HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Stage 3.625 E Main St #1.A77-962737-073-32-002 A77-96 (Pt. 1 of 7 L
Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS
GI
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041
Deposit
-63855-042
Flat Fee
-63860-043
HPC
-63885-268
Public Right-of-Way
-638754)46
Zoning & Sign Permit
-MRO1 I
Use Tax
10000-67100-383
Park Dedication
15000-63050480
AH Commercial
15000-03065482
AH Residential
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033 Deposit
-63805-034 Flat Fee
-63824�037 Zoning _
-63825-038 Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
County Engineer
00115-63340-163
City Engineer
62023-63340-190
Housing
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
00113-63815-036
County Clerk
00113-63812-212
Wildlife Officer
Sales:
00113-63830-039 County Code
-69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Named
Address: If_
Phone
Total 11-3 0R D &-0
Date: Check:
Project:
Case No: -1-f 717—
No. of Copies
at c- ,
t", (dw/e
�r
l
- 7 Cry"
THE CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM JULIE ANN WOODS, AICP
DEPUTY DIRECTOR 1
CITY PLANNING & ZONING
U-b-ft -4,z> -6'L<. �
Prey
G
� --)- D -- ►--�.3, -Cojd5--- 3-�-3 D (�+)
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY OFF ASPEN
40 40
DATE RECEIVED: 11/1/96 CASE # Ai7-96
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Suzanne Wolfi
PARCEL ID # 2737-073-32-002
hn�
PROJECT NAME: Stage 3 Penthousesin
residentail GMQS Allotment Application h N
Project Address: 625 E. Main St.
APPLICANT: George Carisch
Address/Phone: 641 E. Lake St. Wayzata, Minn. 55391-1794 (612)473-4291
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Gibson
Address/Phone: 925-5968 925-5993
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$2100
PLANNING
$1830..
# APPS RECEIVED 25
ENGINEER
$300
ENGINEER
$300.
# PLATS RECEIVED 25
HOUSING
$160
HOUSING
$160.
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$0
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL
$2560. TOTAL RCVD $2250.
Two Step
❑ City Attorney
City Engineer (� 1 `- f (✓t
®;Zoning
Housing
❑ Environmental Health
Parks
DATE REFERRED:
Aspen Fire Marshal
City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
,�> D"4•
❑ CDOT
® ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE: 2
Date:
Date:
Book
Page
0
to
0
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439
November 12, 1996
Alan Richman
215 S. Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Stage 3 Metro Residential GMQS Scoring
Case #A77-96
Dear Alan,
The above captioned application is scheduled before the Growth Management Commission on
Tuesday, December 17, 1996.
Noticing requirements for the Growth Management Commission consist of a combination of the
City and County Land Use Codes. In order to simplify the process, the following contains the
deadline date for each step of the public noticing process:
1. Notice of public hearing published in the Aspen Times on November 16, 1996.
2. Notice mailed to property owners within 300' on or before November 16, 1996.
3. Subject property posted with a sign on or before December 6, 1996. Please submit a
photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing
prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Suzanne Wolff, at 920-
5093.
Sincerely,
W r�
Rhonda Harris
Administrative Assistant
44. k-
71-11
Ni
- 1)
•..' 'fir. -.:?S r
li
w
MRF i
KNOW mu;
ow.
owl.
ka o 1 1'a,e - 5 (mac
ct ram► %n
<- �L g'L<-%92<
Yo
�Cr A"C-wa-&� 4t F f 12 ti g' ut cj�a c Clt" .
/-/- d'Lt. U lv,CL4 4 tt t cC
f-V
k
C,
3'rm -��°�
qfl
LCPr CGS c /�`z 4
1�1Gi�( ICI t1 i /ur _ T t`�
< ��� J�I� -f�
v ow
Cf "4-<-- &4.XW C7 h4�lc
A -14 �-f
�(Z- .- .s�Cc1i-P ctv"
•
cC
A-14
•
"1,
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 6-205.E.
I , ' \'.P '^ R` ('�yv-'A v.,
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, asn indicated on the attached list, on
the \S 0" day of 199 (. (which is ;'C' days
prior to the public hearing date of ';�$Q-c• \ 1 ).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from the �� day of 199_6,
to the YI 6\1 day of cr.•-.\cam 1991. (Must be
posted for at least ten (10) full days before the 'rearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto. `
Signature
(Attach photograph here)
S ' ned before me this 14v day of
P_ceiss l3 , 90 by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL,
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
N
8
z
O
b
CN
O
N
• r i
O
M r
�c 110 O N r - �O \D Z O, r �O c \'C N N M 4 �o
.--1 .--1 .--1 .--I .--I .--I .-♦--1 .--i --1 .-r e--1 .--1 ..r .-y O O to N ..-I — -Iton 00 •--i .--1 .-1 .--1 .--1
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .-00 00 M 00 00 a 111 r o0 00 00 00 00 0o M o0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
0
dz
W 0 0
C) z
z AAw�
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z w, o o z z z z z
w WO. w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w d w
aw aa,aa44WIn, aa3 V a,al ��aawwwww Va
En v) vn En Cn vn va v) In vA vn m vn rA WW W v) rA O O va cn rA a a O O
d d d d d d Q d d Q d d d d d z A O Q Q E- Q Q d d Q U U m m d
a > A
^ M
co m Ln w w w w w w v] w w to w N 0 GU 0
00
W O,
O1} 1/Ina+ a. 04
OOOOOOOOOOO § u "'t
�V��o .•, OOz xr O O E. O O O
Ww p M 1„ ,nw .-1
W)
CD 0p0 M 0
cn X
V1 \O �oN V1 VNi N M ^R ^44
U O OP OOO O O O OOOO
I V U U U U U U U U U V V O U ¢
d C7 C7 t7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 t7
U as m� a1 a1 w as rya m rsa rsa as w d a w
a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0cn
W o
2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O U U U U V U V V V U V U 0 0 W
V d¢ d d d d d d d d¢¢ a Q uu as
z z z z z z z z z z z z
w w w W w w w w w w w w
a P. a a a a. a a w P, a w
w as w as as as ao as as as as as 0
R
0 O�� 0
d
O¢¢ a a a d d
a ¢ V a V V 00' 00 R
Qz Q1 a a a >
�¢I w A A o
u u u
d EnEn En
d d d Q W W
Q d Q ¢ GU W W OU GO at GU G� GU
C� 00 r O In m •--1 O Cl N �o N N O� O 00 In M N N M
M �D O •� — •-1 — N — .--1 (0 00
O O -t 't e} m � � � et �t � � � e} M M V) V1 If1 V1 to O v1 Y1 v1 V1 IIl 1!1 V1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tn
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
Q Q Q '~ M M N M N •--i .-+ Q ~ fV Q Q Q T Q Q T Q 'f OQ Q Q Q Q Q
N In �b r r- r r [- [- r r r r r r-t In In M O In In In o 0 0 N N en \,c m
M N N It -r "T `? I `T "T I I `t I `T M M N N C? N N CV 00 00 00 C? M M rV M
M M M M Cl) M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (+1 M
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
q q q q q q q q q q g q q q g q q Q q C? Q Q Q Q Q R R 4 C? 4 4 R
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
�I
h
L
Q�
M
i � A Q i i � �
N N � r N r N M •-+ O ^+ ^� �n �� �--� � O �--� �'+ �--� r �' O, N v1 N N N D\ r N --�
O '-+ O In —i 110 p O ,O — C, ON O, In — — — M .--� .--� — N .-� O — O .-. 7 �--� ^-� ,a N �--� O
,0 ,O In O, t 00 N O O O — ,O ,O ,D ,D — ,0 ,D 1.0 In O In ,O In ,O In ,D ,O "t O ,D •-+
O 00 M r O O O O O O In —— — — 00 ——— r N N -1 O— N M d — M
,O 00 �t a, 00 00 M C, N 00 ,0 ,O 1.0 O 00 00 00 00 d 00 00 00 a, C, 00 In 00 rM 00 00 rM C, 00 O,
d OU 2 U OO z Cal U OU d d d �j O O O O O O O a v V O O � O O V O V
U
o aCoo g o z w N z
U d ►-O
o U F.Rl
z w z 9Q O z z z z z z z a z z z z � z d
vA"i O�1 vai vai vA"i vp"i W W
U Q v� Q U
En >
O W d d
z
z
3_ w M a, c� c,�� c�,�i w x x
do3�000w�"'�,www
W GQ a, tr1 A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
^y .-tea .~.~-� M M M M
n W F" �"� N -+ — Qa , In In In
C7 > z W >
�0 a
� l% fin � � \D � O � V Off, N O U � •-'�
N O
�wwwooa-t0�����3
O O O O N /yam et O 0 Q 00 O O D\ M Q In
CL Y1 � V1 .-W 00 Lti+ N LL O, L�r LlW
F
A j
A A
z
a O a
O O O
O A
a a a A U w
O
� U
a s U U a
o w A¢ d o o z
000doo`�`�`�w�
� U
U V U U U A A A A A A O w A w w
00 O 00 N N M O In — 00 — N C1 In — O N C1 00 00 00 In :n 00 In In — N In M M ,O r ,D
In In 00 O, r r ,D O O O C, O, C, M In N N N a, M M M — n a, O N M — O, O, 01 O M M
O N N N In -t O M In � � "t "F In t- M M M M M M M M �--� In r In M M It ,0 r et M
O, p In In In in in In O O O In t O O O In d d It in M 00 M In In in O O N M In In
O O O O O O 0 0 O O -+ O— 0 0 0 0— �--� •-" O� O �--� O CD ^-� �--� �--� ^ O O
O O O O CD O O O CD O CD CD CD O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O
00 M N r �r In a1 N Vl M w 4 •-+ — O ,D r O It w M In In — O, C, ,D
-- O -- M O N M N0 0 0 M In O O O" -n on in N O O --+ N N N O O O O N O
Q Q Q 4 Q Q Q Q Q '( O Q Q Q Q 00 Q Q Q Q 00 00 00 p Q 'f Q Q Q Q Q r T O Q Q Q
N N In In M M N M M M "t 'T -t M —` —` In r r [- M ''t M ,0 In M In d -t O ,0 M In
M N N C? M M M M f;l — — — M M M Cal M N I i I M M M N N M N — N N M N
M N M M M M M M M M N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N M M M
r oo r r r r r r r r o0 00 0o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o0 00 0o Q 4 4
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
•
a
N
U
L
b
4 6 4 �--i A A
M
N 00 N ^-� .•r 4 V'1 � M N O N 4 N N O .-a 4 4 .-� ^'� �"� O N 00 N N N 4 V•t O 4 [- 00
v1 � -- M N V1 O � N — O N • [- O O O O O O N � .--i Q N V 1 V 1 V 1 O M — m O
1�0 N 110 %D N N O � �D I- �10 -- 00 110 O N N N N N N v1 �10 �.D ID �O �o O
v1 �D v1 r- ON .--i 00 I'D •-+ V1 O O O O O O [- — — O 00 00 00 -- V1 N O r-
00 I� 00 00 M �D V1 .--i 00 00 CN 00 !- 00 00 00 00 00 00 C� 00 00 [- m \D
o� o o � a o o o� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u z z z° u° d�
w w w
r�
O
a
o w o x W x x rx o w w w Q a¢
w a w w w w z w �j �j�j�j�j�j w w 3 a a a W a o W
a a w a a a Z Z Z Z Z Z a a z a a a
v� O U W W W W W W v� w w¢ W w Q a w u
d A d d cn va z d U d x d A A A A A A¢ d¢ In z d A W d U d
00
0 ¢ a a a ¢
00
W ww W WW x
X a X F� O > ¢
p°q vFi U a°q
O
r00i U O a OU A o N d W W W p4 Z
r r t- M
O
0 0 a,� F"' Z X p O o 0 O X 0 X X X X X x 0-0
N o M �3 z0000000aiza�
Ga X z o0 o al U X a A Pa Ca W 0�1 PU PQ PU W X o o 0 0 o w oo M 3
° 0 0 cOv oNo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00+ 0 0 0 0 0 cs\0 M
a: a. oo .• �D -• a csa N M a a a a a a D N .• .� D M N a
N A
w
d cn in 0
¢ w
(�] d
A A A A A A E' ti Z
c � �w 3-°W
aaxa
Ln
cW7 ta7 d d d d d¢ a an ti .- C7 vn
w �-' � d O a a a a
aza¢ 3 �'��;�oo
w�doFWA� W�� H��nxQQ ova
u O a¢
o z z o wz a o Az Az nz A z
WaW c� A w W p 0 A En > d¢ d O
cs' aJ U vw, d W O U A zz d z W W H? w W C7 A U
w vS a¢ a a a a a a M w a a a A c7 x
d ww EpQa a a a a a a a a> w W vW� U w
x x x x x x x x x x
N In M .--i O [- r- M to M M --t m It tr �r It qtt 1* O, O to �D (- 't 't It M V1 00 M �t to
In to 00 M ON M M V1 Wto Y1 V1 h tn O O O O O O O to 00 O M It It -t Vl V1 M �t t1 V1
O O O -- — O ^-+ — O O O O O O O �--� — - -- ^ — O— O O �--� —� ^-� O O .-� .-� O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (= O O O O O O
N T •-r V1 et �1 •r M .-ti 00 00 O "t — I'D O\ 00 Vl O [- \D t O\ 00 �D W) et V1 N N .--i ON l-
-- N It O - M N m m to M M't M 0 0 0 O O — —M — O O M
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 R 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4
M -n M \D �t N 110 \D M M V1 W1 W) M in to -n t1 W. V1 V1 N O M N \D \�D \D �D Vl V1 \10 \D U1 M
M N M N M M N N M M N N N M N N N N N N N M 00 M M N N N N N N N N N M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
v
N �D
W) In . N
O 00 0 00 M �o �O O V1 \O 110 't \O \O \D �o \O M %0 N IO \O M \O �o M M �o 110 M �o 01,
O �D 00 O v1 00 00 00 00 [� N 00 00 CT 00 00 00 00 00 O00 t� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 �0 00 CT 00 M
O O O O O U O O d 0 0 O O O ¢ O O O O O O O O O¢ O
z d U d 3 0 0 0 U HV) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U d U U U '
w
U
3� cn
zoo � �¢ v�
C7 Z ¢zzzzF"Ew�.aazzdzZzzz Z¢zzAzzAA¢o 0dz¢
a w 3 aW a a a 3 a oW„ awe a aw, a a aw, a a a a U�y a o a
a d Cal o
Q Q d d x a d d cn d d d End vF] E-cn A d d pOq d d M M U vzi E-Q U
H in ro o ¢
�o O O u x
En Azoaa� S Haow �¢33x ¢ czz7
WO D U K O O N N I'O U N O O V] .--� In r�4
v'1 v1 N�y U W W N 0�0 rrY�iYYGii
�O — (� �" LLY�. g U
N OOR O A C% Q ¢ Q QD
z N L�., O '� O O M O O O O
3
OI.�-O.--O NV•--1 llt��� OOo O-- Ov1 a� O
CIn ONQ Q Q Q Q In MQ Q N QQ O
¢F.
