avoid. Chapman outlined the sense of Council for the resolution is that all permanently deed restricted housing would be exempt from the parking dedication fee. Any employee housing which is deed restricted for less than 50 years would not be exempt from the park dedica- tion fees. Any employee housing which fits in the class of being owned by a non-profit or charitable organization would be exempt from the fee as long as the units are being used for employee housing. If the units were to go on the free market, payment would be due. Al Nicholson said that would mean he could not get a diferral of the fee. Councilman Van Ness said he is personally in favor of deferral of the fee as long as the unit remains employee housing because it would be a good inducement to keep the units employee housing. Councilman Parry agreed. Councilman Behrendt said that when Nicholson built his project, he knew that he would have to pay the fee. Councilman Behrendt wondered where it was to the public's benefit to relieve Nicholson from paying that for a period of five years. Nicholson would get the benefit of the use of that money for five years. Nicholson said it wasn't really a benefit because he is renting the units at a loss anyway. Councilman Behrendt said that was the deal he made with the city in the first place. Councilman Isaac said he had no problem with deferral of the payment as long as they receive payment in new dollars and with a new evaluation of the property. Mayor Edel though Council should refer this back to staff and come up with it next tilde in a more defined clearcut approach. ;I Councilwoman Mcihael moved to table this and refer it back to staff; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilmembers Collins, Michael, Behrendt and Mayor Edel in favor; Councilmembers Isaac, Van Ness and Parry opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Collins wanted to say that he is not in favor of this waiving and deferring because he feels as though it's a tax. Councilman Collins doesn't think it is the City's right to charge some and not charge others because what the City doesn't make in park dedication fees, the other taxpayers have ,to make up. And they're the people who have already paid the tax. Councilman Collins said he would like to see if Council is agree- able about getting an opinion from the city attorney or the state attorney regarding the siutaion, the City's right to do this. Mayor Edel asked City Manager Chapman to see that this is done. 0980 Regular Meeting SMALL PROJECTS: RE 70/30 Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Jim Reents, housing director, said that Council had asked that the planning and housing offices look at the 70/3b ordinance with regards to some small projects. Reents had a proposal which, as an ordinance, Council could not really take action on, but they have to refer the approach back to P & Z who has to make their recommendation back to Council. However, there are actaully three approaches. Reents said the wording of the 70/30 ordinance that creates the problem is the sentence that says, "All residential dwelling units constructed in a mixed, free-market, deed restricted, housing project where in at least 70 per cent of the units are constructed . . .". The term "at least" means that you can't do any less than 70 per cent. In some cases, and especially with small projects, you get a figure like 70 per cent of 6 units is 4.2 units. Reents said the ordinance could be amended to just identify rounding portions of the housing unit either down or up, say from. .4 down, it becomes a lower number and from .5 up, it becomes the next whole unit. Or, it could be said that for smaller projects of say up to 15 units, a ratio of 2 to 1. Reents said it still would not work in every case. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the Sens of this kind of amendment and to sen it on to the planning and zoning commission for their review and study; seconded by Councilman .Parry. Councilman Van Ness said this is the same discussion they had last time, when Council could have simply amended the language. Reents said the reason it has to be back to P & Z is because it is part of the Code. Any zoning change has to go back to P & Z All in favor, motion carried. 1981 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMERCIAL ALLOCATIONS Sunny Vann, planning office, wanted to apologize for the lengthiness of the memorandum, he said there were some additional materials that were to be included in the packet but were left out; however, he believed that eveyone picked them up prior to the meeting. Vann said the history surrounding the process is quite lengthy, therefore, there had to be a long memorandum. Vann said that on October 7, 1980, the planning and zoning commission scored this year's 1981 applications consistent with the Code. There were three applications; Park Place Building, Ajax Mountain Associate #2 and Mill Street Station Mall. Park Place building is a small building proposed for the two vacant lots adjuacent to the Aspen Leaf Sports. Vann said the results, included in the packet, were as follows; Park Place was first with 31.2 points, Ajax Mountain Associates second at 31.0 and Mill Street Station third at 30.7. All of the applicants received sufficient points to be eligible for an allotment. They met the minimum point requirements overall under certain specific categories. The Code, there- fore, requires that Council consider any challenges to the P & Z scoring process. Vann said they may only hear challenges with respect to due process considerations of abuse of discretion. Councilwoman Michael stated that means that tonight, categories and scoring is not an issue. Vann said that also, there have been no appeals filed in the planning office and they anticipate none. As an administrative rule, they require that challenges be submitted prior to the meeting so that everyone can have a copy and everyone could participate. Mayor Edel asked if there were any challenges. Tony Mazza, representative of Mill Street Stations, said they were intending to make a presentation after the planning department. However, this is not a challenge or an appeal, simply_a comment. Vann said the Code requires that Council allocate by resolution and prior to December 1st available deveopmental allotment in the order they were ranked by P & Z. Applicants which receive allotments may proceed to obtain additional development permits that are required. Unallocated allotments must be carried over to the following year for distribution at a later time. As the material indicates, the applicants this year total approximately 40,420 square feet; Ajax Mountain Associates is 11,120; Park Place is 8,800 and Mill Street Station Mall is 20,500. The annual available quota is limited to 24,000 square feet of commercial use provided that Council may authorize construction in excess of this amount by as much as 25 per cent or 6,000 square feet for a total of 30,000 square feet on an annual basis. In addition, there exists some unallocated quotas from prior years plus some quotas which have expired because the applicant did not proceed with the development process. These total approximately 35,300 square feet. Everything taken into account, the end result is a potential 1981 quota of approximately 60,500 square feet. Council is obligated under the Code to allocate up to 24,000 square feet. The planning office recommended to P & Z that they recommend to Council that -requested allocations in the amount of 8800 square feet and 11,120 square feet be awarded to Park Place building and Ajax Mountain associates, respectively. The remaining unallocated of approximately 4,080 square feet be held over for potential allocation at a later time. Planning office further recommened that neither the 6,000 bonus or the 35,000 square feet unallocated. from earlier years be awarded to Mill Street Station for construction. Vann said the P & Z concurs with the planning office that Park Place and Ajax Mountain should receive the awards to construct the buildings. However, P & Z did not concur with the planning office in regards to Mill Street Station. P & Z moved to recommend to Council that the remaining available quota, 4,000 square feet and the potential 6,000 square foot bonus, should be awarded in the event that the applicant can demonstrate the ability to phase his project. P & Z concurred with the planning office that the remaining unallocated allotment from prior years not be given to Mill Street Station. P & Z further moved that last year's bonus, some 4,719 square feet be substracted from this, prior unallocated expired quotas to wipe the slate clean. The planning office's recommen- dation to P & Z was predicated on a number of factors. They are concerned about allowing or authorizing commercial construction in any one year substantially in excess of the basic 24,000 squafe foot quota which is already available under GMP. Part of the recently'' adopted housing action plan says that commercial growth is a substantial generator of new 2981 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 employee housing demand. One of the major elements in that plant that the planning office has proposed to combat the employee housing problem is to reduce the demand for new employee housing stock. The other two approaches are to increase production and to maximize the use of existing inventory. i Vann said the annual quota is based on two major assumptions. The time the quota was determined, housing and commercial growth were relatively in balance and that if we built out approximately 80 per cent of the remaining commercial space over the next I fifteen years, given the 24,000 square feet and the residential quota, it would remain it in balance. It is also assumed that the city would remain the major commercial center for the area and that demand for additional office space would be relatively low. However", this has not been the case. While we've only had some 35,800 square feet of construction authroized in the city, over 120,000 square feet has been authorized outside of the CC !i and C-1 districts. In addition, some 119,000 square feet have been constructed outside of the city. As a result, while many of these have had some employee housing, its been so insignificant that we have exhausted the balance between employee housing and commer- cial growth. �I GMP was intended to balance these segments of the economy. This has not been the case. The housing action plan has identified some shortcomings in the GMP and while we have not as yet updated or amended the GMP, we are currently qxamining the past growth rate. Council has adopted certain policies as part of that housing action plan in an effort to combat those shortcomings. Vann was referring to specifically the intent to reduce the demand for new employee housing stock. Councilman Behrendt asked if the big generator at this point is commercial construction, and if that's also the giant loophole, then whi isn't Council recommending that we put those all together, so that there is a GMP overall recommendation so that there is not a place for everything to move through. Vann said they are currently looking at the GMP in terms of what growth has been exper- ienced since the adoption and any changes that might be required. A consideration is to j bring the other commercial districts under GMP allocation procedures or to redefine the available quota. Inasmuch as the process is stricly discretionary over and above the 1 24,000 square feet, Vann said they feel that in the interim while they are examining the impact of GMP changes, it would be entirely appropriate for Council to take into account j the impact of approving of space over and above that 24,000 square feet. In the light of the commercial growth rates that have been experienced since 1977, the planning office would encourage the Council to concur with their recommendation to P & Z and to authorize commercial allotments to the first two ranked projects and the remaining 1981 quota be held over to a later date for possible allocation. Should Council disagree with that recommendation, the.planni.ng office would respectively request that any alloca- tion over and above the basic 1981 quota of 24,000 square feet plus the bonus of 6,000 square feet not be approved. Also that the bonus recommended last year, some 4,000 square feet be subtracted from prior years' unallocated quoats in order to wipe the slate clean. If Council decides to award Mill Street Station the remaining 4,000 square feet and the II 6,000 square foot bonus, they would have to take their phasing proposal back to P & Z and be restored to be sure they still meet the point requirements. The reason for this 11 is because the Code does not allow modifications in applications in anything except insubstantial part after it is submitted. Councilman Van Ness moved to allocate allotments of 8800 square feet and 11,120 square feet to Park Place Building and Ajax Mountain Associates, Building #2, respectively; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. �I Councilman Behrendt asked Vann what would happen to this applicant next year if they are 4 denied this year. Vann said they may resubmit and would have to go through the entire process again. Councilwoman Michael wanted to know what the sense of Council was, when the GMP was passed, pertaining to how the unallocated quotas would be used. Councilman Collins said he thought the idea of that discretionary range was to -try to even it out so that over a number of years there would be an average amount of building. Vann said that is still probably valid except the city has demonstrated that they are not in balance as far as commercial growth versus the housing growth. Councilman Van Ness wanted to know'I if there was 35,000 square feet of unallocated, then how much was allocated. Vann said there was roughly 61,000 allocated. I Councilman Behrendt said he had two areas of concern. One, if Council did as P & Z suggested and allowed the 4,000 and 6,000 so Mill Street could build in two steps, how could Council be sure the project would be as good if they split it up into two phases. Vann said they could choose to cut it as they saw fit, but they would have to go back to P & Z and after restoring would have to meet the minimum points required in each category as well as the overall point requirements. Councilman Behrendt also asked how Council can consciously allow one more square foot to be built while, through a major defect in the GMP, there has been 120,000 square feet built out of the CC and C-1 district. Mayor Edel wanted to hear the presentation by the Mill Street Station people before they got into any other discussion. Tony Mazza introduced himself as a lawyer in town and a principal in the development of the M-11 Street Station. Mazza said that the ordinance which was adopted by Council on the GMP says there is 24,000 square feet of allowable commercial build out a yea*. There is a 25 per cent of 6,000 square feet bonus allowable. Mazza said the ordinance does not specifically address what happens to the unallocated commercial allocation from previous years. Mazza said the previous city attorney would have said that it is in the Council's discretion to use or not use the unused commercial allocations from previous years. Mazza said that when they tendered their application, they operated on the basis of what's in writing in the city statutes. Mazza said the book, basically says that its iii Council's discretion and as a logical person, he took that to mean that if someone meets the minimum requirements, the unused commercial allocation can be carried forward. Mazza referred to the scoring. He said that Mill Street Station came in second in every category. The planning department also recommended that they come in second. He though • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27,•1980 this meant that if there was ever a reason for using the unused allocation, this has to be it. Mazza believed the planning department takes the position that there is merit in the project. Mazza said he disagrees with the numbers which Vann had just presented. He thought the really horrifying figure was the 120,.000 square feet of commerical space built; outside the GMP area. Mazza said first of all, that's not his fault. The Council made the rules and they played by those rules. i Mazza said that 50,000 of that square footage was the Truman Center. 40,000 of it was the; Aspen Club. Mazza said that what those figures do not give you is the Trueman Center has approximately 1/3 employee housing. Mazza also said he believed there is over 60,000 square feet of unused allocations. For example, the Tom Thumb building what was approved in 1978, has not been built. lie understood they asked for an extention and were given until January 30, 1981, when, if they have not built by then, that goes back to unused alloca- tions, 5500 square feet. That same year, the Hutch and La Tortue were approved. They have not been built and Mazza says they will never be built. La Tortue was 608 and The Hutch was 576, the total for that year being 6,639 square feet, none of which was used. The next year, Gastof Eberlie building was converted from a lodge into commercial space. Mazza does not see where the extra impact of employee housing is. The same year, Fother- gill's basement was not built. The next year, the Epicure, not built; Bell Mountain Sports not built. First National Bank addition, not built. Mazza said they are asking that they get the 4,000 square feet of commercial space in this year's allocation, the 6,000 square feet bonus and that they take from the unallocated space of previous years that would allow the Mill Street Station. They will need 20,400 square feet to proceed this year. If Council must qualify that they build in 1982, so be it, but Mazza requests that they don't do that. Mazza asks that Council gives them the complete allocations they have requested. Larry Yaw said that when the GMP was initiated, he advised Council and the planning office at that time. Therefore, he believes that GMP was reconciled with all of the issues it needed to reconcile at that time. It was a thought- ful document. Yaw said the GMP calls for a periodic review of how it is working. Yaw said that this year the GMP has produced what it is supposed to produce; three very good projects. He believes they are three of the best projects the City will get out of it. Yaw also said he vlieves it would be proper to award the GMP to all projects this years. He said that a 20,000 square foot project is not a big project, but to phase that over the next two years would indeed have its impact. He said it would have have the impact on the people who were in the first phase and a subsequent contruction phase, but it would have the impact of keeping our city scpe in an ongoing construction process for two years that it didn't need to be in. Mayor Edel asked Vann if there were any things which had been said that he felt were inaccurate. Vann said he would like to comment on one or two items. Vann said the compu- tation of what's left over is based on the way the City code defines available quota. He said that last year's projects have two years in which to build. They fact they have not built this year for economical reasons does not mean that quota is back in the pot. Vann said that people have two years from the date of the award to submit for a building permit. Therefore, the comment about Tom Thumb is inaccurate. They asked for an extention, and therefore, they have until January 30, 1981, to submit for a building permit. If they submit for a building permit at that time, the clock runs, on the building permit and con- tinues to run and is conceivable they can building in the spring. As far as what has definitely expired, there is only 30,000 square feet. Councilman Michael said she didn't think it is the problem of Mill Street Station that 120,000 square feet has been built outside of the CC and C-1 zone. By the same token, she doesn't think it is Council's problem that Mill Street Station has spent X amount of collars, knowing that this is a crap shoot, knowing that the unallocated square footage is completely a discretionary item. She also said that she doubts this community has reached the growth level they had originally thought they could handle. Since they have not reached the level they thought would be manageable and acceptable, why not then used the unallocated square footage. Councilman Van Ness thought it could well be that commercial growth is a beig generator of employee housing deficiency and maybe Council should exercise their discretion and deny it. However, in his view, he thinks when it says discretion, you have to look back and see what has happened before. He said that he could remember when this GP?P came in d-cring the summer of 1977, they theory was that if people don't have housing or lodging, they can't come here so there is i.o growth. He s-!id they were considering not even including commer- cial allotments as part of GMP. So, what we've got here is what comes first, the chicken or the eff. He also remembers that there have been other discussions as to what to do with unused quotas from previous years, and up until now they have always been used. He thinks that on the grounds of predicability and consistency, the Council should go for this. If they want to change GMP, that should be done next year, and not now when these people have spent so much money on it. Councilman Van Ness said he just didn't