Q F.
u En
F-
¢
' O
.a Ems„
o z H
U
S O ¢ a c
a � W vWi •-, [-[-� A ¢ ¢ U U � � A w pwq ¢ � � � � .a
w o H H
cn Lna A4 z 3 a �G W a W CP7 a W a
U O•
w x O oq rx U CA ar w a a Z a O O >
o
m m as O a a, a s vwi vwi In(n Ln w O c'
O — N 00 -t M -t M 1�t N 00 — O 00 I- O �o 00 to '-1 - C� — N 110 N C� O \0 00 d M W) M 1!1
V1 O\ O1 V1 In O vl -n N ON 1p l- I- -t 00 C\ �o 00 r v'1 O O [- �.o — O 1- 00 M -t CT N M 00
M M M W) V1 "7 -t l-- t- 7 -' "Y "!' " O_ '7 m N — t t'- m N M �O 1.0 -ItM �O t- In vl M
In In on
O O SO O O C�O ^-' 8 O 8 O 0 0 0 0 �-+ �--� ^� O CD0 0 0 O O p� O O
O O O O S O O S O CDO O O CD S O O O O O O O O S O O O O O O S
O "t N �n M N C>\ [� 'ct N t� V'1 N M M [� �--� "!' 00 00 ON 00 \O
O N N N M •-+ M M
,Rt W) In Vn In In M M r-+ M V1 In M M -}' M V1 M b M N M N N M M O ^' V1 In M
M N N N N N M M In Q M N N r' M N M N C2 M N N N M "? C? M M M M N 1 '1 N M M
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
M M M M M M M r- M M M M r- r- M In M M M t- M M M mM M M r- M 00 mM M r-
�? g Q o 0 o q q q q 4 4
M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M M Nl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N N N .N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
•
a
00 00 00 00 00 h 00 00 00
000�0000H000
U
W W W O A W W W Oz W W W
Ln En V) a a C/) En
.C4-C Q���
CN
w H H
En El)
O p U U U
b W W z z z
< 00I'D
0 X o¢ p X X 0
o� 0�a pq W o F. 0 0 0 O= Om W W
r� O . R h h h R Q p o
a N -• a tn
a
O d d
U
G w w w z 4
0 0 0
U U U
a ar z W d¢¢ A 3 o
z
o tn °M° o o, r- r- r- r- vi cs o
�D — M �t h N `,t "t�t tn M N M
y� w M in h N to
u
Oto to It-)OO _OOC CD O O O CD O O O cn
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
M -,t M M ^p� M in V'1 tn tn N M M It
Z M M M M M M M M M M N M M
L [� h h [- h h h h h [- h h [�
M M M M M M M M M M M M M
LL N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0
aspen
resort
accommodations
January 13,1997
Aspen Planning & Zoning Board
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Garton,
I am writing to your board to express my concerns regarding the Garish Theatre proposal
to add 6,500 sq. ft of living space to the existing building. While I feel that this amount of
additional FAR is excessive and will result in a building completely out of scale with the
neighboring buildings, I would specifically address the deed restricted housing portion of this
proposal.
It is my understanding that APCHA has approved this project for their deed restricted
rental units without specifying category. I feel that these three units, or whatever deed restricted
units are finally approved should be offered for sale and not kept as rentals. My reasons are as
follows:
1. With a project of this nature, it will be almost impossible to insure that proper
rental guidelines will be followed in the future. APCHA has little policing capability and in fact
acts to redress violations are on a complaint basis only.
2. There is little motivation on the part of the developer nor procedures available to
insure that these rental units are even made available to the general public. In many cases, these
units get "lost" or are utilized by owners to free up free market units for rental.
3. If the developer decides to keep the deed restricted units for the exclusive use of
his employees, as may be his right, then you create the questionable situation where a local
employee's employment and housing are incontrovertibly connected. Not a happy circumstance
for the employee.
- 4. If these properties are offered for sale, they can be better controlled by APCHA,
both initially and with each subsequent sale.
5. Selling these units could free up additional rental units as employees "move up"
to ownership from deed restricted or free markets rentals.
Further, it has been my experience as a rental agent for fifteen years that smaller size units
(studios, one bedroom) are in the greatest demand, and equally important in the lower income
categories. I would favor an increase in the number of units to perhaps four to five studios in
category one or two to what the current proposal requests.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely (,
,.
A. Ronald Erickson
Broker
100 South Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-4772 FAX (970) 925-9014
•
�j
Vex 3613 ,44Auc, eelanada 91612
November 1, 1996
PeaWKiaff
s
P"te157ax (970) 920-1125
Mr. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT APPLICATION
Dear Stan,
Attached please find twenty-five (25) copies of a land use application requesting one
Residential GMQS Allotment for the Stage 3 Penthouses. Five (5) full-sized sets of the
prints for the application are also being provided. The application is being submitted on
behalf of Carisch Brothers, a Minnesota General Partnership, the property owner.
Also enclosed are single copies of the following items, as requested in the pre -application
conference:
• A check for $2,250, in partial payment of the 1996 City of Aspen application fee
deposit and City Engineer and Housing Authority referral review fees. The applicant
is forwarding a second check, for $270, to bring the total amount paid to $2,520.
• A signed copy of the Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development
Application Fees.
• A list of the owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information during the period of staff
review of this application, please feel free to contact me at the address or phone number
above. Thank you for your staff's assistance while this application was being prepared and
for your continuing attention to this project.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
Ar^ t*1—P
Alan Richman, AICP
•
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ L-0 a
which is for _�,L hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed
the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to
reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above,
including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30
days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
BalaStlwuson
�.--
Community Development Director
OA
APPLICANT
By: G-�--
Date• c 12-
Mailing Address: %
ASPENTITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and "QAe- CA-9-•5
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
a-14, ",,V C, VV-- 0S
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
?. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 53 (Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and
the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size. nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthiv basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification, by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: STAGE 3 METRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to score the 1996 non -metro residential
GMQS applications. The following application was received for the competition:
1. STAGE 3: George Carisch is requesting one allotment to permit the construction of one new
free maket unit above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen. Associated approvals are requested for
GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units and Special Review to increase the
allowable FAR, to establish the required parking, and to reduce the required trash service area.
The property is located at 625 East Main Street, and is described as Lots E, F, and G and the
east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen.
For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 16, 1996
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
George Carisch, Aspen, CO, requesting subdivision approval to construct one free market and 3
affordable dwelling units above the existing theatres. The property is located at 625 Cast Main
Street, and is described as Lots E, F, and G and the east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite
of Aspen. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 30, 1996
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: STAGE 3 METRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to score the 1996 non -metro residential
GMQS applications. The following application was received for the competition:
1. STAGE 3: George Carisch is requesting one allotment to permit the construction of one new
free maket unit above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen. Associated approvals are requested for
GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units and Special Review to increase the
allowable FAR, to establish the required parking, and to reduce the required trash service area.
The property is located at 625 East Main Street, and is described as Lots E, F, and G and the
east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen.
For fiirthcr information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 16, 1996
City of Aspen Account
0 0
ASPEN/PITIQN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Zoning
Housing Director
Parks
Aspen Fire Marshal
City Water
ACSD
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing & Special Review
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-002
DATE: November 7, 1996
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by George Carisch
Please return your comments to me no later than November 29, 1996
Thank you.
STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES
APPLICATION FOR
RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SPECIAL REVIEW
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBMITTED BY
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
920-1125
I. APPLICATION REQUEST
This is an application to develop one (1) new free market unit and three (3) new affordable
housing units above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen. The property is located at 625 East
Main Street, and its legal description is Lots E, F, and G and the east 10' of Lot D, Block
98, City and Townsite of Aspen. A vicinity map illustrating the location of the property is
provided on the following page.
The application is being submitted by Mr. George Carisch, one of the managing partners of
Carisch Brothers, a Minnesota General Partnership, the property owner. Proof of the
ownership of the property is provided by the title insurance commitment, attached hereto
as Exhibit # 1.
The owner of the property (hereinafter, "the Applicant") is being represented by Alan
Richman Planning Services for purposes of this application. A letter from Mr. Carisch
confirming this arrangement is attached as Exhibit #2.
Several pre -application conferences were held with representatives of the City (see Pre -
Application Conference Summary, attached hereto as Exhibit #3). Based on these meetings,
it was confirmed that the following land development approvals are required by the Aspen
Land Use Regulations to accomplish this project:
1. GMQS Allotment for one (1) free market residential unit, pursuant to Section
26.100.080.
2. GMQS Exemption for three (3) affordable housing units, pursuant to Section
26.100.050.
3. Special Review for the following activities, pursuant to Section 26.64.040:
A. Special review to increase the maximum allowable FAR in the C-1 zone
district from 1.0:1 to 1.5:1.
B. Special review to establish the parking requirement for affordable housing
and to convert the existing commercial spaces on the property to residential
use via a cash -in -lieu payment for the commercial spaces.
C. Special review to reduce the dimensions of a required trash/utility service
area.
The following sections of this application are organized to respond to the standards of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations for each of these review procedures.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 1
_ 1y
\`
e refe mountain Vlew
U o� \
Snow \ 0 9 Ar nc� q A \
p`6 d
\
/Q� �s�• �\Snowpunny Cr
osell `,/y� `- S�erA o\ \.�� n,9•J• \ G,t n. ^ l
\ /\ 1 If
l S\•O` on 1 V
oJ
P``• a\}--,: 1 Asoen _ D4 0
nvnule �r D sy�
p•�-., � i I 1z Hunter
rent Wood Duck In g!n
a
r 7 i I Gilles ie Sr
Ci OII COufse �f1; a\ ' h
Da rl Lti
/po
c 'n s (-1
/Q�♦ 0 /• Sr
n y - Vln• S7
C. Co 4
`'1 �� h l c `�• 2
ot/ N/ o of
o i b c � h s� i e9 N Rxe r
, ♦ r•,n o
_Maroon Creek Rd - - - ���- i I St
Sr °
—19 p Aspen
1, k• q, erf
Sa,,,m,n Pk • ' rl Ar I
S/ 0 1
�; yr a f�. .o y v 4• f
II e' 3 • Q / o " � 82 � re • Cid• �o ;cn / � 1 l
Ic yc ^ ° yO 9 4/n h • J °� • ••° f
o ' .. � i ` • c � A7 • 41 •
� 6 \o°, � • H •n ul n 99ie.
it u •
nee t�➢��>� �0• 4lrni• IS e � c c D - e
pay aC�� ` •o� • e
Ede fft� -�� emu• Sr C 3 n m�
'Lir4tP�.ln a � n Aer � DI • t
S
Q
I
Cii ,.1, ry � �n v �c , r P Cc �cq
F
Summrr °.g r'� : t P� yw�F �Pe 3 w•
4v - T As n Grow
.g %Pf
. yn
t• Weerdew
or w
4b'Rd
VICINITY MAP
L:i
ft
H. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM ALLOTMENT
The Applicant has reviewed the "community character based" scoring criteria of the recently
amended Residential Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). We believe that we
have created a project which is highly consistent with those criteria and which will advance
the stated goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).
We also believe that it is particularly important that this project be evaluated keeping in
mind the provisions of Section 26.100.080 B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. This
section includes the following language:
"It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage
when scored against large-scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects
be evaluated according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be
expected given their size and scale."
Ours is a small, "infill" project that adds two stories to the existing Stage 3 Theaters Building.
Our options for completing this project have been constrained by the fact that the property
is already developed and the owner wanted to retain the existing building, so the current
community -serving entertainment use it provides could remain in operation.
Because the building footprint is already established, we cannot provide additional parking
on -site, nor can we increase open space or provide similar on -site amenities. In fact, we
have had to juggle the competing objectives of retaining existing parking and open space
with the direction given by the City Engineering Department that we remove our trash
facilities from the alley and bring them onto our property. We have been able to create a
functional trash area on -site and the open area that has been removed is only that which is
not visible from the street. However, meeting these City directions has limited our other site
planning options considerably.
We propose to add one (1) free market dwelling to the property, which will be occupied by
the owner of the building, Mr. Carisch. This unit will occupy a portion of the new second
story and all of the new third story. The remainder of the second story will consist of three
affordable housing units - a three bedroom unit, a one bedroom unit, and a studio unit. The
existing ground floor movie theaters will remain the same local -serving commercial use that
they are today. Site plans and floor plans illustrating the existing and proposed development
follow, and include the following:
Drawing A-1 is the identified as the site plan and shows the overall plan for the proposed
development in relation to surrounding buildings located in Block 98.
The next sheet identifies existing conditions in the form of a current improvement survey of
the property.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 3
MAIN STREET
w �s• or �r r ao.eo
ALLEY - M
Du A, ll N S T R ]E lE T
---
CorN I
FNLL v I I S75'09'1 I"E WOOD 1p/ •rt+c
RJlllMl L
6 2
TWO S AU L / G '/ o
_ f
IIQ N75.091t W 10000 �rvA rttr 1\l,
A L ]L. ]E Y B 1L ® C K 98
A•. w h HN
2��
O S 10 00 30 b >0
SCALE
p- IF • 10
THE 9E COIt OF 1.0T 0 BLOCNYOMJe DNS OOi� Ca K L5911
FNO. •FOUND IEBAA Mil PI -AS dIP LS 918�
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
lp 5�M
DGLRALLDF. CARpI�I HEREBY LDA11IICCELYApTppI�TpIITLES IN9t�1ROANCE COMP4N'I
LOTST 119 MA ACCE GDTHE E.l4tERLTYOD 1OF1915 SPR KS 1�98.OY
OFASPEN ANDLOTS 5-7,THE EASTERLY KXO OF LOT4,
BLOCK 29, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, COLORADO
THE TWO STORY BUILDING WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATTI) ON THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON THE LOCATION
AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILOINGS, IMPR NEMENTS, EASEMENTS,
RIGHTS OF WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TOW AND ENCROACH-
MENTS BY ORON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN.
ALPINE SIINEYS.1— by, DANEL FMc KEN21E
AIRIL IBTH. 1998 LS 20151
•
EXISTING CONDITIONS
AlMrw Surveys, Inc. wvw+d 18 MAR 1985 SN TKN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY JW ND 85.18-2
OWftd 21 MAR. 1985 DMc CRrM CARISCH
PON ONIoe sa 1750 e
AAoAR, C4= SM2
am B26 2BBB
Drawing A-2 provides an illustration of the work completed back in 1985 to remodel the old
Playhouse Movie Theater into the Stage 3 Theaters. It is included to provide the reader a
context for this proposed expansion project.
Drawing A-3 depicts the ground floor plan. It shows the changes we propose to make to
the area at the rear of the building, including the following:
• Development of an enclosed trash area, measuring four (4) feet by twenty (20) feet,
along the western wall of the theater.
• Reconfiguration of one (1) of the four (4) parking spaces into a tandem arrangement,
so that we can continue to provide four (4) parking spaces on -site.
• Relocation of three (3) small blue spruce trees from the area within the proposed
sidewalk to the garden area along the western edge of the property.
• Retention of the sidewalk located along the western edge of the property.
Drawings A-4 and A-5 depict the second and third floor plans and illustrate the layout of
the proposed free market and affordable housing units.
Following is our response to the criteria for GMQS allotments:
1. Revitalizing the Permanent Community. One of the community's central goals is to
create a community with a sue, density and diversity that encourages interaction,
involvement and vitality and one that provides opportunities for its workers to become
a permanent part of the social fabric.
Response: This project makes what we believe is an outstanding commitment to encouraging
community interaction, involvement and vitality. First, it provides three new, high quality,
on -site affordable housing units for permanent residents. The quality of these three units
is evidenced by the following features:
• Each of the units exceeds the minimum net livable square footage standards adopted
by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. The studio contains 613 sq. ft., whereas the
minimum size for a Category III studio is 500 sq. ft. The one bedroom unit contains
783 sq. ft., whereas the minimum size for a Category III one bedroom unit is 700 sq.
ft. The three bedroom unit contains 1,275 sq. ft., whereas the minimum size for a
Category III three bedroom unit is 1,200 sq. ft.
• Each of the affordable housing units contains desirable amenities. For example, each
unit contains an outdoor deck facing Red Mountain. Each unit also has access to its
own storage space and each unit contains laundry facilities.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 6
001"0 ' niadav
isaeii vw iev■ also q ...
t f3JW3H.L 3snOHAV-k:l a
0
- oavaoioo 'Nader
• t•il: 1 le NI1/M1 'a 999 :y `A�R6 4 �1
�Itl S3snoH1N3d £ 30VIS i d4; Riot F F s�4
3
r
oav:o100 'NOdOV i
I.it; 1 *1NiVN 'i 9LH I z `Qa iiE R; {
1 efti3 sasnomlN3d £ 30VIS
- U
. R R
J
om
z
Q
J
J
IL
0
z
43
v
II1
T
The project also meets the standard of "providing site -appropriate mixing of free market and
affordable housing". The affordable housing units are fully mixed -in with the free market
unit, since not only are they on the same site and in the same building, but they actually
share the second floor with the free market unit.
Most importantly, the units are located in the center of Aspen, close to work, shopping and
recreation opportunities, thereby discouraging residents from using automobiles and making
walking and taking the bus a very convenient option. This location is consistent with a key
policy of the AACP Housing Action Plan, which is to "Encourage infill development within
the existing urban area". The Housing Action Plan also recommends "Increase the use of
upper floors of commercial buildings by revising existing zone district ratios to increase
square footage for affordable housing". This project has successfully used the existing ratios,
which enable us to provide an additional 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area for affordable housing.
This project will also help the community to achieve the AACP Growth Action Plan
recommendation that potential commercial buildout in the Aspen Area should be reduced.
By developing a free market housing unit on this site, rather than additional commercial
space, we have reduced the area's commercial buildout potential by 3,300 sq. ft. Therefore,
not only are we providing employee housing on -site, we are also reducing the potential for
future generation of employees. Placing residents on this site will also help to improve the
vitality of the downtown area and will, at the same time cause less traffic congestion in the
downtown area than would a commercial project.
Finally, this project allows the community to retain the Stage 3 Theaters, an important local
serving commercial use that is a place for social interaction and integration for the
community. This is accomplished by expanding the existing building, instead of developing
a new building. If a new building were developed, it is unlikely that theaters would be an
economically viable use of the new space, given the costs of commercial space in Aspen.
2. Providing Transportation Alternatives. Residents are seeking a balanced, integrated
transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic congestion
and air pollution.
Response: Providing housing downtown will facilitate and encourage year round pedestrian
transportation and will reduce the need for residents to use private vehicles as a form of
transportation. Residents will be able to live near places where they can work, shop and
recreate, and will also have excellent access to all of the community's existing transit
facilities, since a bus stop is located right at the corner of Main Street and Spring Street.
Residents will each have storage units, where they can keep their bicycles. There is already
a bicycle rack in front of the theater for use by patrons of the theater.
The proposed development of housing on this property should create significantly less
impacts on traffic than would a commercial development. Given the allowed uses of the C-1
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 11
zone district, commercial development above grade in this building would likely consist of
offices, other professional and personal services (such as medical, dental, financial and
beauty) or could even accommodate a restaurant. These uses would attract significantly
more traffic during the congested daytime hours than will the proposed dwelling units.
As is more fully described in the Special Review section of this application, the Applicant
is also committing to payment of $90,000 in -lieu of providing additional parking on -site. This
payment is comprised of two components, as follows:
• First, the payment is intended to allow the four (4) parking spaces on -site to be
converted from commercial use to residential use. Currently, the four (4) spaces
along the alley are used by employees of the movie theaters. In the future, we
propose that one (1) space be assigned to each of the four (4) dwelling units.
• Second, the payment recognizes that at a standard of two (2) spaces for each of the
three bedroom units and one (1) space each for the studio unit and one bedroom
unit, a total of six (6) spaces could be required. Although the Land Use Regulations
state that parking for affordable housing is set by special review and we could have,
therefore, requested waiver of any parking for these units, we are instead agreeing
to mitigate, not avoid, our parking obligations. Therefore, we are proposing to pay
an in -lieu fee for the two (2) additional spaces.
We believe that this combination of conversion of the existing spaces to residential use and
payment of an in -lieu fee is the most appropriate form of parking mitigation for this project
for the following reasons:
1. It recognizes that while residents in the downtown area may not need to drive on a
daily basis, they do need a convenient, off-street place to store their cars.
2. It allows the funds paid by the Applicant to be placed into the City's parking fund,
allowing the community to use them to pay for appropriate community parking
facilities that can be used to implement a valley -wide mass transit system.
3. It discourages movie theater patrons and employees from driving to the site. Because
this is a downtown movie theater, it would be inconsistent with the AACP to provide
parking on -site to attract cars. If on -site parking were required, it would have to be
built it sub -grade, forcing complete re -development of the property. It is unlikely that
the re -development of this building could economically include a movie theater
operation. Therefore, a project such as this, which adds on to the existing building
footprint, is the best way to ensure the continued operation of this local serving use.
C. Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development. Residents wish to allow only that
development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes individually responsible,
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 12
ecological lifestyles.
Response: The location of this property allows us to create a project that is environmentally
sensitive and enables residents to live ecologically responsible lifestyles. Because we are
developing an infill project that uses vacant air space, we are not extending the urban area
or removing any land from open space. The location clearly avoids all environmental hazard
and resource lands, as designated by either Aspen or Pitkin County.
The project will employ a number of valuable energy conservation measures. The free
market unit will be oriented to the south, allowing it to have passive solar gain through its
french doors and picture windows. There will be a three (3) foot overhang on this side of
the building, to ensure that the unit does not over -heat from solar exposure, thereby
reducing energy needs for cooling. The units will also be designed to at least meet the
requirements of the City's energy code.
The project will also employ several water conservation measures. First, all units will use
water saving plumbing fixtures. All shower heads will be limited to a flow of one and a half
(1.5) gallons per minute, while all toilets will be limited to a three (3) gallon capacity. In
addition, the existing landscaping does not presently have an irrigation system and we will
do not plan to add one for this project, since the landscaping is surviving well without one.
We will, nonetheless, retain all of the existing trees on the site. Three (3) of the existing
trees at the rear of the property need to be moved because they are located within the
proposed sidewalk. We will relocate them on -site, as shown on the ground floor plan, to the
garden area shown along the western side of the rear of the property.
The project uses one (1) wood burning device, in compliance with City Code provisions.
The project will also provide containers in the trash area for recycling, for use by the movie
theaters and by the residents of the dwelling units.
Finally, decks in the project will be made of a material known as "Trex", instead of being
made of redwood. Trex is a recycled material made from recycled sawdust, with a binder,
and it does not require any staining or maintenance. Using this material, which is more
expensive than traditional a wood product, provides further evidence of our commitment to
ecological alternatives in this project.
D. Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character. The goal
of residents is to ensure the maintenance of community character through design quality
and compatibility with historic features.
Response: We have provided elevations and cross sections depicting the proposed design
of the addition to this building. Drawings A-6 through A-9 show that the proposed addition
will substantially enhance the appearance of the existing building for the following reasons:
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 13
OArN0,00 'N9dSV
19 Nlvvf 'i 999 fA ip
S3snOH1N3d £ 30V1S
r
0avuol00 'nadsv
" raves a vzo
Y` S3snoH1N3d £ 3�Jt/1S
0
W : d
(Zil i �i
Qp f
�J
H
W
w
W
_z
Q
z
O
H
w
J
w
x
cc
O
z
r
e I 00VU0100 'Nidew i
1S Nww a SLY ial c� d;.
Ii S3Sf10N1N3d £ 3Vr1S �Q:j �e -°� �iP Pt {
-
r i r
7d �^ �. !•yd dd �d �d
s
a�
Y
uj
J
w
H
N
W
K
qr
r S
o
r s
9 3
R-
id
id
d
4
4R
x
Qx
oo .o, o' ,ds,
e m,■ ' az,
s■snOH1N3d f3 Bv1s
:� � I .. _«
z
q
E
4
>
u
I
■
E
A
*
■
T
/
\§i|
.
■
■
.
�
�`
�
■|$�
[
�� |
| �
$
(
rt
[
| §|
|
|I |
R
ƒ
'`-------"
p
ƒ
$--------3�—
'
-------°.
!
|
§-
$-
� �---.-
�
■ �� ¢�|
K
'!
■�| ���
$ :| �
I d
|
I
-
.41
— -
DLit!
1
OVU0100 'NHdBV
O
18 NOV" 'i gLY
� i
0 �1 € I�v �� II �I
i!j i�113
S3Sf10H1N3d
£ 30V18
I ((�f-
Is
a
t
do
o' � ►�
CAI
�fyy 6:� ��ydy�f
jib6
Ib�
asaa
�y 1
L
r
t
r
• At the present time, this building can be characterized as a big flat -top box with a
uniform eave line that does not have windows. The proposed addition will add
variety to and break up the building's facade by adding openings, railings, balconies,
trellises and exposed timber cantilevers. A "dated" mansard structure will be re-
designed and the mass of the building will be broken into many smaller elements.
The design of the present building is not similar to or compatible with that of any of
the surrounding buildings. However, as shown in the photographs of neighboring
buildings on the following page, the elements described above are all elements that
are used in the surrounding buildings. Therefore, the addition will allow the building
to relate better to surrounding residential and office buildings that have windows and
decks. Moreover, the blank, lifeless exterior of the building will be enhanced into a
more lively atmosphere, with people using the decks and with lights emanating from
the windows.
• The floor plans show that the living units will be set back from Main Street by sixteen
(16) to twenty (20) feet. This will reduce the perceived mass of the addition. The
setback will also ensure that the addition does not cause increased shading on either
Main Street or the adjacent open space.
We will also improve the appearance and function of the alley behind the building by
removing the trash containers that currently sit within the public right-of-way and placing
them on our own property. This is a difficult improvement for us to make, because the
existing building already takes up so much of the site that we have very little flexibility to
move other uses on the property. Nonetheless, we have agreed to accomplish this
improvement because we recognize it is a community priority to improve the functioning of
the alley system.
The site plan also illustrates that we will maintain the mid -block pedestrian path along the
western edge of our property that allows pedestrians to circulate between Main Street and
the alley. Because this path is coupled with the attractive open seating area from the
adjacent building, it has become a very desirable way for pedestrians to travel and a pleasant
place for people to socialize while they wait to patronize the theaters or at other times
during the day. The trees we are relocating to the garden will enhance this path and be
more apparent to pedestrians than they are in their present location near the building.
Although this site is outside of the Main Street and Commercial Core historic districts, the
existing movie theaters are, nonetheless, an eclectic and varietal business along Main Street
that the community needs to retain. As noted above, by promoting the type of development
that adds to the existing uses of the site, rather than forcing the owner to consider a
complete re -development project, this project will allow this business to remain in place.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 17
�..• � �I� I.�l� � .�� all i�, �. ��,
MIS
Ili s y
do
.. ,:Mir or �. \i
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION
Section 26.100.050 C.3.b. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides that City Council
shall grant an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) scoring and
competition procedures for all affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the
housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee.
The three (3) affordable housing units in this project are proposed to be deed restricted in
accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and the Housing Authority as
Category III units. We anticipate they will be occupied as rental housing units.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 19
r r
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW
The three applicable special review procedures to which this application is subject are as
follows:
A. Special review to increase the maximum allowable FAR in the C-1 zone
district from 1.0:1 to 1.5:1.
B. Special review to establish the parking requirement for affordable housing and
to convert the existing commercial spaces on the property to residential use
via a cash -in -lieu payment for the commercial spaces.
C. Special review to reduce the dimensions of a required trash/utility service area.
The criteria contained in the Aspen Land Use Regulations for each of these procedures, and
our response to these criteria, follow below.
A. Special Review for Dimensional Standards
According to Sections 26.28.150 D.10 and D.11 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the
external floor area ratio in the Commercial (C-1) zone district is 1:1, but may be increased
to 1.5:1 by special review, if 60% of the additional floor area (that is, 0.3:1) is approved for
residential use restricted to affordable housing.
The subject property contains 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area. It is improved with an existing
building that contains approximately 8,500 sq. ft. of floor area. Therefore, the building can
be expanded by 1,500 sq. ft. by right, to an FAR of 1:1, and can be expanded by a further
5,000 sq. ft. by special review, to an FAR of 1.5:1.
The Applicant proposes to expand this building, by the addition of a second and third story,
that will add 6,500 sq. ft. of floor area. This will be accomplished as follows:
• The remaining 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area that is allowed by right will be used to
develop the free market unit.
• An additional 2,000 sq. ft. of floor area will be used to develop the free market unit.
• The remaining 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area will be used to develop the affordable
housing units.
Therefore, of the additional 5,000 sq. ft. that is subject to special review, 2,000 sq. ft. (0.2:1)
will be used to develop the free market unit and 3,000 sq. ft. (0.3:1) will be used to develop
the affordable housing unit, in conformance with the above -listed ratios.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 20
Section 26.64.040 A. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides that whenever the
dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the
development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met:
1. Tiie mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with
or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes
of the underlying zone district.
Response: The mass, height and density of the proposed development will be compatible
with the character of surrounding land uses. As shown in the photographs and elevations,
many of the buildings that surround this property are already built to three stories- above
grade and are at or near the maximum allowable floor area of this zone district. Moreover,
as described in the growth management section of this application, and as shown in the
elevations, the mass of this building will be broken into many smaller elements and its
appearance will be vastly enhanced by the alteration of the dated mansard roof element and
by the introduction of windows and other penetrations of the exterior of the building. All
of these changes will make the building much more compatible with the surrounding office
and condominium buildings than is the current building.
The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) zone district is to provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards serving the tourist population.
This project is consistent with that purpose. Following is a breakdown of the existing and
proposed uses of the property:
Movie Theaters: 8,500 sq. ft. (57%)
Affordable Housing: 3,000 sq. ft. (20%)
Free Market Housing: 3,500 sq. ft. (23%)
This breakdown illustrates that fully 77% of the uses of the property are not primarily
oriented towards serving the tourist population. The movie theaters are open year round
and serve both residents and visitors and the affordable housing will serve residents only.
The C-1 zone district does not have a requirement for front, side or rear yard setbacks. It
is intended, instead, for the development of buildings that front the street and add to the
pedestrian character of the downtown area. This development is consistent with those
standards on the ground floor and uses setbacks on the upper floors to minimize the
appearance of mass or bulk from the additional development.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts
on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects
of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or the blocking of
a designated view plane.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 21
4P l
Response: By setting the upper stories back by sixteen (16) to twenty (20) feet, the
applicant has mitigated the shading effects that could have occurred due to the proposed
expansion.
The proposed development of housing on this property should create significantly less
impacts on traffic than would a commercial development. Given the allowed uses of the C-1
zone district, commercial development above grade in this building would likely consist of
offices, other professional and personal services (such as medical, dental, financial and
beauty) or could even accommodate a restaurant. These uses would attract significantly
more traffic during the congested daytime hours than will the proposed dwelling units.
As discussed in other sections of this application, the applicant proposes to provide four (4)
parking spaces on site, one (1) for each residential unit. Moreover, rather than seek a
waiver of parking obligations, the applicant has agreed to pay $90,000 as an in -lieu fee for
an additional six (6) spaces, which the City will be able to use to provide parking in an
appropriate location within the Aspen Area.
We have reviewed the City's zoning maps and it does not appear that this property is within
any designated view plane.
B. Special Review for Parking
We have been advised that Section 26.28.150 E of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, which
establishes the off-street parking standard for residential uses in the Commercial (C-1) zone
district, is being amended. The amended standard will require 1 space per bedroom to be
provided, not to exceed 2 spaces per unit. The off-street parking requirement for all other
uses (that is, commercial and office uses) is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The required parking
for all other uses may be provided via a payment in lieu, pursuant to special review. Section
26.32.010 B. states that parking for affordable housing is also established by special review.
At the present time, there are four (4) off-street parking spaces provided for the movie
theaters. These parking spaces are located off the alley and are signed "for employees of
Stage 3 Theaters only".
Two (2) off-street parking spaces are required to be provided for the proposed free market
dwelling unit. However, because this property is already developed and is largely covered
by the existing building footprint, it is not possible to provide additional parking on -site. In
fact, as the proposed site plan illustrates, in order for the Applicant to accommodate the
request by the City Engineering Department to move the trash dumpsters out of the alley
and onto our property, we must re -arrange the existing parking just to retain four (4) spaces
on -site. The site plan shows that we propose to have three (3) spaces along the alley and
one (1) space in a tandem configuration, in order to make room for the dumpsters, while
also preserving those areas at the rear of the building that qualify as open space.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 22
We make the following proposals with respect to off-street parking:
First, we request that we be permitted to make a cash -in -lieu payment to replace the existing
four (4) parking spaces that are attributed to the commercial use of the property. As noted
above, the Land Use Regulations permit off-street parking for "all other uses" to be provided
via a cash -in -lieu payment, at the discretion of the Commission. We propose to remove the
obligation that these spaces be used for commercial purposes, so they can be freed -up to
meet the needs of the residents of the proposed dwelling units.