think it would be fair to change the rules now, after they have already gone ahead and committed themselves by applying. He said he would have no objection to changing the rules for next year but he thinks it's a little bit late to do it now. Vann said there has never been an unallocated quota in the past that has been passed on by Council. It is incorrect to say that it was traditional for Council to give it; it has never been needed. Councilman Parry said that Bill Kane had warned Council about this even before the GMP went in and theproblems have been there. SAce there are not enough square feet within the City for the projects that have been good and have been brought up, this is part of the reason that the 120,000 square feet has grown up outside of the central core. Councilman Parry said he thinks the Council should use these unallocated quotas and should keep these good projects within the central core. Mayor Edel said he doesn't understand the whole business of past allocations, however, these people were functioning under that. He also said Council should indeed do as Van Ness says and relook at it. Mayor Edel said he has no doubts that these people should be 2t1,83 Regular Meeti: Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 subjected to thoughts they think are wrong. However, the impact of some 40,000 square feet of construction in one years seems like a lot of construction Mayor Edel said he thinks they should receive an award of however much square footage they need, but to relieve the impact of so much construction in one year, they should have to wait until 1982 to•start. Vann said postponing construction does not solve the problme. Bob Grueter said giving them two years to do it, he doesn't think that could be done under the due process of argument. Grueter said it looks like a five year plan. Over five years there will be 120,000 square feet. However, they wanted to protect the future, people coming in in 3 or 4 years. Grueter said it is up to the discretion of Council as to how much of the unallocated could be given, but he doesn't think they can be postponed to the future. Councilman Behrendt said it was his understanding that they can't do it for the future. If the applicant wishes to make a two phased project, one phase with the intent to be done this year, the second phase would have to go through the entire process and compete next year. Councilman Behrendt made a motion for a sense of Council to go ahead and process this item as approved under this year for approximately 10,000 square feet or their first phase, which would allow nothing towards the next phase; they would have to fight that out next year. Mazza said this is the fifth years of the five year plan. Councilman Behrendt said he understood that but he would like the City Manager or someone to assemble this in a package so Council could approve it with specifics. The idea would be that Mill Street Station would get their first phase approved this year. Vann said the Council cannot award it at this time. The appropriate procedure would be to indicate to the applicant that Council would approve up to the 10,000 square feet if he can demonstrate to the P & that the first phase would meet the minimum point requirements. The must meet the point requirements. Z !Perry Harvey, member of P & Z, said he was here to urge Council to allocate the required !square footage out of the unallocated prior years. Harvey said they have it to give and wanted to bring out some concepts. Mayor Edel said Harvey would have to be speaking as a private citizen because P & Z has already submitted a recommendation. The recommendation :.did not concur with Harvey's statement. Harvey said he was here as a private citizen; ,Vann said that on the P & Z recommendation it was a majority decision and Harvey was the ;one who did not concur. !!Harvey said that what planning said was that there was so much growth outside of the growth management curfew that we should restrict the growth management allocation to take 4 away from the overall effect of what's going on outside of growth management. Harvey thinks the reason they have the growth outside of growth management is, very frankly, from �,a private citizen's position, it's easier. If you're looking to build an office building, it's easier to do it ouside of CC and C-1. Harvey thinks that philosophy or that unintended ilresult encourages an urban sprawl. Planning and everyone, according to Harvey,.would :admit that we want to keep this impact within the commercial core. Harvey thinks there its a concept that Council should be looking at: encourage that the growth be kept inside the commercial core. Harvey things that by saying Council will not use that unallocated ';square footage and approve a meritorious project, Council is encouraging people to go !outside the core. Council has the opportunity now to get a good project and get it built 1Iwith no five year detriment to the community, and Council is keeping this office and jcommercial space within the core where they want it. ;!Councilman Behrendt made a motion to set the proecess up where it would be possible for the !first stage of this process, some 10,000 square feet including the 4,000 square feet left 'lover on this year's quota and the 6,000 square feet bonus, to be approved under the .!growth management allocations, provided the applicant can continue to meet the require- I;ments they have met in order to get where they are now. Motion DIES for lack of second. ,Larry Yaw said there was an earlier comment about the impact of 20,000 versus 10,000 square 'feet. Yaw assumed the concern was about the impact of that much construction. Yaw said it's not that much construction at all. The impact on the difference of 100,000 to 400,000 his something to think about. Yaw said the GMP anticipates that there's going to be 30,000 square feet every years worth of construction impact. Yaw believes that 10,000 square feet; on top of that is insignificant. He would clearly look on this as an opportunity to get a 'nice thing done and have it as part of the permanent city scpae as opposed to phasing it Hand having it a part of the impermanence, over two years, of the city scape, when there are really no negative impacts. Andy Hecht said he had a memory of what happened when the original growth management plan was inacted and that there was a great deal of reluctance to include commercial core in the growth management plan. Hecht said one of the compelling. ireasons for including it was to control the quality of a project. Hecht said at some point: ;'Council has to tell applicants what the standard is based on. it Councilman Isaac moved to award the Mill Street Station shopping plaza 4,000 square feet 'which has already been demonstrated as available; 6,000 square foot bonues and 10,000 square !feet available from prior years' surplus; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. (ICouncilman Collins said he has not hears much about employee housing and impact on this jparticular 40,000 square feet. However, he thinks that 40,000 square feet would probably •!generate 100 employees, at a conservative estimate of one employee per every 400 square 1ifeet. Vann said that was a very conservative estimate. Councilman Collins went on to say •' ;that 1.00 employees would more than use up the employee water plant housing project. He thinks the impact of that is pretty evident. So, for the 40,000 square feet of commercial ,'space, Aspen would need another 80 units similar to the water plant housing project. Councilman Van Ness said he didn't think there was any question that Council does have a major problem here in that the GMP does not encompass all commercial developments in the :•city limits. He believes there is no question that it must be resolved. The question now is whether to do it at this point, after leading people to believe that when Council said they would exercise their discretion that that discretion would be to use the unallocated and expired quotas of the previous years in order to balance that off. i All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. 984 , • • RecLula_r Meeti.nq_ _Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Vann said there was an additional recommendation on behalf of the P & 7., that last year's i bonus, the 1980 bonus some 4,719 square feet, be substracted from the remainder of the prior unallocations in order to wipe the slate clean. Councilman Behrendt said Council couldn't do that because it was just awarded. Vann said there is still 30,500 square feet left over. Mayor Edel asked for a motion to that extent. Councilman Behrendt made a motion to that extent; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt asked to direct the planning department to submit recommendations to Council concerning the GMP with regards to N/C, S/C/I and O, office zone and CC and C-1 districts and the quotas involved and to examine decreaing Council's discretionary areas. Also, that the planning department incorporate housing recommendation requirements within that report. Councilman Parry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST TO WAIVE PARK DEDICATION FEES - A.C.E.S Jolene Vrchota, planning department, said this was a request for a deferral of park dedica- tion fees for housing to be used specifically for the directors and naturalist staff at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. Councilman Isaac moved to defer the park dedication fees for as long as A.C.E.S. uses the building; seconded by Councilman Parry. Bob Grueter said he thinks Council said he thinks Council should add something to that motion that will be part of the record, saying that when it does go to the free market the park dedication fee. Frueter said it should be made part of the record on everything, including the deed. Isaac said he would accept that amendment. Vrchota wanted to clarify that it would run with any portion that did not stay under the cntrol of the non-profit group because there is a potential subdivision. Councilman Isaac said that park dedication fees are only on buildings, so if another building went up, there would be a new park dedication fee. Grueter agreed that the clarification did not need to go into the motion. Councilwoman Michael questioned the land, whether it was leased from Mrs. Paepcke or donated to A.C.E.S. Ms. Vrchota pointed out the land is leased from Mrs. Paepcke. Councilman Behrendt said there was an enforcement nightmare here because Mrs. Paepcke may chose to no longer lease it to the people and may choose to rent it out. There will be no turnover of the property and no notice to Council. He was told Mrs. Paepcke is not about to take the lease away, in fact she attempted to give the property to A.C.E.S. earlier. Councilman Behrendt also wanted to stipulate that as long as the property is used for employee housing by ACES for ACES' employees at low income price guidelines the deferral stands. Councilman Isaac agreed to that. Councilman Behrendt wanted to be sure that if the ACES director decides to live elsewhere, the house would not be rented out on the market. The whole pointe of this exemption should be that it benefits specifically and exactly ACES' employees. Councilwoman Michael wanted to know what would happen if five years from now ACES would happen to hire a director who is a local. Councilman Behrendt said that ACES has other employees. Mayor Edel pointed out the motion had just said employees. Councilman Collins said he heartily supports the ACES programs but he has taken the position in the past that this sort of exemption or waiver constitutes a contribution on the part of the City and as such should come to the city as a contribution request at the proper time. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried ORDINANCE #56, SERIES OF 1980 - Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay - Ulrych Jolene Vrchota, planning office, said the item before Council today was for the first reading of the rezoning from Office to Office with a residential bonus overlay for a lot at 715 E. Hopkins, which is on the Hopkins Block, south side of the street between Original and Spring. Currently there is a dome located on that property and a single family house. Ms. Vrchota said that this is a complex application with requests for at least five approvals included in it, in order to make the full approval of 3 studio employee units plus a duplex free market unit. However, the only question before Council today is specifically the first reading for the rezoning. The other questions can be described if the Council would like that discussion presented to them. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #56, Series of 1980, amending the zoning district map of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sec. 24-2.2 by changing the zoning of lots C & D, block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, from O-Office to O-Office/RB; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. Mayor Edel wanted to know why the housing office once again recommended the moderate income price guidelines. Ms. Vrchota said the ordinance does include the words moderate but Council could change that to low. Ms. Vrchota recommended another change, it should be changed from deed restriction of 3 employee units to all units; in the O zone there is automatically a six-month rental restriction for all units. Councilman Behrendt amended his motion that on page 1 of the ordinance #2 be amended to read not moderate but low, and #3 would read "deed restriction of all units to six-month minimum rentals"; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Edel asked the applicant to describe exactly what he was going to do. Ulrych said he has a piece of property here that he has owned for the last fourteen years. Ulrych can build an office building on it or he can build a duplex on it. Also, he said he has certain needs for employee units in his business so he though he would combine the two and build three studio units including the duplex, which he allowed under the present zoning. The three studio units will each be 500 square feet for a bonus of 1,500 square feet which works out to 25 per cent of the lot size. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. 21455 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 ORDINANCE # 5+6 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MPA OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SEC. 24-2.2, BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF LOTS C AND D, BLOCK 104, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, FROM O-OFFICE TO O-OFFICE/RB was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt on first reading an ordinance amending the zoning district map of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sec. 24-2.2 by changing the zoning of lots C and D, Block 104, city and townsite of Aspem, from O-Office to O-Office/RB as amended; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman -Van Ness asked how long the restriction on j the unit is. Ms. Vrchota said 50 years. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Vehrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael, aye; Collins, nay and Mayor Edel aye. ! Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Clark/Parker i Jolene Vrchota, planning office, said that if Council would look at the last page of the i memo which had just been handed out, Council would see the P & Z recommendation for approval of this item and also some suggestions. Ms. Vrchota wanted to explain it to Council because it is very complicated. First on West Francis street the Clark's owned and condomi.niumized three lots, G, H, and I, last summer. Since then, the Clark's have pur- chased three other lots so basically there is one lot of 18,000 square feet under common ownership. The Clark's are requesting that they can divide this property so that lots j D and E would be separated and sold; lots F through I would fall under the condominiumiza tion agreement which was made originally for lots G, H and I. The effect of this would be that under the division of property as it would not stand, D, E and F could have a duplex on it. By taking lot F and putting it under the condominiumization agreement, I Council is effectively decreating the overall density that could be built on this property because only a single family house could be built here and no further units beyond the two units could be built. Therefore, the recommendation from Planning office which was concurred with by P & Z is to approve the lot split under the subdivision exemption process where Council is only being asked tonight for final approval and to require that condominiumization plat be revised to include lot F along with G, H and I which are already in that agreement. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve subdivision exemption for a lot split which results in two parcels in Block 28, Aspen townsite, one to include lots D and E, the second to ;! include Lots F, G, H and I.; such approval is conditioned upon the owner/applicant deed restricting both parcels to join a sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement district in the event one is formed; further, previous condominiumization approval shall be amended to include lot F in addition to lots G, H and I; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor motion carried. FINAL PLAT - C. F. Murphy t Sunny Vann, planning office, said this is a request for subdivision exception for purposes'il of a lot split, which is to subdivide a 14,200 square foot parcel located on Gillespie Avenue which would create two new tracts. Oen is 7,200 square feet on which he will buiild a new single family residence and is on 7,000 square foot lot on which the applicant' existing single family dwelling is located. This is a procedure which is provided for in 'I the city code. A lot split is allowed when you create no more than two lots; there is a pre-existing dwelling and you get a growth management exemption for a single family dwelling on the new lot. �I Vann said the lots meet the minimum lot area requirements for the R-6 zone of 6,000 square feet; however, there is insufficient frontage along Gillespie to meet the zone's minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. There is also an encroachment problem. Both of these have been taken to the Board of Adjustment and the applicant has received variances for i them. The P & Z, in April, reviewed the applicant's request and approved subdivision exception subject to the following conditions; that the improvement survey is submitted and accepted an a conceptual plat, that he submit the final plat to the City Council and that the final plat, which the applicant submits be consistent with Sec. 20-14 and 20-15 of the ! Municipal Code prior to being placed on the City Council agenda. They also indicated a number of additional items that would have to be addressed which are included in the packet. The applicant supplying an encroachment agreement for the support cribbing located in the City's right-of-way was another condition. Also, the proposed new residence be subject to the six month minimum lease restrictions of 20-22. q Vann said the engineering department and planning office have reviewed the applicant's final plat and encroachment agreement and have found everything to be in order. The encroachment agreement is part of the consent agenda and will be acted on later in the evening. Vann said they recommend that the applicant's final plat be approved subject to the execution of a six month minimum lease agreement prior to the issuance of a build- ing permit on the second lot. Councilman Behrendt asked if the P & Z's recommendations have been satisfied at this time. Vann said they are. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the C. F. Murphy final plat subject to the execution of an appropriate six month minimum lease agreement prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed new residence; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE. #57, SERIES OE' 1980 - Wheeler Alternative Study Budget Appropriations Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #57, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Van Ness; Councilman Collins abstainted. Motion Carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council ORDINANCE #57 (Series of 1980) October 27, 1980 AN ORDINANCE MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED CURRENT YEAR REVENUES OF THE WHEELER REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURAL STUDY EXPENDITURES was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Isaac moved to adopt the ordinance on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Council asked for an explanation of the ordinance. Ron Mitchell, financie director, said the original appropriation only covered the original study. The Council then requested an alternative study and this appropriation will cover the expenses of the alternative study. Councilmembers realized this is the same that. was discussed prior to this meeting. It is not for future expenses, but for what has already been done. Mayor Edel asked where Mitchell got his figures. Mitchell said he talked with Mr. Moore and reviewed the prior expenditures, what the revenues were and what the alternative study will cost. Mayor Edel said the City has already spent $87,000 and asked if the $25,000 would be included in that. Mitchell said the original appropriation was for $60,000 and the City was billed for $68,000. The architects are estimating that the alternative study will be somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000. Mayor Edel asked for an exact breakdown of what the City has payed the architect thus far. Mitchell said this would be in their boxes. Councilwoman Michael said she would like a closer account of what this costs. Mitchell said the bills are very specific, Mayor Edel said he would like to see them. Mayor Edel said that the city has, as of October 20th, some $206,000 in revenues in the real estate transfer tax. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael aye, Collins abstain, Van Ness, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #55, SERIES OF 1980 - Lease and Option Agreement with Jinco Corp for Grader Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #55, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #55 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN JINCO LEASING CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF ASPEN WHICH AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR ONE ADVANCE PAYMENT OF $10,000 AND 20 CONSECUTIVE QUARTERLY PAYMENTS OF $5,043.64 AT A SIMPLE INTEREST RATE OF 9-1/4 was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Van Ness.asked if this had not already been approved. City Manager Chapman said Council approved the appropriation and the City went out and got this after negotia- ting the terms, now Council is approving the terms. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael, aye. Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. EMPLOYEE CHRISTMAS DINNER City Manager Chapman said the personnel director needs to make arrangements for the Christmas party and he believed that this is something that has originally been a gift from the City Council to the employees. This is being brought to Council for their approval so it can be planned. Councilman Isaac said he though last year's party was a real drag and he would like some alternatives to the style of the party, as opposed to how it was last year. Councilman Van Ness said that he recalled last year, there was a fit of budget conscious- ness and Council ended up cutting the budget on it. Councilman Van Ness said he does not think Council should cut back here because a lot of the employees work really hard. He also said that last year, the P & Z was not invited and a lot of them were really unhappy about that. Councilman Van Ness said he thinks that a few hundred dollars or whatever it takes extra to do it first class is a well spent amount and it pays itself back in morale. Councilwoman Michael asked how much the Council budgeted last year. Chapman said it was $1500 and recalled the original request was for $2000 and it was cut down to $1500. Mayor Edel asked if there was any dollar request this year. Chapman said Patsy Malone had mentioned to him that she thought she could do it well for $2000. Mayor Edel said that last year there were some comments made that the waiters and waitresses be Councilmembers. This would save some money. Councilwoman Michael said she didn't want to work hard but she would dress up as one. Councilman Van Ness said they have a hard enough time getting respect without having to dress up in white coats with towels over their arms. Councilman Parry moved to contribute $2000 for the 1980 Christmas party; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilman Isaac said that last year the party was held at the Plum Tree and it was a sit down dinner. Councilman Isaac just didn't think that worked very well. Councilman Isaac said the year prior to that, there was a cocktail party at the Gant that was actually paid, for by the employees, it was a much more informal type of party. Everyone has a great 1 time. Councilman Isaac said he would like to have their party a more informal type party,' have Council pay for it, and have a buffet and band, but not a sit down formal party at a restaurant. 2987 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1980 Councilman Parry said that all of the previous parties were sit down dinners at the Red Onion and they were very successful. However, Councilman Isaac said the employees have gotten too big in numbers. Mayor Edel said that since this is an employee party, they should let the employees plan their party. Mayor Edel pointed out the party has already ,I been budgeted at $15000. Councilman Van Ness moved to amend the budget to $2000; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS - Great Western Spirit Company and Clark's Martet Councilman Parry moved to approve the lqiuor license renewals of Great Wester Spirit Com- pany and Clark's Market; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion Carried. (Councilman Van Ness left at this point). Councilman Parry moved to approve the consent agenda minus #3, Ordinance #50, Series of 1980, employee units in lodges, which has been tabled indefinitely plus #4, property tax mill levy; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Those items on the consent agenda are extension of Wheeler Opera House leases; encroachment license agreement, C. F. Murphy; and the mill levy; Bil Dunaway said you can't do a mill levy on the consent agenda. Dunaway believed the Charter requires that it be done by resolution. Council took over #4. All in favor of approving the consent agenda; motion carried. RESOLUTION #21, SERIES OF 1980 Mill Levy Tax Councilman Isaas moved to read the resolution; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in fav cr, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #21 (Series of 1980) WHEREAS, the City Manager desingated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and sbumitted to the Mayor and the City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1981 and ending December 31, 1981; and WHEREAS the assessed valuation of taxable property for the year 1980 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County, is the sum of Sixty-four million, one hundred three thousand eight hundred ninety ($64,103,890) dollars; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proper mill levy upon each dollar of the assessed valuation on all taxable property within the city shall be that determined that the County Assessor sufficient to produced ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of Three hundred four thousand, four hundred ninety (4304,490) dollars; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the City of Aspen, Colorado, during the fiscal year beginning January,l, 1981, and ending December 31, 1981, there is hereby levied a tax on said dollar of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the City of Aspen, Colorado, for the purpose of raising the sum of $304,490 which, together with the Fund Balance and revenues from all other sources, is estimated to meet budget expenditure requirements and provide a reasonabl closing Fund Balance for said fiscal year. 1� Adopted this 27th day of October 1980 iI Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the resolution; seconded by Councilman Parry. All .t in favor, motion carried. iI WHEELER OPERA HOUSE COMMISSION - Ford Schumann !� The problem was whether to appoint Schumann as a member of the Wheeler Opera House Commission and to allow MAA to either use Schumann as their member or to appoint another one. Councilwoman Michael said she feels Schumann was stunned by the memo from the MAA last Thursday. She would like to see what evolves in the next couple of weeks. Councilwoman Michael pointed out when Council drafted the ordinance which created the Wheeler Commission there was a specified number of members. Councilwoman Michael said if Council is going to add a member, they will have to go back and amend the ordinance. Mayor Edel said Stacy Standley was appointed a member but has not attended very many meetings. Mayor Edel said Standley has been in Washington but he hasn't done any service as the member -at -large. Councilman Behrendt made a motion to strike Standley from the Wheeler Commission by virtue of his absenses, and further to add Ford Schumann to that position and to write Standley a thank you letter; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Isaac agreed with Councilwoman Michael to delay this until Council sees how the M.A.A. thing shakes out. Councilmembers Collins, Isaac, Michael and Parry voted nay. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Isaac moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Robin F. Berr.y, Deputy ty Clerk 0 Regular Meeting _ _ , Aspen City Council^_Y __ November 10, 1980 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:10 with members Collins, Isaac and Behrendt present. Also present were City Manager Chapman and Acting City Attorney Bob Grueter. MINUTES There were none. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE There were none. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Ed Weiss told Council he had a confusing situation; he had applied for a business license and had talked to the health department and police department about having a push cart business. Weiss said he wanted to operate the cart on private property somewhere in the city limits. Weiss said the building department has no problem with the structure. Mayor Edel said there is a problem as one has to have a specific spot to do business. Weiss said he wanted to be able to do this business on 3 or 4 different properties. Bob Grueter told Council this was referred to him by the building department and also the planning department feels this will have to go through growth management plans because it is a new use adding to the density of the property. Grueter told Council the applica- tion has to be either granted or denied by the building department, which it has not done yet. There has to be a complete package given to the building department and the appli- cant has to show the ability to have and area on which to locate the cart. This has not been done. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Isaac said at the last meeting the Council talked about including other commercial zones in the growth management_ plan process. The Council asked the staff to have included C-1, O-office,.S/C/I, N/C and to get this moving. Planner Karen Smith said the planning office is going to bring this back to Council. Mayor Edel pointed out it was also discussed carrying over the quota from years before. Mayor Edel would like this addressed as two separate issues. 