Second, we propose to use the four (4) existing spaces on the property as parking for the
proposed dwelling units. To ensure that we comply with the standards of the Land Use
Regulations, we request that we be considered to be providing two (2) spaces for the free
market unit and two (2) spaces for the affordable housing units. Any additional parking
requirements established by the Commission for the affordable housing units will be met via
a cash -in -lieu payment, as described below. However, in reality, since a total of four (4)
units are proposed to be developed, our intention is to designate one (1) space for each of
the proposed dwelling units.
Third, since two (2) of the proposed dwelling units on the property will contain three (3) or
more bedrooms, we agree to provide a second space for each of those units, via a cash -in -
lieu payment. Therefore, in sum, we will be providing a cash -in -lieu payment of $90,000, for
six (6) parking spaces and will also be providing four (4) parking spaces on -site, one (1) for
each proposed dwelling unit.
Section 26.64.040 B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides that whenever the off-
street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or
mitigation by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests
and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -
street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown
area and any special services, such as vans, provided for the residents, guests and
employees.
In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that parking be
provided on -site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the
applicant to place parking on -site and whether the City has plans for a parking facility
which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would
location of the parking on -site.
Response: It is not practical for the Applicant to provide parking on this site. Given the
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 23
4P r
footprint of the existing movie theaters, there is simply no room on the site to expand the
existing parking. The only way we could provide additional parking on -site would be in a
sub -grade structure, that would require us to fully re -develop this property. We think such
a requirement would be contrary to community needs, because it is very unlikely that movie
theaters could be economically re -developed, given property values and commercial rental
rates in the downtown area. That type of development would also make it difficult for us
to afford to develop the ambitious affordable housing program our current project contains.
It would also not be appropriate for the City to require additional parking on this site
because it could attract more patrons to drive to the theaters. Given the downtown location
of the theaters, the City is better served by encouraging pedestrian and transit traffic.
The parking needs of residents will, however, be well served by this proposal, which
designates one (1) parking space for each of the four (4) dwelling units. This arrangement
will ensure that residents can store their cars on -site.
2. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirement may be provided via a
payment -in -lieu, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment to the City, in the
amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per space. Approval of the payment -in -lieu
shall be at the option of the Commission.
Response: We hereby commit to payment of $90,000 as the in -lieu fee for six (6) parking
spaces. Payment will be made at the time of building permit approval for the project.
C. Special Review for Trash/Utility Area
According to Section 26.28.150 D.6 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, there is no
requirement for a rear yard in the Commercial (C-1) zone district, except that a trash/utility
service area is required abutting the alley. The dimensions of the trash/utility area are a
minimum of twenty (20) feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, ten (10) feet in depth
and ten (10) feet of vertical clearance. The required minimum length parallel to the alley
increases for buildings containing more than 6,000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area.
However, the dimensions may be reduced by special review.
Currently, there is not a designated trash/utility service area on the site. This building was
developed prior to the adoption of this standard by the City and the building was not
required to be altered to meet this standard when it was remodeled about 10 years ago.
Given the internal arrangement of the building, it is not possible to create such an area
within the building footprint. Therefore, we have contacted BFI to work with them to design
a trash/utility that will be functional, within the constraints of this property. The area that
we propose is shown alongside the western edge of the building, and has dimensions of four
(4) feet wide (along the alley) by twenty (20) feet long.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 24
Section 26.64.040 C. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides that whenever the special
review is for the reduction of the dimensions of a utility/trash area, the development
application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and
its total square footage, the utilityltrash service area proposed to be provided will be
adequate.
Response: A letter has been provided by BFI, attached as Exhibit #4, addressing the utility/
trash area we propose. The letter states that they are confident they can service the building
with the, two (2) or three (3) yard dumpsters that will fit within the area we have set aside
for trash containers, and that there will be enough room within the designated trash area to
locate recycling containers that will reduce the volume of waste that needs to be disposed
of. The ground floor plan shows there is room for two (2) dumpsters and recycling bins.
2. Access to the trash/utility area is adequate.
Response: BFI has reviewed our plans and agrees that access to the area meets their needs.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash
personnel.
Response: The trash bins will be enclosed on three sides and will be covered.
4. Wizen appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed
development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other
developments on the block.
Response: Trash compaction will not be necessary to serve this site. Providing recycling bins
will, however, reduce the amount of trash that goes into the dumpsters and to the landfill.
S. The area for utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement
of utilities.
Response: As the improvements survey illustrates, there is an existing electric transformer
located at the eastern edge of property. We do not anticipate that any utility pedestals need
to be moved into the service area. The building's utility meters are located at the rear of
the building and will remain in this location, which will be underneath the proposed stairs.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area.
Response: No additional construction will be necessary for access to be provided to the
utility/trash area.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 25
4P
�i
V. CONCLUSION
The applicant has responded to all criteria of the Aspen Land Use Regulations applicable
to the project, pursuant to direction given by the Community Development Department and
other City staff during pre -application meetings. Sufficient evidence has been provided of
the project's compliance with said criteria, and the applicant has made commitments in order
to ensure that the proposed development will mitigate all of its development impacts.
Requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the
statements made herein will receive our response in a positive, timely manner.
Stage 3 Penthouses - Application for Residential GMQS Allotment Page 26
EXHIBITS
rA LOAN POLICY - 10-17.92,E
EXHIBIT #1
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CON-
TAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a Texas corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule
A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred
by the insured by reason of:
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
3. Unmarketability of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land;
5. The invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage upon the title;
6. The priority of any lien or encumbrance over the lien of the insured mortgage;
7. Lack of priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material:
(a) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for or commenced prior to Date of Policy; or
(b) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for or commenced subsequent to Date of Pol-
icy and which is financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at
Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance,-.,,
8. The invalidity or unenforceability of any assignment of the insured mortgage, provided the assignment is shown in Schedule A,
or the failure of the assignment shown in Schedule A to vest We to the insured mortgage in the named insured assignee free
and clear of all liens.
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title or the lien of the insured mort-
gage, as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
In witness whereof, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers
as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COKFANY
ALI; � � f - �,.. � �, -
Chairman of the Boar
Countersigned
AuthorizedSignatory
Company
City, State
C : .�. ''•. py5
A- 1 go 8 •?o
Ex A S�0 ,
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting,
regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement
now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land
is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the
extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the
land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,
lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from
coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
Page lor M_9994. 708842
Policy
Serial No_
ALTA LOAN POLICY
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 00021366
Date of Policy: October 18, 1994 at 12:59 P.M.
Amount of Insurance: $ 853, 000. 00
Name of Insured:
NORWEST BANK OF ASPEN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Policy NO.: M-9994-708842
Loan No.:
The estate or interest in the land which is encumbered by the insured mortgage is:
FEE SIMPLE
Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in:
CARISCH BROTHERS, A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The insured mortgage and assignments thereof, if any, are described as follows:
A Deed of Trust dated October 6, 1994, executed by Carisch
Brothers, a Minnesota General Partnership, to the Public Trustee of
Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $853,000.00, in favor
Of Norwest Bank of Aspen, National Association, recorded October
18, 1994 in Book 764 at Page 708 as Reception No. 375434.
The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
LOTS E, F, G AND THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT D, BLOCK 98, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ; AND
LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 29, EAST
ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
1
LTA LOAN POLICY
Order Number: 00021366
SCHEDULE B -- Pan I
Policy No.: M-9994-708842
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses)
which arise by reason of.-
Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies
taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may
result in taxes or assessments.
Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained
by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct
survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance
thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of
the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book
139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156.
Right of way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the
United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in
Book 185 at Page 69 as Reception No. 106874 for East Aspen Additional Townsite.
Easements as set forth in instrument to Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph
Company, The City of Aspen and Micro Cable Communications, Inc., recorded June
15, 1976 in Book 313 at Page 263 as Reception No. 184649.
Encroachments of building, planters and concrete overhang into the right of way
of Main Street and of building into the right of way of the alley as shown on
the survey certified by Alpine Surveys, Inc. on March 21, 2985 as Job No. 85-18.
Rights of way of Electrical Transformer and Telephone and Television Fixtures
as shown on the survey certified by Alpine Surveys, Inc. on March 22, 1985 as
Job No. 85-18.
Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Encroachment Agreement
recorded January 17, 1986 in Book 503 at Page 631 as Reception No. 274910.
Lease between Carisch Brothers, lessor, and Excellence Theatres Corporation,
lessee, recorded July 25, 1988 in Book 569 at Page 375 as Reception No. 302330
and Assignment and Assumption of Lease as set forth in instrument recorded
Continued on next page
I
Continuation of Schedule B - ALTA Loan Policy
Policy Number: M-9994-708842
September 16, 1991 in Book 656 at Page 702 as Reception No. 336496 and
Assignment and Assumption of Lease as set forth in instrument recorded
September 16, 1991 in Book 656 at Page 709 as Reception No. 336497.
Mr. Stan Clauson, Aspen
Aspen/Pitkin Community
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Go
ATTACHMENT #2
CARISCH INC.
641 EAST LAKE STREET
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391-1794
6124734291
Community Development Director
Development Department
RE: APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT
Dear Stan,
I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative
with respect to the land use applications being submitted to your office for the Stage 3
Theaters Building. Alan Richman is authorized to submit an application for a residential
GMQS allotment and to submit applications for the other land use reviews associated with
that development. He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City of Aspen
staff, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application,
please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number
is included in the land development application.
Sincerely,
eorge Carisch
4P EXHIBIT #3 4F A
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE:
September 25, 1996
PROJECT: Stage 3 Theaters
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Gibson Phone/Fax: 925-5968/925-5993
OWNER: George Carisch
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Residential GMQS (November 1 application deadline), GMQS Exemption
for Affordable Housing, Special Review to Increase FAR and for Parking
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Applicant proposes to construct residential dwelling
units above the existing theater building, which is located in the C-1 zone district. 1300 sf of floor area is
available. Allowed FAR maybe increased from 1:1 to 1.5:1 by Special Review. If FAR is increased, then
60% of additional floor area approved for residential use must be restricted to affordable housing. The
remaining 40% of additional floor area is proposed to be used to create free market dwelling unit.
Applicant must compete through GMQS for these residential units. The affordable units may be exempted
from GMQS by City Council.
Land Use Code Sections to be addressed:
26.100.050(C)(3)(b), GMQS Exemption by City Council for affordable housing
26.100.080, Residential GMQS Scoring Criteria
26.64.040(A), Special Review to increase allowed FAR
26.64.040(B), Special Review for Parking
26.58, Residential Design Standards (request exemption)
Review by: Growth Management Commission and City Council
GMC
GMQS Scoring*
Special Review
* Public Hearing
Council
Acceptance of GMQS Scores
(by Resolution - 1 meeting)
GMQS Exemption
(by Ordinance - 2 readings)
BOCC
Acceptance of GMQS Scores
(by Resolution - 1 meeting)
Referral Agencies: Zoning, Housing, City Engineer, Parks, Aspen Fire, Water, ACSD
Planning Deposit: $2,100
Referral Agency Fees: $160 (Housing) + $260 (Engineer)
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $2,520 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $175/hour)
I0/23 '96 10:14 ID:BFI West e FAX:1-970-945-15 PAGE 2
EXHIBIT #4
October 23, 1996
Stage Three Penthouses
Gibson keno Architects
Attn: Dave Gibson
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Dave
After reviewing your planed improvements we at BFI feel confident that servicing your location
with 2 or 3 yard containers inside the alawc should be no problem. RFI can also provide you with
recycling in the same area to aid in the reduction of waste coming out of your location.
If you have any questions or comments please call me at 945-1300.
Sincerely
Brad Wargo
Account Executive
Western Skilk- of ('oloredo • 37(d) Fiwy. 92 -P.O. Bc+x 947 (R J002) • GlonwtxxJ SpringK, ('01onido 81601
Phone 970-945-1300 • Fax 9711-945-1560
Xna n..` ..-
�4Ca* �telukea..c �CCa!� Secviced
Tex 3613 .i4#m, e4&i4d4 91612 ;V"m 94x (970) 920-1125
November 21, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff,
Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Dear Suzanne,
On November 1, 1996, I submitted a Metro Area Residential GMQS application on behalf
of George Carisch for the Stage 3 Penthouses. Subsequently, on November 14, 1996, I
attended a Development Review Committee meeting at which staff members discussed the
application.
Based on comments made at the meeting by Chuck Roth with regard to the need for a plat
for the property, I again reviewed the Aspen Land Use Regulations. I found that the
definition of "subdivision" in the Regulations includes "Land to be used for condominiums,
apartments or any other multiple -dwelling units, or for time-sharing purposes". Multi -family
dwelling unit is defined as three (3) or more attached dwelling units, or one (1) or more
dwelling units located within an office, retail or service commercial building. Therefore, our
proposal to develop four units above the Stage 3 Theaters is, by definition, subdivision, even
though we do not plan to divide land into separate interests or to carry out any of the
traditional activities associated with a subdivision.
The purpose of this letter is to technically supplement the prior application to address the
review standards for subdivision, found in Section 26.88.040 C. of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
Review Standards
A proposed subdivision is required to comply with the following standards and requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Response: The consistency of the proposed development with the Aspen Area Community
Plan was addressed in considerable detail in the original application.
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
November 21, 1996
Page Two
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
Response: This issue was also addressed in detail in the original application.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Response: This subdivision is an infill project that adds two stories to an existing building in
downtown Aspen. The development does not change land use or circulation patterns in the
area, as no land development will occur (since only air space is being used) and no new
roads are planned. Moreover, most of the immediately surrounding parcels are already fully
developed, so that this proposal should have a negligible affect on future development.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements
of this title.
Response: The subdivision will comply with all applicable requirements of the Regulations.
2. Suitability of Land For Subdivision.
a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development
because of any natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the
health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: No such hazardous or harmful conditions exist on or affect this property.
b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that
cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and
unnecessary public costs.
Response: Not only will this proposal not cause the need for any extension of services, it will,
actually result in greater efficiency of service delivery. By locating new housing downtown,
where all necessary facilities and services are already in place, the project makes more
efficient use of existing infrastructure.
3. Required Improvements.
Response: The improvements listed in this section are those typically required of a land
subdivision. The applicant believes that most of these improvements are not applicable to
this development. Any necessary utility service upgrades on the property will be addressed
as part of the building permit application for the addition to the existing building.
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
November 21, 1996
Page Three
4. Design Standards.
Response: The design standards listed in this section are applicable to a land subdivision an
are not generally relevant to the expansion of an existing building in the downtown area.
5. Affordable Mousing.
Response: As is more fully described in our original application, we are providing affordable
housing that complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Quota System.
The Aspen Area Community Plan sets out a goal that new subdivisions shall provide a
minimum of sixty (60) percent affordable housing. This project exceeds that goal,
considering the following calculations, using the standards of the Land Use Regulations:
Affordable Housing Residents
Free Market Residents
Three bedroom unit: 3.00 Four bedroom unit: 3.00
One bedroom unit: 1.75
Studio unit: 1.25
Total residents: 6.00 Total residents: 3.00
Based on the above summary, 6 of the 9 future residents of the subdivision will be housed
in affordable housing units. This constitutes 67% of the total residents of the project.
6. School Land Dedications.
Response: This newly enacted section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication
of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision, to
ensure that the current level of services to students in the Aspen School District is
maintained. Since the land area of this property is already fully developed, it is clearly not
feasible for the applicant to dedicate land to the School District for school purposes.
Moreover, this property does not represent an appropriate location for such a dedication.
The formula for calculating the payment in lieu for each unit is as follows:
"market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = amount
of cash payment".
The market value of the land means the value of the land at the time of the payment,
excluding the value of any structures on the property. When more than one unit is to be
built, then each unit is assigned its proportionate share of the value of the lot.
•
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
November 21, 1996
Page Four
According to the most current records of the Pitkin County Assessor, the market value of
the subject land (exclusive of improvements) is $1,000,000.
In order to calculate the cash payment for the four proposed units, we must first establish
the proportionate share of the value of the property attributable to each unit. We can do
this by assigning each unit its proportionate share of the total floor area of the building.
This has been accomplished by determining the amount of floor area within each unit and
then assigning the proportionate share of the hallways and common space to each unit. The
resulting calculation is as follows:
Movie Theater:
Free Market Unit:
Affordable 3 Bedroom:
Affordable 1 Bedroom:
Affordable Studio:
Total:
8,500 sq. ft. (56.7%)
3,500 sq. ft. (23.3%)
1,385 sq. ft. ( 9.2%)
893 sq. ft. ( 6.0%)
722 sq. ft. ( 4.8%)
15,000 sq. ft. (100.%)
Considering this assignment of area, the cash -in -lieu formula for each unit is as follows:
Free Market Unit:
$1,000,000 x 0.233 x 0.0248 x 0.33 =
$1,906.87
Affordable 3 Bedroom:
$1,000,000 x 0.092 x 0.0162 x 0.33 =
$ 491.83
Affordable 1 Bedroom:
$1,000,000 x 0.060 x 0.0012 x 0.33 =
$ 23.76
Affordable Studio:
$1,000,000 x 0.048 x 0.0012 x 0.33 =
$ 19.01
Total for four units:
$2,441.47
The applicant agrees to make this payment prior to and on a proportional basis to the
issuance of any building permits for the residential units.
Finally, with respect to the submission contents for subdivision, the applicant agrees to
submit a final plat for the proposed development prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the residential units.
I believe the above addresses all of the standards and requirements for subdivision. Please
let me know if there is anything else you require during the period of staff review.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
A-v&vJ,J
Alan Richman, AICP
b
I996 City OJ' A 5 p e n
O
n
z SI I vor 0 u a e n
a
r Go n d o I a
N
ti
E DURANT AVE
E COOPER AVE
N
O N N
Z
Z Z y
' -' E HYMAN AVE
E HOPKINS AVE
DEAN ST
� J
Z
a Wheel or Op e r a
House a
VI s1 to Center
x n
i ff
ty1 1
N N
E MAIN
-.
ST
C o u n t y
L E
G E
C o u r t h o u s e
Oy
Comm
a
a C o r a
EI avat or
M
t o P a r k i n g
Pay
Par ki ng wi t hi n
Ga r a ge
t�i a
ar ea bI ua
P a
n
Fr ea
h
Ca
Do
001 Par ki ng
Per
� Gr an e
wi t
mi t
P/OC* P a I It
a
P
THIS YAPI DBA III NC 73 A
GRAPHICAL
B EPRBSENTATION OF 7NE
FEATURES
DEPICTED AND IS NOT A
LEGAL
I a C A = 2 5 f l l [
REPRESENT ATI ON. THE
ACCURACY
MAT CHA NOB DB P E NDING ON 7NE
ENLARGEMENT OR REDUCTION.
ST
E DURANT AVE
E COOPER AVE
N
t�z[
O >
Z �^
T
n Z
= N
H
H
E HYMAN AVE
E HOPKINS AVE
N( P a e p c k e
> P a r k
Z N
a
A Z
2
N H
1
E MAIN ST I
3
O y
a
� Z
A
H
E BLEEKER ST
E HALLAM ST
6
•
TABLE 1 - PROPOSED PROJECT OCCUPANCY
Affordable Housing Units
Free Market Units
Three bedroom unit: 3.00 persons
Four bedroom unit: 3.00 persons
One bedroom unit: 1.75 persons
Studio unit: 1.25 persons
Total residents: 6.00 persons
Total residents: 3.00 persons
Percent of total residents = 67%
Percent of total residents = 33%
Total number of units = 3 units
Total number of units = 1 unit
Percent of total units = 75%
Percent of total units = 25%
TABLE 2 - PLANNED USES OF THE PROPERTY
Use
% of Total Project
Local/Visitor Orientation
Movie Theaters
8,500 sq. ft. (57%)
Primarily local; also used by visitors
Affordable Housing
3,000 sq. ft. (20%)
Local
Free Market Housing
1 3,500 sq. ft. (23%)
Visitor
Percentage of total project that will be locally -oriented: 77%
Percentage of total project that will be visitor -oriented: 23%
TABLE 3 - FAR AND HEIGHT OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS
Building
Approx. Building Area/
Lot Area (sq. ft.) = FAR
Height to
Top of Bldg.
Affordable
Housing On -Site?
Hunter Square
12,080/11,000 = 1.1:1
38'
No
KSNO
7,130/4,500 = 1.6:1
45'
Yes
Alpine Bank
17,820/13,500 = 1.32:1
42'
No
Spring St. Condos
6,220/6,000 = 1.03:1
36'
No
Concept 600
41,080/27,000 = 1.52:1
37'
No
•
COMMUNITY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
P.31 Encourage infill development within the existing
urban area so as to preserve open space and rural
areas and allow more employees to live closer to
where they work.
p.18 Give a higher priority to on -site housing in the
commercial core, such as providing additional points
in the Growth Management Quota System.
P.17 Study additional techniques which ... reduce the
anticipated commercial buildout in the Aspen Area
from about 700,000 to 400,000 sq. ft.
P.33 Encourage more incentives for providing affordable
housing on -site in the commercial core. Revise
zone district requirements to promote more on -site
affordable housing on upper levels of buildings for
in -town sites.
0
Dear Suzanne,
Philip H. Rothblum
275 Swan Court
Manhasset, New York 11030
• RECEIVED
A5r'EN ) rl i KIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
July 15,1997
After speaking with you the other day, I re-
considered sending a letter to the P and Z
Commisssion at this time, pending new sub-
mission from Alan Richman.
Aside from the question of parking legality,
it would seem to me that the only way to
satisfy the concerns of the P&Z, your staff
and neighbors would be to reduce the number
and size of proposed units to two Category
2 Studio or One Bedroom units and a mini-
mal free market unit. Construction should
be limited to one story, of 8 foot ceiling
height, set well back from all sides of
the existing building. Redesign of the exis-
ting structure, front and rear, as well as
imaginative design of the new portion should
be required. All four of the garbage dump-
sters now existing in the alley right-of-way
behind Stage 3 should be relocated . No
wood burning fireplace should be permitted.
These are my thoughts which I'd like to
share with you.
Kindly advise me in the event that a new
proposal is submitted so that I can review
and respond to it. We expect to be in the
East until early August at best.
•
FROM
Philip Rothblum
To Suzanne_-W_olff-__ -__ Date May 6, 1 gg7
Subject St,a-g-e-3—Subdj-v -si-Qn--June 10 hearing
Dear Suzanne
Enclosed is a letter in anticipation of
the June 10 meeting,together with a dozen
sets of photo copies for distribution to
the Board members.
Call me at (516) 752-1414 Ext14 in the
event of a need for additional copies.
Kindly call in the event thata postponement
or date change occurs.
--Many t hank - ._f o_r_y o Ur_C_o_QPe rAt1-III_ - —
Item OPP212 Lne Drawing Dw,d. Dalla,. T.... 7526 292 Wh,,IB, G,O.p IIC 1977
•
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager i"
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directal� ��
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Acceptance of 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS Scores and Awarding of One
Allotment to the Stage 3 Penthouses
DATE: July 14, 1997
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the attached
resolution of the Growth Management Commission forwards the 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS
scores for the following application which was submitted for the 1996 competition:
• Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market residence and
three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main Street.
There are two residential allotments available in the Metro Area on an annual basis. Since only one
application was received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
The Growth Management Commission scored the application on June 10, 1997. The application
exceeded the minimum threshold score of three all four of the scoring categories, therefore, the
Commission recommends granting of one allotment to the Stage 3 project. The tally sheet is attached as
Exhibit A to the resolution.
No challenges or appeals of the scoring were received during the required 14 day period following the
scoring.
The Code requires that the Commission's scores be forwarded to and accepted by the Board and Council.
The Growth Management Commission Resolution, which forwards the scores, is attached. The Board
accepted the scores at a regular meeting on June 25. Since the project is located within the City, the City
Council allocates the allotment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council accept the 1996 Metro Area Residential
GMQS scores and grant one allotment to the Stage 3 Penthouses, as provided in the attached Resolution.
A. Growth Management Commission Resolution No. 97-3
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1997
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ACCEPTING THE 1996 METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMEQUOTA
SYSTEM SCORES AND GRANTING ONE ALLOTMENT TO THE STAGE 3 PE '' ,,VOUSES
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1997, the Growth Management Commission (hereafter "Commission")
held a duly noticed public hearing at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to
Growth Management applications.
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the following application for the 1996 Metro Area
Residential GMQS competition:
Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market
residence and three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main
Street.
WHEREAS, there are two Metro Area residential allotments available. Since only one
application was received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
WHEREAS, the Commission scored the application based on the following criteria in Section
26.100.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code (hereafter "Code"):
• Revitalizing the permanent community;
• Providing transportation alternatives;
• Promoting environmentally sustainable development;
• Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
WHEREAS, the Stage 3 Penthouses exceeded the minimum threshold score of three points in
all four of the scoring categories, as evidence in Exhibit A, attached.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(f) of the Code, the Commission's scores
were forwarded to the Council at a regular meeting on July 14, 1997, with a recommendation that the
Council accept the scores.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that it hereby accepts the 1996
Metro Area Residential GMQS scores as recommended by the Growth Management Commission.
•
0
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that it hereby allocates one metro area
residential GMQS allotment to the Stage 3 Penthouses.
APPROVED, on July 14, 1997.
John Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting
held on July 14, 1997,
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
suzannew\aspen\cases\gmgs\stage3 \ccreso. doc
PID 42737-073-32-002
Case 4A77-96
Q
a �
CL
N.n'
rn
Cl)
M
Cl)
s>..
C
M
M
M
U E-•
oq �
� w
O C
M
M
M
M
0
C
� N
` V
N
M
V')
c.
Z
LL
C
cz
cS
M
M
M
C �
cz F'
A
C
O
� O
M
M
M
M
> _
Q V
Cl)
M
M
O
coa)c3
M
E
O
to `
+�
cn
>
>o.
L1
ul
s
U
c
F- y
W y
p
U
C
'+„ ca
C
U C
> E
o
o y
M E
u:U
aQ
a`ci
�ZU
• Exhibit A
•
• Attachment A
RESOLUTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FORWARDING THE 1996 METRO AREA
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM SCORES TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT ONE ALLOTMENT TO THE STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES
Resolution No. 97-3
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1997, the Growth Management Commission (hereafter "Commission")
held a duly noticed public hearing at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to
Growth Management applications.
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the following application for the 1996 Metro Area
Residential GMQS competition:
Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market
residence and three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main
Street.
WHEREAS, Stage 3 Theaters is located at 625 E. Main St., and is described as Lots E, F and G
and the east 10' of Lot D. Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen.
WHEREAS, there are two Metro Area residential allotments available. Since only one
application was received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
WHEREAS, the Commission scored the application based on the following scoring criteria in
Section 26.100.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code:
• Revitalizing the permanent community;
• Providing transportation alternatives;
• Promoting environmentally sustainable development;
• Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
WHEREAS, the application exceeded the minimum threshold score of three in all four of the
scoring categories, and is, therefore, eligible to be granted one metro area residential GMQS allotment.
The Commission's scores are attached as Exhibit A.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it hereby forwards the 1996
Metro Area Residential GMQS scores to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners for their
acceptance, as required by Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends that the Council grant
one Metro Area Residential GMQS allotment to the Stage 3 project.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 10th day of June, 1997.
Attest:
(�ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
1
David Hoefer, Assistant C Attorney
suzannew\aspen\cases\gmgs\stage3\gmcreso3 . doc
PID #2737-073-32-002
Case 4A77-96
Growth Management Commission:
Sara Garton, Chair
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - June 25, 1997
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner M
RE: Forwarding and Acceptance of 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS Scores
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 4-60.65(B)(3)(g) of the Land Use Code, the attached resolution of the
Growth Management Commission forwards the 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS scores for the
following application which was submitted for the 1996 competition:
• Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market residence and
three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main Street.
There are two residential allotments available in the Metro Area on an annual basis. Since only one
application was received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
The Growth Management Commission scored the application on June 10, 1997. Two scoring rounds
were conducted. In the final scoring round, the application exceeded the minimum threshold score of
three in all four of the scoring categories, therefore, the Commission recommends granting of one
allotment to the Stage 3 project.
The Code requires that the the Board and Council accept the scores. The City Council will allocate the
allotment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the 1996 Metro Area Residential
GMQS scores as provided in the attached Resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, ACCEPTING THE 1996 METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM SCORES
Resolution No. 97-
On June 10, 1997, the Growth Management Commission (hereafter "Commission") held a duly
noticed public hearing at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to Growth
Management applications.
2. The Commission reviewed the following application for the 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS
competition:
Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market
residence and three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main
Street.
There are two Metro Area residential allotments available. Since only one application was
received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
4. The Commission scored the application based on the following criteria in Section 3-160.50 of
the Land Use Code (hereafter "Code"):
• Revitalizing the permanent community;
• Providing transportation alternatives;
• Promoting environmentally sustainable development;
• Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
Pursuant to Section 4-60.65(B)(3)(g) of the Code, the Commission's scores were forwarded to
the Board at a regular meeting on June 25, 1997, with a recommendation that the Board accept the scores
as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it hereby accepts the 1996 Metro
Area Residential GMQS scores as recommended by the Growth Management Commission.
RESOLUTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FORWARDING THE 1996 METRO AREA
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM SCORES TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Resolution No. 97-
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1997, the Growth Management Commission (hereafter "Commission")
held a duly noticed public hearing at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to
Growth Management applications.
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the following application for the 1996 Metro Area
Residential GMQS competition:
Stage 3 Penthouses: requesting one residential allotment to construct a free market
residence and three affordable housing units above the existing Stage 3 Theaters on Main
Street.
WHEREAS, Stage 3 Theaters is located at 625 E. Main St., and is described as Lots E, F and G
and the east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen.
WHEREAS, there are two Metro Area residential allotments available. Since only one
application was received, there was no competition for the 1996 allotments.
WHEREAS, the Commission scored the application based on the following scoring criteria in
Section 26.100.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code:
• Revitalizing the permanent community;
• Providing transportation alternatives;
• Promoting environmentally sustainable development;
• Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
WHEREAS, the application exceeded the minimum threshold score of three in all four of the
scoring categories, and is, therefore, eligible to be granted one metro area residential GMQS allotment.
The Commission's scores are attached as Exhibit A.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it hereby forwards the 1996
Metro Area Residential GMQS scores to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners for their
acceptance, as required by Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends that the Council grant
one Metro Area Residential GMQS allotment to the Stage 3 project.
Attest:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 1 Oth day of June, 1997.
Growth Management Commission:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chair
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
suzannew\aspen\cases\gmgs\stage3\gmcreso3. doc
PID #2737-073-32-002
Case #A77-96
Resolution No. 97- •
Page 2
APPROVED on the 25th day of June, 1997.
.ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Ikmu-t �L%,�' �,,j L.1j._
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
suzannew\aspen\cases\gmgs\stage3 \boccreso. doc
PID #2737-073-32-002
Case #A77-96
E
BOARD OF COUNTY CONMUSSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
L0
Bill Tuite, Chairman
John Ely
County Attorney
on
L�
rf1
f!1
Q%
ff1
r!1
f'1
M
Lr
Q)
4) Cd
ffl
f1
ffl
ffl
a �
a�
� a
•� i
U F"
on
I.�r•�
1--1
cc
N N
U {CA,.