2. Councilman Isaac brought up a letter from Jon Seigle about his involvement on the HPC and representation in a suit against the city. Grueter told Council he will look into this and take care of it. 3. Councilman Behrendt moved that the request for contribution for the Fireman's dinner be put on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Councilman Behrendt said it seem to him this valley receives inferior service from the airlines; one is night flights, another is the cut down on the number of flights. Councilman Behrendt said for the high season the airlines are already booked up. The bus service is not any better. Councilman Isaac told Council COG is dealing with this at the regional level, looking at increasing inter -city bus service as well as air flights. Mayor Edel said COG and CAST are forming a transportation committee to look at the overall problem. Mayor Edel said they will request that the airlines are aware of the problem. Jim Reents said a third airline was granted permission to fly into town but there was not enough landing time. 5. Mayor Edel brought up the bus route change in the Mountain Valley/highlands bus routes and asked for Council's feelings. Councilman Isaac said he had no problem. Assistant City Manager Butterbaugh explained the change in routes and told Council the bus would not be going to Mountain Valley three times an hour. City Manager Chapman told Council one reason for doing this is the increased traffic with the Castleridge project and with the Council. Council said they had no problems. Councilman Behrendt asked if the city had re -approached Highlands to see if they would join the city for the last leg. Duane Fengel told Council that based on the ridership numbers, it was not justified. Highlands does not want the city. RESOLUTION #19, SERIES OF 1980 - Waiver of Park Dedication Fees City Manager Chapman reminded Council at the last meeting there were Councilmembers who expressed favorable comment on waiving or deferring park dedication fees for employee housing. There was some disagreement'on whether this should be for permanently deed restricted units; how and when the fees should be paid back. Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #19-b. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #19, Series of 1980, with a 50 year provision. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman Isaac moved to table the issue until more Council are present; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. CONTRIBUTION TO FIREMEN'S DINNER I Councilman Behrendt said traditionally theiCouncil gave $500 and last year it was raised to $800. There is a request for $1,000 for this year. Chief Clapper said because the cost of living has gone up as well as the cost of dinners, they are requesting $1,000. Councilman Isaac said he would like to see the Council give the whole $1,000. Councilman Behrendt moved to contribute $800 towards the annual firemen's dinner; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ;i I 9819 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 1980 FIRE MARSHAL POSITION City Manager Chapman reminded Council when the building department was reorganized, the department attempted to get by wihtout having any specific fire marshal position. Fred Crowley reports he is having some difficulty providing full attention to fire inspections. Chapman said he felt this summer has proven a fire marshal is needed. Mayor Edel asked the costs. Chapman said the fire marshal position is still in the never; it was never taken out. however, for 1981 he will have to check with the county because they prepared the budget. Fire Chief Clapper said he was quite unhappy about this when it happened and it has proven to be more than anyone can take care of. The county and city should strongly look at this as a full time position. Councilman Isaac said he felt someone should be hired before the winter season. Councilman Collins moved to adopt the recommendations of the building department; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. CONDOMINIUMIZATIO14 REGULATIONS Council will have a study session on this. SUBDIVISION - 925 E. Durant Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told Council final plat approvel is requsted tonight. The application is for 12 studio units at 925 East Durant, this application received an allocation for growth management plan in 1978. The Council has seen this project when the units were changed on the site. P & Z has seen this and has had a public hearing. There was concern about access being only from Durant, about noise generation, and about too many people living in the units. P & Z did not feel these were overwhelming concerns and most of them are addressed. P & Z gave conceptual and preliminary plat approval to the application. Councilman Isaac said this is for 12 units; he thought there were going to be 24 units at the project. Ms. Vrchota told Council these are two separate things. The applicant plans to come in and request rezoning to RBO for the other 12 units. Councilman Isaac I asked how long the deed restriction was. Ms. Vrchota said on these 12 units it is 5 years; all growth management allocations in 1978 were deed restricted for 5 years. Council- man Behrendt said he had no interest; this is'a short term buy out that doesn't get the city anything buy density. Mayor Edel agreed all units should be deed restriced for 50 years but asked how Council can totally reverse itself because the approval was given in 1978. '! Mayor Edel said if the next 12 units are going to be restricted for 50 years, is there a major problem with restricting the whole project to 50 years. Councilman Behrendt said this is not the original proposal anyway; it has been delayed and delayed. Vann said the priginal submission was a two -site solution, with a different angle. In anticipation of a residential bonus overlay, they submitted for building permit in order not to loose the allotment, a plan with a simpler building pushed over to one side of the site. Because this was a change and brought back to Council. On the understanding they would proceed to process an application for the extra 12 units, Council approved the change. Councilman Behrendt suggested Council table this for staff to look at requesting 50 year deed restrictions on all the units, including the original 12. Councilman Behrendt said the 5 year restrictions were imposed to get employee units in a hurry. This was approved in 1978 and will not be built until 1981, which is a.three-year delay and is not achieving the purpose of the community. Mayor Edel said this project came to Council six months ago, and Council deferred the park dedication fee. Councilman Isaac said the Council approved this two years ago, and he feels they have to approve it again. Mark Danielsen outlined the history of the project; the GMP process with residential allocation being given to the project in 1978. In December 1979 and January 1980, this came to Council for the granting of an extension for building purpose. In March loth Council gave approval for changes in the construction drawings, and in July 1980 Council approved a park dedication fee deferral. Two weeks ago this was presented to P & Z and they gave conceptual and preliminary approval. This is the final step of the entire application process. Andy Hecht said he would not like to see Council unilaterally impose 50 year requirements on the part that has already been approved. Hecht said it would be bad precedent to rescind approval on the park dedication fee deferral. Councilman Behrendt moved to table for two weeks in order to get comments from planning and the attorney; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. DISCUSSION OF RAISING OCCUPATION TAX FEES FOR LIQUOR LICENSES Mayor Edel said he brought this concept up because these taxes have not been raised in a long time, and he would suggest doubling them. Councilman Behrendt said he would not like to raise the beer & wine fees any further. Mayor Edel said the Council could change the three-way license fees and look at the rest during next year. Councilman Isaac said he would rather see these raised when all other licenses and taxes are looked at. Council asked staff to prepares some figures and perhaps an ordinance to change the occupation tax. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Edel requested #11, liquor license transfer - Godfather's Pizza, be deleted. Councilman Isaac requested #9, IRB's for Kovall project; Councilman Collins requested that items L, Resolution #20, Growth Management alloications, Commercial 1981, be deleted and Item #2, Ordinance #54, Nicholson Rezoning to Residential Bonus be deledted. Councilman Behrendt requested #10, Little Annie's encroachment be deleted. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing on Ordinance #53, Series of 1980, Commercial Photo- graphy Studio in S/C/I ; Ordinance #55, Series of 1980, Lease with Jinco, and Ordinance #57, Ser y190 _ • Regular Meeting ASpen City Council November 10, 1 Ordinance #57, Series of 1980, Appropriation for Wheeler Opera house architect. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinances 53, 55, 57, Series of 1980; Request to e premises, Aspen Mine Company; Liquor License Renewals for Guido's, Pablo's, Fireside Restaurant, Chart House, Cooper Street Pier, Carl's Pharmacy, Crossroads Drug, Of Grap and Grain, Grog Shop, Tom's Market, Eagle's Club, and the special event permit for Asp Leaves be approved; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Tom Dunlop asked for a conditional hold on the Aspen Club until they comply with the Colorado food service rules. Counci accepted. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 1980 - GMP Commercial Allocations for 1981 Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council this resolution incorporate the approval fro the last Council meeting at which time Council approved all three project. This would allow construction on all three project and last year's 1980 bonus would be subtracted from prior year's allocations. Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #20, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. The resolution was read by title. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Resolution #20, Series of 1980. Motion DIES for lack a second. Councilman Behrendt moved to table Resolution #20, Series of 1980; seconded by Council Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1980 - Nicholson Rezoning to Residential Bonus Sunny Vann told Council this is a request from Nicholson to rezone a parcel of property at 117-119 West Hyman to R/MF-RB (residential bonus) for an additional one -bedroom employee housing unit in the basement of the duplex. The requirements of the zone dis- trict for the lot size are a duplex with one employee bedroom unit in the basement of one unit. The residential bonus reduces the minimum lot area requirement, and a second employee unit can be construction. This will be a 50 year deed restriction in the moderate category. There is no increase in density. Councilman Behrendt said he had asked for a report from staff regarding the low and moderate income categories. Jim Reents, housing director, told Council he had been recommending moderate because the then approved guidelines, the low category was lower than construction costs. There is no incentive for anyone to build when they cannot get a return on their investment. The guidelines for this year have been raised sufficiently that the low income category might be reasonable for a recommendation, depending upon construction costs. The city's low income guidelines have not kept up with costs of construction, which they were originally intended to do. Originally, the low income was set at the cost of construction without land costs; over the next two years, these have not kept up with the costs of construction. Councilman Isaac asked if this would not be approved under the new price guidelines. Reents said this started under the old guidelines. Reents said that old mocbrate compares very closely to new low. Changing the deed restriction to low under the new price guide- lines would be approximately the same dollars. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Vann introduced for the record the planning office memorandum of September 9, 1980; the applicant's request of August 11, 1980, as well as the planning office recommendation of September 4, 1980. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. -Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt on second reading Ordinance #54, Series of 1980, Nicholson rezoning to residential bonus with the amendment that the low rental guidelines are to be used for this project; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion NOT carried. (Not a majority of the entire Council). Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion. Councilman Isaac moved to table Ordinance #54, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION - IRB'S Kovall Project Karen Smith, planning director_, told Council this applicant cannot move ahead without some indication from Council of their willinging to participate. This is a very good project; it is 11 units under residential bonus on 9,000 square feet with a 70/30 project. There will be eight units, one -bedroom, deed restricted at low income for 50 years. The resolution was not included in the packet. Chapman told Council an inducement resolution just says the city of Aspen will sponsore the issue of IRB's•for X amount of dollars. Council decided to wait until they could see the resolution. Councilman Isaac moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. LITTLE ANNIE'S ENCROACHMENT John Hamwi, manager of Little Annie's, told Council they would like to enclose their porch and in going through the process discovered they encroached in the city right -of' way. They will not change the building at all except to enclose it and add windows that can be opened in the summer. This has always been requested by the liquor enforcement ` officer. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the encroachment request for Little Annie's; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. 29191 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council. November 14, 1980 LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER - Godfather's Pizza Mayor Edel said he had received letters from citizens objecting not specifically to this particular license but more to the concept of it, the infringement on town of franchises. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council Lawrence Lefitz was with Godfather's Pizza for five years; have left the chain and moved to Aspen. Lefitz is going; to maintain the name because of the national repurtation. The business is solely -owned i by Lefitz. i Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the liquor license transfer for Godfather's Pizza; i seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. II Councilman Isaac moved to adjourn at 7:00; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in ! favor, motion carried. 111 Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk li Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 1980 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the joint meeting to order at 4:15 with Councilmembers Parry, Isaac, Collins, Behrendt, Michael and Commissioner Edwards present. �I 1. Report on 1980 Census. Brian -Stafford submitted a memorandum outlining the 1980 census. This was completed the end of June and ended up with a population estimate of 8,285 and a housing county of 5,712. The County filed a response challenging the results because the housing county was off from 1978. The Census Bureau brought a special team back in and in September the population county was 10,201 and the housing count 8,226. Again the County was not happy with this and told the Denver regional office they wanted a recount done because again the housing unit count was off'. Another count was done and November 18, 1980 the county was 10,446 population and 8,358 housing units. This figure is 1247 housing units off of 1978 and approximately 300 fewer people than counted in 1978. Stafford told the Boards the Census Bureau cited one reason for the housing count being off is that the definition for housing unit changed from 197E to 1980. This, in effect, eliminated 400 to 500 housing units which were illegal. There may have been other effects in the lodging or motel facilities. Stafford said the schools have had a decline of students of 13.8 per cent from 1978 to 1980, which may indicate the population might be declining. Stafford said the Boards need to decide if they are satisfied with the results and, if not, what they want to do about it. t Mayor Edel asked what the options and costs are. County Attorney Stuller said they may sue for a recount, but the Boards have to have enough background and support. Curt Stewart, County Manager, said the discrepancy is in dwelling units and the Census Bureau has come back with a reason why. The County will lose $20,000 a year in payment in li.eu taxes. Stafford said he did feel there is a mistake in counting the housing units. Mayor; Edel said this is .really a County decision. The Council will support what the County decides, but it is up to them. it 2. Report on Land Treatment. John Musick told the Boards that in late 1976 the then - Boards directed him to determine the possibility of conducting a land treatment system with Aspen Metro or Aspen Sanitation, removing the effluent from the Roaring Fork River and putting it on land for agricultural application. Musick presented a mosaic map showing the results of a preliminary engineering feasibility study to determine if this I was possible. The city and county paid $3500 to $5000 to have a water rights engineer determine if it was feasible. 'I i Musick had reported it was feasible and recommends to take the next step, which is to work out a cooperative agreement with one of the sanitation districts. There have been several meetings with the sanitation districts, which have resulted in an agreement to conduct a feasibility report to determine how the land treatment system would work with their needs. This report has been completed by Wright -McLaughlin engineers. Musick asked the Boards to consider funding a local share in cooperation with the state Water Conservation Board for completion of the next step, which is pre -design work for this particular project. Musick said they have talked to landowners, some of whom support this in concept. The engineers say this is possible, and this project is now in position to select an engineer to conduct the pre -design report. The total cost is $153,000; Musick is going to the WCB in December to ask they fund this as a state-wide water project. This will make the project eligible for some construction funds and up to 50 per cent cost sharing of the local sharing. The local share would be around $76,000. Musick requested the Boards direct him and their representative to commit to funding the local share. �I Mayor Edel said it appeared to him the local sanitation districts were not going to spend I' any money and the County does not have any money to spend. The scope of work applies to irrigation systems and ditches. Mayor Edel does not see where this applies to the city or what the benefits are. *4usick said the result of the project is a profit generating system, revenues will be generated from the sales of water and the sales of power. It is the purpose of the pre -design report to establish how much profit can be generated. The city is asked to front the expenses, and all expenses would come back first. If the city spends $100,000, that will be the first monies to come back. Another reason the city is being asked to participate is that presently they have to pump water up to serve the entire Red Mountain area. This project would be trading pumping and lower the costs to the city. '4W; 1 Cnir Aspen/Pitk' la ping Office 130 south galena` treet .11 aspen, color a; -81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Water Department City Engineer City Housing Director City Attorney Fire Marshall Aspen Sanitation District FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: Koval Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay, Exception from Full Sub- division Procedures and Employee Housing Special Review DATE: January 5, 1981 The attached application combines the above -mentioned requests for approval for the purpose of constructing an eleven -unit multi -family complex at 135 West Cooper Street in Aspen. This item is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 1981; therefore, please return your comments to this office no later than January 27, 1981. Thank you. • CORRECTION PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Koval Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Leonard Koval requesting approval for the construction of an eleven -unit multi -family complex (requiring the rezoning of the property to Residential Bonus Overlay) at 135 East (rather than West, as published earlier) Cooper Street, Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published originally in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1981. City of Aspen account. Correction published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1981. ASPEN TITLE COMPANY A TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY POST OFFICE BOX 9590 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-4444 December 31, 1980 Mr. Art Walsh 728 S. Cascade Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 RE: Adjacent lot owners to Lots H & I and the East 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen Dear Mr. Walsh: Enclosed is a list of the names and addresses of who we believe to be the adjacent lot owners of the above referenced property. This information was compiled from the records in our office and the tax rolls in the Treasurer's Office as of December, 1980. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Susan Weiss sw enc. NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated are true, this list is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 jumv MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Water Department City Engineer City Housing Director City Attorney Fire Marshall FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: Koval Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay, Exception from Full Sub - Division Procedures and Employee Housing Special Review DATE: January 7, 1981 The attached is additional information relating to the Koval Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay application. MGauss Engineering P.O. Box 1447 Breckenridge, Colo. 80424 (303) 453-1456 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Commission Members, On behalf of Mr. Leonard Koval, owner of Lots H & I and the easterly 5' of Lot G, Block 70, original Aspen Townsite West, we are requesting the approval of the following items: 1. That a Residential Bonus Overlay District Zoning Amendment be approved for the above lots as per Ordinance No. 16, Series 1980, City of Aspen. 2. That an exception of the Growth Management Plan be approved for the project on the above lots as per Ordinance No. 4, Series 1980, City of Aspen. 3. That the deed restricted moderate income project submitted for the above lots be considered as a short subdivision application and that full requirements of subdivision reg- ulations normally applied to major land subdivisions be waived. 4. That a conceptual and preliminary plat be approved for the above lots and that final plat be authorized for submittal by the applicant. The attached information will show that Mr. Koval's project meets the requirements of the Aspen Minicipal Code which authorizes the development of bona -fide moderate incorne housing. Sincerely, Steven P. Gauss, P.E. I* I • 2 ANt7 -3 FLOOR-I-Yq:>tC/&-L ASPEt,I SCREE T siDE 11 I`+ Fl-OQR TYPt .L ,.,1 I O T' rr �5S i"fsT2 Kt r 1 V - 848 $ 1 l P55 M�C4-lA►�►IC}aL - 2�_ � I! / ' TO I A 8 1 2 5 yf lr F- F'. _ £s125`� _ ! 5 'ROCKY MDUNTAIt.I NIGH LOTS H i I , EAST IS' LOT G , ASPEN 't-OWNSI-rE 'PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN Ld W F- v� 3 tu VI w , o V T L 0 � W [ o a • • PROJECT INFORMATION "ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH" A DEED RESTRICTED MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT A. Developer Information: Mr, Leonard Koval of 910 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill., is the owner -developer of Rocky Mountain High, a proposed moderate income housing project situated on a 65' x 100' lot at the soutn- west corner of Aspen and Cooper Streets in the City of Aspen, Colorado. Mr. Koval's experience in the multi -family housing business is outlined in an attached letter. B. Site Description: The proposed project is located at 135 West Cooper Street on Lots H & I and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, Original Aspen Townsite West. The site contains 6500 square feet and has 65 feet of frontage on Cooper Street and 100 feet of frontage on Aspen Street. The site is nearly level and slopes only 1% from south to north. There are no avalanche, mudslide, rock slide, floodplain or other natural hazard areas present at the site. The site is presently zoned Residential/Multi-family. A two-story Victorian home and small single-family detached home exist on the lot at this time. The existing Victorian home is to be moved to the corner of North Garmisch Street and West Francis Street and then be refurbished. C. Building Description: The proposed building is a Boise Cascade multi -family 3-story unit containing 11 one -bedroom units of 746 square feet of living space each. A portion of the first floor will provide 4 parking spaces under cover. The individual units will be furnished with r,-rrigerator, range, dishwasher and disposal. The attached floor plan indicates the layout of the units. The basic unit will use 2" x 6" wood stud construction, R-38 ceiling insulation, R-20 wall insulation, R-19 floor insulation. Heating will be by electric base board and all windows will be wood frame, double glazed. Boise Cascade construction consists of separate floor joists and ceiling joists between each floor which provides for both extra structural rigidity and extra privacy between units. EnL'.eiior siding will be 8" channel rustic cedar stained a natural tone. D. Utilities: All utilities necessary to service the project are adjacent to the site and are adequately sized to meet the demands of the number of units proposed. Sewer service will be provided by the Aspen Sanitation District via a 6" service line to connect to the 8" diameter sewer main in the alley behind the site. Water ser- vice will be provided by the City of Aspen Water Department via a 1 1/2" service line connected to the city main in Cooper Street. A fire hydrant is directly across from the site on the northwest corner of Cooper and Aspen Streets. The project will be all electric and the City of Aspen Electric Department has indicated adequate electric transmission facilities are available in the alley behind the site. Mountain Bell will provide telephone ser- vice to the units. E. Transportation and Parking: A total of 10 off-street parking spaces have been planned for the units. Four of the spaces will be underneath the building and six will be outside. Because the site is within a reasonable walking distance of the Core Aspen Employement Area, we feel the tenants of the housing units will opt to use non -auto oriented transportation. This feature is also augmented by the fact that the bus route passes directly adjacent to the site. F. Housing Mix and Ownership: Rocky Mountain High is proposed as a moderate income multi -family complex with 70% of the housing therein to be deed restricted within the terms of Section 24-10.4(b)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. This equates to 8 deed restricted units and 3 free market units. The units will be owned by a limited partnership and leased to tenants under the rent guidelines established by the City of Aspen. G. Compatibility and Bulk Requirements: The Rocky Mountain High Project has been designed with an external floor area ratio of 1.25:1. This F.A.R. is allowed for those projects complying with the ordinance authorizing bona -fide middle income housing. This is a residential density bonus of 25% above tree standard ratio of 1:1 in the R/^!F zone. The project will still meet the height and setback requirements for the R/JMF zone. Zoning on the north half of Block 70 is also R/MF and the building immediately adjacent to the site is of similar bulk and height as Rocky 'Iountian High - zoning on all other adjacent property is Lodge. This zone allows the same external floor area ratio, setbacks, and height as the R/MF zone. All buildings in the Lodge zone, adjacent to this project have similar bulk and height. H. Public Improvements: The only public improvements anticipated on this project is the in- stallation of 150 feet of 5' sidewalk on Cooper and Aspen Streets and a handicap ramp at the corner of Cooper and Aspen. Grass will also be installed between the sidewalk and property line. • i BARASH, LL-11oUILLIER & WAI,S11 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 728 SOUTH CASCADE AVENUE CiOLORADO SnRIN<3S, Ci OI.ORADO iloB0:3 JAMES ROBERT BARASH PATRIC J. LCHOUILLIER ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE WALSH December 23, 1980 BUILDING EXPERIENCE OF COUNSEL: JACK A. SOSTRIN TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 471-1330 Lenard W. Koval is President of Michigan Avenue Management, which develops and manages commercial, industrial and residential property in the State of Illinois. Industrial projects built by Michigan Avenue Management include a 12,000 square foot service center for RCA in Chicago, Illirojq; a 32,000 square foot office and warehouse building in Wooddale, Illinois, and a 30,000 square foot office building, Northbrook, Illinois, which provides commercial office space. In Aspen, Mr. Koval was part developer of Black Swan Hall along with Messrs. Golub, Abraham and Saks. Michigan Avenue Management is currently building a three apartment project in Chicago at the present time. Mr. Koval is also President of Q L Lighting which manufactures industrial lighting for developers, shopping centers and municipalities. Respectfully submitted, Arthur B. Walsh ABW/ds LDT' R *A-C>CK 7O z p tj T W LOT 5 SLOCK 7. I I w Cr bp r cr 4 0 \ I _ a 1 w _� % a. \ J 0 � O > N a LL y h \ Z o I �1 a � OWNER: Leonard Koval 910 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, D1. 312-341-1550 LOT AREA: 6500 sq. ft. \ ASPEN STREET EXISTING ZONING: R/MF DENSITY: 11 Units, 746 sq. ft. each BLDG. FOOTPRINT: 3060 sq.ft. I 1 H YMA til \ a R�zoriE ( z -----� Q COOPER W O L_ m Q D)U7?ANTT GITY LIMI.1--y " /� I \ VICINITY MAP t" = 400' ' RAMP 1 0' 5' 10' SCALE I"= 51 LOTS H,I - EAST 51 LOT G, BLOCK 70, ASPEN TOWNSITE " AS51-F-" STIME-r �E'AR1 MENTS " DATE 12 - 15 - 80 O 11 BY APPROVEO IT KALE R MD GAUSS ENGINEERING 201 N. RIDGE , BOX 1447 BRECKENRIOGE, COLD. 80424 1DRAW1110 NUMBER 303- 453- f456 AK 801 LOT R 4P-C>CK 70 w LOT 5 BLOCK 70 �1 o � f � J OWNER: Leonard Koval 910 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, h1. 312-341-1550 LOT AREA: 6500 sq. ft. \ \ ASPEN STREET 1 EXISTING ZONING: R/ MF DENSITY: II Units, 746 sq.ft. each BLDG. FOOTPRINT: 3060 sq. ft. 1 i i H YMA N � I I � I a kidI F�] Q \-L - - - - - -11 Q COOPER W O �d F Llp �Q CITY LI Mt =„ I 4 I \ VICINITY MAP I" = 400' w W N W a 0 U / ' RAMP I 1 0' 5' 10' SCALE I 5' LOTS H,I - EAST 5' LOT G, BLOCK 70, ASPEN TOWNSITE " A51PE" Sr2EET APAM-rMENTS DATE 12 - 15 - 80 DRAWN MT APPROVED eT SCALE REV S!D GAUSS ENGINEERING 201 N. RIDGE, BOX 1447 BRECKENRIDGE, COLD. 80424 DRAWING NUM/ER 303-453-145E AK 801 w I LOT 5 15LOC Y- 7o W d \ A I fl Cr. 16 N �\ / 4 a \ a I a w m �\ b I 4 J 0 / � -- -- -- N o RLL J\ e / \ a 1 1 /1 0'0 1 1 OWNER Leonard Koval 910 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, 11. 312-341-1550 LOT AREA: 6500 sq. ft. \ \� ASPEN STREET EXISTING ZONING: R/MF DENSITY: II Units, 746 sq.ft. each BLDG. FOOTPRINT: 3060 sq. ft. CdLICINITY MAP t" = 400' ' l?AMP I 0' 5' 10' 15' 1 SCALE I"= 5' w I � LLJ \ „J J x w i I 1 L07 5 BLOCK 70 OWNER: Leonard Koval 910 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, III. 312-341-1550 LOT AREA: 6500 sq. ft. ASPEN STREET EXISTING ZONING: R/ MF DENSITY: 11 Units, 746 sq. ft. each BLDG. FOOTPRINT: 3060 sq.ft. '— II —1 ---- , V— , , C..K NYMAhI h J N C"OPEFL Z p d w IILI a'�A T� —� C iTY 4 3 I \ VICINITY MAP-- t" - 400' W W H N W W O O i / kv, RAMP 0' 5' 10' 15' SCALE I = 5' z