Vl
ffl
Vl
�'
Q�
f�i o
cd
d'
frl
f'1
cl'
:%)
GCi f"
Q%
� U
Q
?1
c
o
Cd
E
°''
o
r-o
a
a
°;
coct
4
aq
W
Q U
'
�" a
0
o'
.�
C �+
co
•O
U 7
M E
-
o
wU
CL4
U
0
LAW OFFICES
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE 201
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 THOMAS C. HILL RECEIVED TELEPHONE
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., P.C. (970) 963-3900
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. III L (�p7 FACSIMILE
THOMAS L. ADKISON J U N 1 p 1997 7/ (970) 963-3131
ASPEN / PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
June 13, 1997
David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Stage 3 Parking Requirements
Dear Dave:
I would like to request further consideration of the off-street parking requirements applicable to
the Stage 3 development proposal. It appears that there are 3 chapters of the Code to be read
together to determine those parking requirements.
The first is the general off-street parking requirements found in Chapter 26.32. There are three
requirements in that chapter that appear to constrain the proposed project. The first is
26.32.010C., where the last sentence states that "If existing development is expanded, additional
off-street parking space shall be provided for that increment of the expansion as if it is separate
development" The Obvious intent of that provision is to prevent development expansions from
exacerbating the existing parking problem. Since Stage 3 is an existing development which is
being expanded, the quoted sentence requires that additional off-street parking space shall be
provided for that increment of the expansion as if it was for a separate development. While the
Planning Commission has the power under special review by 26.32.01013. to "establish" ( perhaps
even waive) parking for the affordable housing units, they do not have such authority for the free-
market unit. Therefore, additional parking spaces must be provided for the free-market unit in
addition to any parking that is already on site. The existing application does not propose to satisfy
this requirement. Given the constraints of the site, the proposal to add a free-market residential
unit and its required additional parking might require either that they modify the existing building
footprint to create those additional parking spaces (or eliminate the free-market unit).
•
David Hoefer
June 13, 1997
Page 2
In a discussion with Alan Richman after the recent P&Z meeting, he stated that he was providing
the residential parking on site and that he was satisfying the commercial parking requirements by
the payments in lieu. I responded that his development expansion isn't corninercial space and
"that increment of the expansion" for which "additional off-street parking shall be provided" is
the free-market unit, not the existing commercial space, and that applicant is required to provide
"additional" off-street parking for "that increment of the expansion" (i.e., the free-market unit)
and he wasn't doing so. I have found no authority in the Code for the proposal to "convert" the
existing commercial parking into residential and compensate for the conversion by payments in
lieu.
Another subsection of that chapter which appears to constrian this application is 26.32.020A,
which imposes the requirement, in the second sentence of that paragraph, that "Each parking
space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have
an unobstructed access to a street or alley." This proposal includes a parking space without
unobstructed access and which would require the removal of two other cars in order for the
interior parking space to be utilized. The next sentence of that subparagraph makes an exception
for multi -family dwellings which do not share a common parking area and allows those type of
parking areas to be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement by special review.
However, since this proposal does share a common parking area, the discretionary exemption is
not applicable to this application.
The third section of that chapter which appears applicable to this application is paragraph
26.32.020B. The second sentence of that paragraph provides that "Off-street parking for any
residential dwelling, hospital, school or other use located in a residential zone shall be located on
the same site as the principal use." Of course, this application is proposing that some of the
employee housing parking be waived under special review and then compensated for by payments
in lieu, which is obviously not on site. Further, payments in lieu are not allowed for residential
parking in the C-1 zone district. Payments in lieu in the C-1 zone district are only allowed for
uses other than residential.
I recognize that one could argue that the quoted sentence might have the phrase "in a residential
zone district" as a modifier to all of the proposed uses, thereby limiting the applicability of the
requirement to only a residential zone district. However, that interpretation of the sentence is not
logical, since hospitals are not allowed in any residential zone districts at all, even by special
review. Therefore, that phrase "in a residential zone district" can not be intended to modify all
the uses listed, but only applies to an "other use" located in a residential zone district.
The second chapter defining parking requirements applicable to the Stage 3 proposal is the C-1
zone district. regulations, found at 26.28.150E., which states that "The following off-street
parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the C-1 zone district, subject to the provisions
of Chapter 26.32." Note the specific cross reference to Chapter 26.32 discussed above. The C-1
1 0 0
David Hoefer
June 13, 1997
Page 3
residential use parking requirements have been amended by Ordinance 38 of 1996 from one space
per bedroom to two spaces per dwelling unit, unless it is a studio or one bedroom, in which case
one space is required. Therefore. two additional parking spaces are required to be added on -site
for the free market unit. Subparagraph 3 of subsection E states that other uses (besides residential
and lodge uses) may be provided by a payment in lieu. However, payments in lieu cannot satisfy
the residential parking requirements which the Stage 3 application proposes to do for employee
housing unit parking.
The third chapter defining parking requirements applicable to the Stage 3 proposal is the Special
Review provisions in section 26.64.040B. This section provides a subjective standard that
whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to
establishment (such as for the affordable housing units) and/or mitigation by a payment in lieu by
special review (which is not allowed for residential parking in C-1), then it shall only be approved
if the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees have been met. The
Community Development staff memo noted the parking needs for this development have not been
met.
In sum, it appears that the first sentence discussed above, found in section 26.32.010C. is a
controlling requirement for this application and that the applicant should be required to provide
additional off-street parking for that increment of the expansion (i.e., at least the two additional
parking spaces for the free-market residential unit) in addition to all existing parking. I am not
aware of and would appreciate being advised of any authority in the Code to avoid that
requirement, as Stage 3 proposes to do, by reducing and converting the existing commercial
parking to residential and compensating for that reduction and conversion by payments in lieu.
I would appreciate your analysis of these Code requirements and, if I have missed some provision
or have misinterpreted these requirements, I would appreciate being referred to any such
overlooked section of the Code or other basis upon which this application would comply with the
Code parking requirements.
Very truly yours,
HILL, EDWARDSFDWARDS & AWSON, L.L.C.
Joseph E. VAwArds, Jr.
cc: Concept 600 Board of Managers
Suzanne Wolff
concept\ 1 hoefer.01
• 4:00 PM - Ordinance 30 Discussion and Slide Presentation - Library
AGENDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997, 5:00 PM
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Stage 3 Metro Residential GMQS Scoring, Suzanne Wolff
II. ADJOURN
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION
Immediately Following Growth Management Meeting
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stage 3 Special Review and Subdivision, Suzanne Wolff
IV. ADJOURN
0 0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: STAGE 3 METRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 10, 1996 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, Sister Cities Meeting
Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to rescore the Stage 3 application which was received
for the 1996 metro residential GMQS competition.. The application was remanded to the
Commission by the joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners for rescoring.
The applicant, George Carisch, 641 E. Lake Street, Wayzata, MN 55391-4291, is
requesting one metro residential GMQS allotment to permit the construction of one new
free market unit above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen. Associated approvals are requested
for Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units and Special Review
to increase the allowable FAR, to establish the required parking, and to reduce the required
trash service area. The property is located at 625 East Main Street, and is described as Lots
E, F, and G and the east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen.
For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Growth Management Commission
Publisliccl in the Aspen Times on May 10, 1997
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION & SPECIAL
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 10, 1997 at a
meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. (or immediately following the Growth Management Commission's
meeting) before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by George Carisch, 641 E.
Lake Street, Wayzata, MN 55391-4291, requesting the following land use approvals:
• Subdivision approval to construct one free market and 3 affordable dwelling units above the
existing theatres;
• GMQS Exemption for the affordable units;
• Special Review to increase the allowable FAR, to establish the required parking and to reduce
the required trash area; and
The applicant is also requesting one metro area residential GMQS allotment, which will be
considered by the Growth Management Commission.
The property is located at 625 East Main Street, and is described as Lots E, F, and G and the east
10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Suzanne
Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
(970) 920-5093.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 10, 1997
City of Aspen Account
• 4:00 PM - Ordinance 30 Discussion and Slide Presentation - Library
AGENDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997, 5:00 PM
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Stage 3 Metro Residential GMQS Scoring, Suzanne Wolff
II. ADJOURN
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION
Immediately Following Growth Management Meeting
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stage 3 Special Review and Subdivision, Suzanne Wolff
IV. ADJOURN
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: June 4, 1997
6/17 - Planning & Zoning (4:30)
Discussion Item: AACP
303 S. Cleveland, Landmark (AA)
Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility Special Review/Conditional Use/Rezoning/Final PUD (CB)
6/17 - Growth Management Commission (5:00) (Council Chambers)
Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility Exemption for Affordable Housing & Essential Public Facilities
(CB)
6/24 - Worksession with City Council
7/1 - Planning & Zoning
Historic Landmark Code Amendment (AA)
303 S. Cleveland - Landmark (AA)
Marten Conditional Use for ADU & Residential Design Waiver (CB)
R
4
aQi
C
❑
O
ro 1co
y
y
`°
s
a
N
Ci
O
a.
a
O y
to -0 cC
rn
>
.r
_
y
w
s
cl
C O
rs;U
>
aQ
A
a.V)
�ZU
E
7
�r
C�
o
NJ
c
c
Cd
c
� c
a�
a
o
d.
o 0
V
on L
>
c p
s
� U
a0 >
_ cC
j
i.
O
E }d
O N
at czn
c O
r c
0
ip
I
PROJECT: Stage 3 Penthouses
COMMISSIONER:
1. Revitalizing the permanent community
INITIAL SCORE:
FINAL SCORE:
2. Providing transportation alternatives
INITIAL SCORE:
FINAL SCORE:
3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development
INITIAL SCORE:
FINAL SCORE:
4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character
INITIAL SCORE:
FINAL SCORE:
INITIAL TOTAL:
FINAL TOTAL:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Growth Management Commission
i
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Develo ent D1ir'ector
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director N
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner V -
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Metro Residential GMQS Application - Public Hearing
DATE: June 10, 1997
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting one metro area residential GMQS allotment to develop one free
market dwelling unit above the Stage 3 Theaters. The application packet is attached as Exhibit D.
Associated reviews which will be separately considered by the Aspen Planning Commission and the City
Council following scoring include:
GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units;
Special Review to increase the maximum allowable floor area from 1:1 to 1.5:1, to establish the parking
requirement, and to reduce the dimensions of the required trash/utility service area; and
Subdivision to develop dwelling units within a commercial building.
No other applications were received for 1996 metro area residential GMQS allotments.
The application was originally scored by the Growth Management Commission on January 14, 1997. The
application did not receive the minimum threshold score of three in one of the scoring categories, therefore,
the allocation was denied. The applicant appealed the Commission's scoring, based on a denial of due
process; specifically that the scoring procedure in Section 26.100.060(C)(3) of the Code was not followed.
The joint City Council and Board of County Commissioners considered the appeal on March 11, 1997, and
determined that the applicant had been denied due process. The joint Council/Board overturned the scoring
and remanded the application to the Growth Management Commission for rescoring.
APPLICANT: George Carisch, represented by Alan Richman & Dave Gibson
LOCATION: 625 E. Main St.; Lots E, F and G and the east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of
Aspen
ZONING: C-1, Commercial
LOT SIZE: 10,000 square feet
BACKGROUND: The Playhouse Theater was constructed on this site in 1973. The theater was
remodeled in 1985 to accommodate three theaters.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Parks, Housing and Engineering Departments, and the
Fire Marshal are attached as Exhibit C. These comments have been included in staffs responses to the
GMQS scoring criteria, where applicable.
SCORING AND RECOMMENDATION: Staffs scoring of the project is attached as Exhibit A and the
scoring procedures are attached as Exhibit B. Staff has given the project a total score of 12, which meets
the requirement that an application must receive a score of at least three points for each of the four growth
management scoring criteria in order to receive a development allotment. If the Commission scores the
application at or above the threshold, granting of the allotment will be contingent upon approval of the
associated reviews by the Aspen Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommends that the
Commission find that the project meets the threshold standards and that a development allotment be
approved for Stage 3.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward the Growth Management Commission's scores for the
1996 Metro Residential GMQS competition for the Stage 3 development to the City Council and the Board
of County Commissioners."
Exhibits:
A. Staff's scoring
B. Scoring procedures
C. Referral comments
D. Application packet
2
EXHIBIT A
STAFF SCORE SHEET
STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES - METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GMOS
Scorine: Points shall be awarded for performance relative to each of the four scoring criteria. Possible
scores for each criterion shall range from zero, the lowest possible score, to five, the highest possible
score. It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage when scored against
large-scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects be evaluated according to reasonable
expectations regarding what could be expected given their size and scale. A score of zero shall be
awarded to projects that, although they had the opportunity to comply with scoring criteria and had the
ability to advance stated community goals, will actually contribute nothing to implementation of the
articulated vision and may, in fact, move the community further away from its stated goals. A score of
three indicates that a project will move the community closer toward attainment of its stated visions and
make a positive contribution toward the implementation of articulated goals. A score of five indicates
that a project demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to the stated visions of the community and will result
in significant movement toward implementation of those goals. Other scores along the continuum from
zero to five will be awarded based on the degree to which projects will implement stated goals. No
growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at
least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of Pitkin County Land Use Code
Sections 3-160.50-C.1, 3-160.50-C.2, 3-160.50-C.3 and 3-160.50-C.4, or of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code Sections 26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3), and 26.100.080(C)(4).
1. Revitalizing the permanent community: Residents of the Aspen area have long recognized the
need to preserve the community's character and identity as more than just a resort, a collection of second
homes and a tourist shopping mecca. They recognize that a "critical mass" of permanent residents and
local serving -businesses is necessary to make any community function. They recognize, too, that the
vitality brought to the Aspen area by full-time residents is being seriously diluted by the inability of
working people to live in their own community.
As a result of these concerns, one of the community's central goals is to create a community with
a size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and vitality and one that provides
opportunities for its workers to become a permanent part of the social fabric.
There are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of revitalizing the
permanent community, including, but not limited to the following:
a. providing high -quality, on -site, affordable housing for permanent residents;
b. providing site appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing for efficient
provision of services such as transit and discourages site planning that isolates affordable and free market
units;
C. providing a housing package consistent with the Housing Authority Guidelines with an
emphasis on family -oriented housing where and when appropriate;
d. creating affordable dwelling units through buy -downs or conversion of existing free
market units; and
e. providing "locally serving commercial space/businesses."
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to provide three affordable housing units: a studio, a
one -bedroom, and a three bedroom. The location of the units on Main St. creates opportunities for
working residents to live in -town, and hopefully discourages them from using automobiles. Also,
providing a mix of unit types addresses various housing needs.
The units meet or exceed the specifications of the Affordable Housing Guidelines: all three units exceed
the minimum net livable square footage standards for Category 3 units, have additional storage space and
decks, contain their own laundry facilities, and are located fully above ground to provide natural light into
the units. The units all face Main St., and do not have any windows with southern exposure. The applicant
proposes to rent the units and to deed restrict them as Category 3 units.
The project is consistent with the following standards and goals of the AACP:
• "encourage infill development within the existing urban area",
• "mix free market and affordable housing", and
• "increase the use of upper floors of commercial buildings to provide affordable housing on -site in the
commercial core"
The project also maintains a local -serving commercial use, and reduces the amount of potential commercial
buildout in the downtown area.
PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
2. Providing transportation alternatives: Residents recognize that reducing dependency on the
automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. Their plan is so bold as to
envision a time in the not -too -distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving
people in and around the community. They are seeking a balanced, integrated transportation system for
residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. These are a variety of
ways in which a project might address the goal of providing transportation alternatives, including, but
not limited to the following:
a. reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation;
b. facilitating and encouraging year-round pedestrian transportation;
C. helping to implement a valley -wide mass transit system;
d. providing needed improvements to the existing RFTA system;
e. increasing the number of available transportation choices;
f. creating a less congested downtown core;
g. helping to implement the transportation planning policies of the AACP and the Aspen to
Snowmass transportation plan;
h. altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a more efficient and
effective transit system;
i. creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails, walkways or bikeway facilities
that are consistent with the goals of the AACP and associated plans, such as the pedestrian/bikeway plan;
j. locating developments near transit facilities;
k. providing on -going transportation to and from the airport, ski areas and shopping areas;
I. providing on -going employee transportation services such as van pools or buses at no
cost to employees;
m. providing bicycle parking, showers and lockers for employees; and
n. providing secure bicycle storage for guests and employees.
2
STAFF COMMENTS: As an infill project which is creating affordable housing in -town, this project
automatically contributes to the goal of providing transportation alternatives. Residents can easily walk,
ride bikes, or take the bus to work, shop or recreate, which will create less congestion in the downtown
core and lessen air pollution caused by vehicle traffic. Limited parking should also serve as an auto
disincentive; each residential unit will be assigned one on -site parking space. The site is constrained by
the existing Stage 3 structure, so the development is unable to provide the required amount of parking
on -site. The applicant proposes to pay a $90,000 in -lieu fee to mitigate the six spaces that cannot be
provided on -site.
The applicant represents that the proposed residential development will create less traffic than additional
or alternative commercial development on this site.
PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development: Residents of the Aspen area recognize
that the natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets. As a result, they wish to allow
only that development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes individually responsible,
ecological lifestyles. The community seeks to foster a high level of consciousness relative to resource
conservation, wildlife protection and environmental sustainability.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of promoting
environmentally sustainable development, including, but not limited to the following:
a. orienting building sites, streets and other project features in order to maximize potential
for use of solar energy and other renewable energy resources;
b. protecting and preserving existing trees and other mature vegetation during and after the
construction process;
C. using fewer or cleaner wood -burning devices than allowed by law;
d. removing or replacing existing dirty wood -burning devices;
e. increasing community access to natural and open space areas;
f. promoting community recycling efforts;
g. landscaping with low -water -use plant materials and using chemical -free landscape
maintenance techniques-
h. employing measures that reduce PM 10 levels in the non -attainment area;
i. preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during all phases of
development, including types of materials used and future energy and material needs of the project;
j. completely avoiding "1041" hazard areas and ridgeline development;
k. enhancing existing wildlife habitat;
1. completely avoiding 8040 Greenline issues; and
in. completely avoiding Stream Margin Review issues.
STAFF COMMENTS: By developing an infill project, the applicant is not extending the urban area or
removing open space. The existing theater structure will remain, therefore, there will not be additional
impacts on the land. Three existing spruce trees are proposed to be relocated on -site to the existing
garden area. The existing building footprint, combined with the parking and trash requirements, prohibit
the applicant from providing additional open space on the property.
3
•
The applicant proposes to install one wood -burning device. The applicant is making a positive
contribution to air quality by providing one wood -burning device when two could be allowed (Section
13.08.070.d of the City Code allows two "Department certified devices in any single building" which
may include wood -burning devices), however, the applicant could make a stronger commitment by
opting not to have any wood -burning devices.
The applicant represents that recycling bins will be provided on -site, the free-market unit will be
designed to take advantage of passive solar gain, and water -saving plumbing fixtures will be installed.
The applicant states that "the units will be designed to at least meet the requirements of the City's energy
code". The project must comply with the Model Energy Code, but could opt to provide additional
measures in order to exceed the requirements.
PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: �
4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character: Residents
recognize the importance of design within the community's historic setting. It is a vital component of the
community's economic well-being and cultural heritage. They believe that public architecture should
support and enhance community life. Their goal is to ensure maintenance of community character
through design quality and compatibility with historic features.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of maintaining design
quality, historic compatibility and community character, including, but not limited to the following:
a. restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures;
b. improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys for commercial, office
and residential uses;
C. ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed
project, in terms of scale, massing, building materials, fenestration, other architectural features and open
space;
d. including porches or other "pedestrian -friendly" features;
e. retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along main street that maintain
and enhance the special character of the historic district;
f. ensuring the site's useability for social activities.
STAFF COMMENTS: The residential units will be set back from the existing structure in order to
reduce the perceived mass and to step the structure down in scale as it approaches the adjacent structures.
The setback from the existing front facade will also prevent shading on Main St. The table below
summarizes the setbacks from the facades of the existing structure.
4
Setbacks from Facade of Existing Structure
Facade
Proposed
Second Level
Proposed
Third Level
North side (Main St.)
18'
36'
West side
0'
21'
East side
0'
13'
South side (alley)
18'
24'
However, staff feels that the design does not provide variety which would help to break up the mass of
the structure: the additional levels are "boxy" and present flat facades to Main St. and to the alley. Also,
the design does not provide a strong connection between the existing and proposed portions of the
structure. The design is compatible with the surrounding buildings, but does not enhance the area.
The application states that the appearance and function of the alley is being improved by removing trash
containers and locating them on -site, and the pedestrian path along the western edge of the property will
be maintained.
PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
PLANNING STAFF'S TOTAL SCORE: 12
5
C]
EXHIBIT B
Growth Management Commission Scoring Procedure [Section 26.100.060(C)(3)]
a. Each Growth Management Commission member shall assign a whole number score (not
a fractional number) to the project.
b. Following the initial scoring, commission members shall be free to discuss individual
scores and to offer justification for such scores.
C. Following the close of Growth Management Commission discussions regarding initial
scoring, a final scoring round will be held, during which each Growth Management Commission member
shall again identify the number of points, expressed as whole numbers, assigned to the project. Growth
Management Commission members shall be free to revise the number of points awarded to a project
between the preliminary and final scoring rounds.
d. After the close of the final scoring round, a project's final average score shall be
calculated by (1) totaling the commissioners' individual scores and (2) dividing that total by a number
equal to the number of commissioners who participated in the final scoring round. Final average project
scores shall be calculated for each of the four growth management scoring criteria of Sections
26.100.080(C)(1), 26.100.080(C)(2), 26.100.080(C)(3) and 26.100.080(C)(4), and a cumulative score
shall be calculated for the criteria as a whole. The final average cumulative score calculated pursuant to
this provision shall constitute the project's final score.
J
• Exhibit C
MEMO
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Stage 3 Penthouse Parcel ID #2737-073-32-002
Date: November 18, 1996
Suzanne,
This project shall met all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but not limited to the installation of applicable and approved fire sprinker and fire
alarm systems.
Also the trash/utility area shall meet the design criteria (see attached).
Please call me if you have any questions.
&Ed
1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1103.2-1103.3.1
1103.2 Storage and Accumulation of Rubbish and Vegetation.
1103.2.1 Rubbish within and adjacent to buildings and structures.
1103.2.1.1 General. Rubbish kept within or adjacent to buildings or structures shall be in accord-
ance with Section 1103.2.1.
EXCEPTION: Commercial rubbish -handling operations shall be in accordance with Section 1103.2.3.
1103.2.12 Required storage conditions. Combustible rubbish kept or accumulated within or
adjacent to buildings or structures shall be in containers complying with Section 1103.2.1.4 or in
rooms or vaults constructed of noncombustible materials.
1103.2.1.3 Oily rags. Oily rags and similar materials shall be stored in metal. metal-1 ined or other
approved containers equipped with tightfitting covers.
1103.2.1.4 Rubbish containers.
1103.2.1.4.1 General.'Rubbish,containers kept outside of rooms•or vaults shall not exceed•40.5
cubic feet (1.15Im3) capacity. C6ntainers,exceedm" 51/3,cubic feel (40 gallons (Or15 m3)] capacity
shall be con§tructed of noncom'busti le materials nonmetallic or materials complying with Section
1103•:2,.1.4!L. ,� � %_ � 5 % (' �
Containers exceeding 51/3 cubic feet (40 gallons (0.15 m3)] capacity shall be provided with lids.
1103.2.1.4.2 Nonmetallic containers. Nonmetallic rubbish containers exceeding 51/3 cubic feet
[40 gallons (0.15 m3)] capacity shall be manufactured of materials having a peak rate of heat release
not exceeding 300 kW/m2 at a flux of 50 kW/m2 when tested in accordance with nationally recog-
nized standards. See Article 90, Standard a.4.10. Such containers shall be permanently labeled indi-
cating capacity and peak rate of heat release.
1103.2.1.5 Removal. Combustible rubbish stored in containers outside of noncombustible vaults
or rooms shall be removed from buildings at least once each working day.
1103.2.2 Rubbish within dumpsters. Dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of
1.5 cubic yards [40.5 cubic feet (1.15 m3)] or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within
5 feet (1524 mm) of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Areas containing dumpsters or containers protected by an approved automatic spnn-
kler system.
2. Structures of Types I and II fire -resistive construction used for dumpster or container storage located
not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from other buildings.
1103.2.3 Commercial rubbish -handling operations. Occupancies exclusively performing
commercial rubbish handling or recycling shall maintain rubbish or product to be processed or re-
cycled as follows:
1. In approved vaults,
2. In covered metal or metal -lined receptacles or bins, or
3. Completely baled and stacked in an orderly manner in an approved location.
1103 2.4 Combustible vegetation. Cut or uncut weeds, grass, vines and other vegetation shall be
removed when determined by the chief to be a fire hazard. When the chief determines that total
removal of growth is impractical due to size or environmental factors, approved fuel breaks shall be
established. Designated areas shall be cleared of combustible vegetation to establish the fuel
breaks.
11033 Storage, Use and Handling of Miscellaneous Combustible Materials
11033.1 General. Storage, use and handling of miscellaneous combustible materials shall be in
accordance with Section 1103.3.
1-67
CWIBU`.
3 MAIL'
NOV 27 '9--, 11:30AM ASFEN �Ii�I_ISING C,F; P
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: November 27, 1996
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for AH
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-002
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to develop one new free market unit and three new
affordable housing units above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen.
BAC1. The applicant is basing his request on Section 26.100.080 (B)
(Residential GMQS Scodng Criteria, and 26.100.050(C)(3)(b), GMQS Exemption by City
Council for Affordable Housing.
Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(b), states:
Affordable housing. AN afbrdable housing dleed nmh1cled in accordance
with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee,
zhall be eKer+pt iron» the growth management com pedtlan and scoring
procedures by the City Council.
Therefore, the affordable housing section of the application is exempt from scoring.
RE OMMENDAM : The three proposed affordable housing units fall within or exceed
the specifications required by the Guidelines. Each of the units exceeds the minimum net
Wabie square footage standards, will have additional siorage space, will contain their own
laundry facilities, and are located fully above ground to provide natural light into the units.
These units are a good example of employee housing. The Housing Office would
recommend, though, that the units be deed restricted Category 2 as most of the
employees for Stage 3, or a similar operation, earn in the income range of Category 1 or
2.
VeierraRstagslgmq
Memorandum
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department
DATE: November 26, 1996
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing & Special Review
We have reviewed the application submitted for the Stage 3 Penthouses. The only issue
related to Parks are the proposed trees to be relocated to the garden area in the back of
the building. According to the plan these spruce trees are 5 inches in diameter. Five inch
diameter spruce trees are not very small trees. These trees would require a tree removal
permit prior to relocating and it is strongly advised that the trees be evaluated by a tree
mover to get an evaluation of whether the relocation is possible. The Garden area is not
much larger than the size of a parking space and may not accommodate the three trees.
The plans do not show where the original location of the trees are, so it is difficult to
determine whether the trees need to be moved. The tree removal permit must be applied
for prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit. Additionally if the trees are
relocated it is important that they be watered regularly for at least the first year or two. It
may be worth the trouble to install some drip irrigation system for this purpose.
The other comment, not directly related to Parks, but could be a potential problem is the
orientation of the trash area in relation to the parking space. This appears as though it'
could be a conflict with the actual pick up of trash by the trash company. If the parking
area is full and the trash trucks come through early in the morning when cars are most
likely to be parked there from the night before, then the trash truck would be unable to
access the trash bins. The applicant may wish to reconsider the design of this back area
for the trash utility area.
•
•
u I_ u_ I -: ►11 u
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development D' ecto` r�/
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses GMQS Exemption, Special Review & Subdivision - Public Hearing
DATE: June 10, 1997
SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to develop one free market and three affordable dwelling units
above the Stage 3 Theaters. The existing footprint of the structure will not be changed. The following
approvals are requested:
• Metro Area Residential GMQS competition for one residential allotment;
• GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units;
• Special Review to increase the maximum allowable floor area, to establish the parking requirement, and
to reduce the dimensions of the required trash/utility service area; and
• Subdivision to develop dwelling units within a commercial building.
The GMQS scoring criteria are included in a separate memo to the Growth Management Commission. The
application packet is attached as Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: George Carisch, represented by Alan Richman & Dave Gibson
LOCATION: 625 E. Main St.; Lots E, F and G and the east 10' of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of
Aspen
ZONING: C-1, Commercial
LOT SIZE: 10,000 square feet
BACKGROUND: The Playhouse Theater was constructed on this site in 1973. The theater was
remodeled in 1985 to accommodate three theaters.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Parks, Housing and Engineering Departments, and the
Fire Marshal are attached as Exhibit B.
Parks Department: Rebecca Schickling recommends that the trees be evaluated by a tree mover to
determine whether relocation is possible, and whether the area where the trees will be located is adequate to
accommodate the three trees. The trees must be relocated to accommodate the trash service area and to
reconfigure the four parking spaces. A tree removal permit will be required to relocate the three spruce
trees adjacent to the parking area.
Engineering Department: A drainage mitigation plan shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to
issuance of any building permits.
Housing Office: Cindy Christensen states that the three affordable housing units fall within or exceed the
specifications of the Housing Guidelines: all three units exceed the minimum net livable square footage
standards, have additional storage space, contain their own laundry facilities, and are located fully above
ground to provide natural light into the units. Housing originally recommended that the units be deed
restricted as Category 2 units, however, after realizing that the proposed units are not associated with the
theater operation, Housing has agreed with the applicant's proposal to deed restrict the units as Category 3
units.
Fire Marshal: Ed Van Walraven states that the project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the
Aspen Fire Protection District, including, but not limited to, the installation of applicable and approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Also, the trash area shall comply with Section 1103.2.2 of the 1994
Uniform Fire Code with regard to location of dumpsters.
STAFF COMMENTS: Letters from adjacent property owners are included as Exhibit C.
Special Review (Section 26.64.040): Special Review is required for the following:
• To increase the maximum allowable floor area in the C-1 zone district from 1:1 to 1.5:1;
• To establish the parking requirement for affordable housing and to convert the existing commercial
spaces on the property to residential use via a cash -in -lieu payment for the commercial spaces; and
• To reduce the dimensions of the required trash/utility service area.
Floor Area: The applicant proposes to increase the maximum allowable floor area ratio from 1:1 to 1.5:1,
which would allow a total floor area of 15,000 square feet. The C-1 zone district includes a provision that
permits this increase, only if 60% of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to
affordable housing. This provision is only applicable to properties in the C-1 and CC zone districts, and
provides an incentive for the development of affordable housing in the downtown area.
A breakdown of the existing and proposed floor area is provided on page 20 of the application. Of the
additional 5,000 square feet of floor area that is subject to special review, 3,000 square feet is proposed to
be used to develop the affordable housing units, which conforms with the 60% requirement. The
development application shall also meet the following conditions:
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the
proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of
surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on
surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess
traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Response: The maximum allowed height in the C-1 zone district is 40'. The flat roof of the proposed
structure will achieve that maximum height, and the elevator tower and chimney will exceed that height,
as allowed by Code. The existing building height is 20', which represents a two story volume, and the
Fa
surrounding structures range from 2 1/2 to 4 stories in height. In most cases the ridges of adjacent
pitched roofs may achieve 40', but the Concept 600 building is the only structure with a flat roof which
is close to the 40' maximum height limit. Though the lot is not within a designated view plane, the
additional levels will impact the view of Aspen Mountain from some of the Concept 600 units. The
design is sensitive to this fact, in that the upper level does not span the full width of the structure and has
a flat roof. Since a pitched roof is measured differently than a flat roof, the ridge of a pitched roof could
actually exceed the 40' maximum height.
The application states that the existing building contains approximately 8,500 square feet of floor area;
however, the theaters occupy a two-story volume, which is not reflected in FAR calculations. The actual
perceived mass of the existing structures (based on doubling the existing footprint) would be that of an
approximately 14,600 square foot structure. Therefore, in order to allow additional mass, and
specifically, additional floor area, on the site, the design must emphasize breaking up the mass in order
to minimize its appearance and impact on the surrounding area.
The residential units will be set back from the existing structure in order to reduce the perceived mass
and to step the structure down in scale as it approaches the adjacent structures. Setting back the
additional levels from the existing front facade will also prevent shading on Main St. The table below
summarizes the setbacks from the facades of the existing_ structure.
Facade
Setbacks from Facade of Existing Structure
Proposed Proposed
Second Level Third Level
North side (Main St.) 18' 36'
West side 0' 21'
East side 0' 13'
South side (alley) 18' 24'
However, though setting back the additional levels reduces the perceived mass, staff feels that the design
could provide additional variety to help break up the mass of the structure. The additional levels are
"boxy" and present flat facades to Main St. and to the alley, and the design does not provide a strong
connection between the existing and proposed portions of the structure. The design is compatible with
the surrounding buildings, but does not enhance the area.
Staff appreciates the efforts of the applicant to provide high quality affordable units which exceed the
minimum net livable square footages required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines, but is wary of
allowing larger units at the expense of adding additional bulk to the structure. Several neighbors, though
supportive of the applicant's offer to create affordable housing, have expressed their concern with the
mass of the structure and the necessity of "pushing the envelope" or "going to the exceptions"
(increasing the allowed FAR) in order to accommodate the proposed project. Staff questions whether it
is necessary to build out the full 15,000 square feet of floor area in order to accommodate this project.
For comparison, if the affordable units were deed restricted as Category 2 units, then the minimum
required net livable square footages would be reduced, and the size of the units could be reduced. This
would also require a reduction in the proposed square footage of the free market unit (in order to comply
with the requirement that 60% of the additional floor area be restricted to affordable housing), and would
subsequently lessen the mass of the building.
The following table compares the Category 2 and 3 minimum net livable square footages with the
proposed net livable square footage.
Affordable Housing Category 2 - Minimum Category 3 - Minimum Proposed Net Livable
Unit Type Net Livable Square Net Livable Square Square Footage
Footage Required Footage Required
Studio 400 500 613
One Bedroom 600 700 783
Three Bedroom 1,000 1,200 1,275
Total 2,000 2,400 2,671
Since net livable square footage is calculated differently than floor area, it is difficult to convert these
numbers in order to provide a further comparison of the impact of reducing the size of the affordable
units on the allowed floor area of the free market unit. However, it is obvious that the total square
footage would be reduced, and the mass of the structure could also be reduced. Also, the mix of unit
types addresses various housing needs, however, the proposed mix is not a required mix, and a different
mix could require less square footage and create less mass.
Off -Street Parking: To establish the parking requirement for affordable housing and to convert the existing
commercial spaces on the property to residential use via a cash -in -lieu payment for the commercial spaces,
the development application shall meet the following conditions:
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or
mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents,
customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of
the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services,
such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept the
mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on -site, the commission shall take into
consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on -site, whether the parking needs of
the development have been adequately met on -site and whether the city has plans for a parking facility
which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the
parking on -site.
Response: The applicant is unable to meet the off-street parking requirements for the commercial and
residential components of this project. The footprint of the existing structure leaves very limited space in
which to accommodate parking. The existing parking spaces are currently used by employees of the
theaters; no on -site parking is provided for patrons of the theaters.
The applicant proposes to use the four existing parking spaces on -site for the four residential units. In
order to accomodate the trash area on -site as required, the applicant is unable to provide four spaces with
unobstructed access to the alley. Since the Code prohibits stacked parking for separate units, the
applicant proposes to provide two spaces for the free-market unit (including the stacked space) and two
4
spaces for the affordable units, therefore, one of the affordable units, presumably the studio unit, would
be deed -restricted without parking.
The applicant proposes to make a $90,000 cash -in -lieu payment for six parking spaces: to replace the
four spaces which are currently utilized by theater employees and to mitigate for the second parking
space which would be required for the three -bedroom affordable unit and for the parking space for the
studio unit. In the C-1 zone district, parking for office or commercial uses may be provided by a
payment -in -lieu. Payment -in -lieu for two residential parking spaces is offered by the applicant as a
possible solution instead of asking for a waiver of the two spaces.
Parking requirements for affordable housing are not specified in the Code. However, at a minimum,
staff would recommend that the applicant provide two spaces for the free-market residence, as required,
two spaces for the three -bedroom affordable housing unit, and one space per unit for the one -bedroom
and studio affordable housing units. Since the applicant is unable to provide six spaces on -site, the
applicant should provide two spaces off -site, rather than providing a payment -in -lieu. Staff does not feel
it is realistic to deed -restrict a unit without parking; all residents will have vehicles, although, hopefully,
the downtown location will be an incentive to the residents not to use vehicles and to use alternative
methods of transportation
2. In all zone districts, where the off-street parking requirement may be provided via a payment in
lieu, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment to the city, in the amount of fifteen thousand
dollars ($1 S, 000.00) per space. Approval of the payment -in -lieu shall be at the option of the commission.
Response: As noted above, the applicant commits to pay $90,000 in -lieu of six parking spaces.
Utility/Trash Service Area. Currently a trash/utility service area is not designated on -site and the
dumpsters for Stage 3 are located within the alley right-of-way. The C-1 zone district requires that the
trash/utility service area meet the following requirement: "For up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable
floor area within a building, an area a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with
a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level." The applicant
is constrained by the existing footprint of the theaters, and has worked with BFI to design a functional
trash area on -site with adequate capacity for the residential and commercial uses on the property. The
applicant proposes to reduce the depth of the trash area to 4 feet. Pursuant to Section 26.64.040(C), the
development application shall be approved only if:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total
square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate.
Response: A letter from BFI (Exhibit 4 of the application) states that the proposed trash area is
adequate, and the proposed recycling bins will reduce the volume of waste.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
Response: According to BFI, access to the trash area along the paved sidewalk from the alley is
adequate.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash
personnel.
Response: The trash area will be enclosed on three sides and will be covered. Trash bins can be moved
from the enclosure onto the paved sidewalk adjoining the alley.
4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development
and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block.
Response: Trash compaction is not necessary in this location.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of
utilities.
Response: Utilities will not need to be relocated to accomodate this development.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area.
Response: Not applicable.
GM S Exemption for Affordable Housing
Pursuant to Section 26.100.050.C.3.b, the City Council may exempt from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures "all affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the
housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee." The three affordable housing units in
this project are proposed to be deed restricted as required as Category 3 rental units.
Subdivision (Section 26.88)
The definition of subdivision includes "Land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any other
multiple dwelling units..." Multi -family dwelling unit is defined as "three or more attached dwelling
units... or one or more dwelling units located within an office, retail or service commercial building."
Therefore, subdivision approval is required for this project, although the applicant does not propose to
divide the land into separate interests.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and with the
character of existing land uses in the area, shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas, and shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. The project's
compliance with these requirements is addressed in the staff responses to the GMQS criteria.
Surrounding parcels are already fully developed, and this project should not impact future redevelopment
of those properties.
Many of the subdivision standards are designed to be applied to land subdivisions rather than to a
subdivision which expands an existing building. The applicant has responded to the standards in the
letter dated November 21, which is attached to the application. Staff has responded to the standards
which are applicable to this development.
6
Affordable Housing: The applicant represents that 67% of the total residents of the project will be
housed in affordable housing units, based on the occupancy standards in the Housing Guidelines. This
percentage complies with the goal of the AACP to require new residential subdivisions to provide a
minimum of 60% affordable housing.
School Land Dedication: The November 21 letter from Alan Richman provides the methodology used to
determine the cash -in -lieu fee required. Based on the proposed square footages for the units, $2,441.47
would be paid prior to, and on a proportional basis to, the issuance of any building permits for the
residential units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission table the application to allow
the applicant to reconsider the mass and height of the proposed structure, and its impact on and
compatibility with the surrounding structures, and to review the proposed parking plan.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission determines that the proposed development
complies with the required standards and if the project receives an acceptable score from the Growth
Management Commission, staff recommends that the Commission approve the Stage 3 Penthouses Special
Review and recommend Subdivision approval to the Council, subject to the following conditions:
Special Review approval is contingent upon approval of the Subdivision and GMQS Exemption by
City Council.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall deed restrict the affordable housing
units as Category 3 units pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Upon approval
of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Community
Development Department.
A tree removal permit for relocation of the three spruce trees shall be submitted to the Parks
Department prior to submission of any building permits for the residential units.
4. The $90,000 payment -in -lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a
building permit for the residential units.
The subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within a period of one hundred
eighty (180) days following approval by the city council shall render the plat invalid and
reconsideration and approval of the plat by the commission and city council will be required
before its acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by city council for a
showing of good cause. The subdivision plat shall also be submitted in a digital format
acceptable to the Community Development Department, for incorporation into the City/County
GIS system.
A drainage mitigation plan shall be provided with the building permit application for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
7
7. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of
constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way.
All new surface utility needs and pedestals shall be installed on -site.
9. The in -lieu fee for school land dedication shall be paid prior to, and on a proportional basis to, the
issuance of any building permits for the residential units.
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the Stage 3 Penthouses application to to
allow the applicants to reconsider the mass and height of the proposed structure, and its impact on and
compatibility with the surrounding structures, and to review the proposed parking plan."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the Stage 3 Penthouses Special Review and to
recommend Subdivision approval to the Council, subject to the conditions listed in the Community
Development Department Memo dated June 10, 1997".
Exhibits:
A - Application Packet
B - Referral Comments
C - Public Comment
•
0 Exhibit B
MEMO
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Stage 3 Penthouse Parcel ID #2737-073-32-002
Date: November 18, 1996
Suzanne,
This project shall met all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but not limited to the installation of applicable and approved fire sprinker and fire
alarm systems.
Also the trash/utility area shall meet the design criteria (see attached).
Please call me if you have any questions.
Ed
1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1103.2-1103.3.1
1103.2 Storage and Accumulation of Rubbish and Vegetation.
1103.2.1 Rubbish within and adjacent to buildings and structures.
1103.2.1.1 General. Rubbish kept within or adjacent to buildings or structures shall be in accord-
ance with Section 1103.2.1.
EXCEPTION: Commercial rubbish -handling operations shall be in accordance with Section 1103.2.3.
1103.2.1.2 Required storage conditions. Combustible rubbish kept or accumulated within or
adjacent to buildings or structures shall be in containers complying with Section 1103.2.1.4 or in
rooms or vaults constructed of noncombustible materials.
1103.2.1.3 Oily rags. Oily rags and similar materials shall be stored in metal, metal -lined or other
approved containers equipped with tightfitting covers.
1103.2.1.4 Rubbish containers.
1103.2.1.4.1 General. Rubbish/tontainefs kept outside 9f roomslor vaults shall not exceed•40.5
cubic fe(l.m) c acity. Cbntainers,exceeding 51/3/cubic f�ei [40 gallons (Q<15 m3)], apacity
shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or nonmetal�}'c materials complying with Section
11012.1.42. �&[= /�'(— S.PpZ& ,'46 -!/
Containers exceeding 51/3 cubic feet [40 gallons (0.15 m3)] capacity shall be provided with lids.
1103.2.1.4.2 Nonmetallic containers. Nonmetallic rubbish containers exceeding 51/3 cubic feet
[40 gallons (0.15 m3)] capacity shall be manufactured of materials having a peak rate of heat release
not exceeding 300 kW/m2 at a flux of 50 kW/m2 when tested in accordance with nationally recog-
nized standards. See Article 90, Standard a.4.10. Such containers shall be permanently labeled indi-
cating capacity and peak rate of heat release.
1103.2.1.5 Removal. Combustible rubbish stored in containers outside of noncombustible vaults
or rooms shall be removed from buildings at least once each working day.
1103.2.2 Rubbish within dumpsters. Dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of
1.5 cubic yards [40.5 cubic feet (1.15 m3)] or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within
5 feet (1524 mm) of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Areas containing dumpsters or containers protected by an approved automatic sprin-
kler system.
2. Structures of Types I and II fire -resistive construction used for dumpster or container storage located
not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from other buildings.
1103.2.3 Commercial rubbish -handling operations. Occupancies exclusively performing
commercial rubbish handling or recycling shall maintain rubbish or product to be processed or re-
cycled as follows:
1. In approved vaults,
2. In covered metal or metal -lined receptacles or bins, or
3. Completely baled and stacked in an orderly manner in an approved location.
1103.2.4 Combustible vegetation. Cut or uncut weeds, grass, vines and other vegetation shall be
removed when determined by the chief to be a fire hazard. When the chief determines that total
removal of growth is impractical due to size or environmental factors, approved fuel breaks shall be
established. Designated areas shall be cleared of combustible vegetation to establish the fuel
breaks.
1103.3 Storage, Use and Handling of Miscellaneous Combustible Materials
1103.3.1 General. Storage, use and handling of miscellaneous combustible materials shall be in
accordance with Section 1103.3.
1-67
MATIA
DEC 16 '96 11:27AVI ASPEN Hi11_ISING CIFC P.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
FROM; Cindy Christensen, Housing Oft -ice
DATE: December 16, 1996
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GiVIQS Exemption for AH
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-002
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to develop one new free market unit and three new
affordable housing units above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen.
After a discussion with Alan Richman this morning, I now realize that the affordable
housing units are not tied into any expansion with the theater, but is a residential
application only,
RE'QQM.ME_NQATJQN: Therefore, the Housing Office recommends approval of the
affordable housing units as requested. The applicant could ask approval of these units to
Category 4, but has opted for Category 3, which is more of what the Housing program
needs.
VrftrraNstW3.gmq
NOV 27 ' 36 11:.50Ah1 ASPEN H0U5INr, OFC P. 1
MEMORANDUM
TO- Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: November 27, 1996
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for AH
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-002
: The applicant is requesting to develop one new free market unit and three new
affordable housing units above the Stage 3 Theaters in Aspen.
BAgKG,ROSlHl2: The applicant is basing his request on Section 26.100.080 (B)
(Residential GMQS Scoring Criteria, and 26.100.050(C)(3)(b), GMQS Exemption by City
Council for Affordable Housing.
Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(b), states:
Affordable housing. All affordable housing deed resttfered in accordanCe
with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designeo,
shall be exempt from the growth management compedtion and scoring
procedures by the City Council
Therefore, the affordable housing section of the application is exempt from scoring.
The three proposed affordable housing units fall within or exceed
the specifications required by the Guidelines. Each of the units exceeds the minimum net
livable square footage standards, will have additional storage space, will contain their own
laundry facilities, and are located fully above ground to provide natural light into the units.
These units are a good example of employee housing. The Housing Office would
recommend, though, that the units be deed restricted Category 2 as most of the
employees for Stage 3, or a similar operation, earn in the income range of Category 1 or
2.
lreierr;tMtage3.gmq
•
•
Memorandum
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department
DATE: November 26, 1996
RE: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing & Special Review
We have reviewed the application submitted for the Stage 3 Penthouses. The only issue
related to Parks are the proposed trees to be relocated to the garden area in the back of
the building. According to the plan these spruce trees are 5 inches in diameter. Five inch
diameter spruce trees are not very small trees. These trees would require a tree removal
permit prior to relocating and it is strongly advised that the trees be evaluated by a tree
mover to get an evaluation of whether the relocation is possible. The Garden area is not
much larger than the size of a parking space and may not accommodate the three trees.
The plans do not show where the original location of the trees are, so it is difficult to
determine whether the trees need to be moved. The tree removal permit must be applied
for prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit. Additionally if the trees are
relocated it is important that they be watered regularly for at least the first year or two. It
may be worth the trouble to install some drip irrigation system for this purpose.
The other comment, not directly related to Parks, but could be a potential problem is the
orientation of the trash area in relation to the parking space. This appears as though it
could be a conflict with the actual pick up of trash by the trash company. If the parking
area is full and the trash trucks come through early in the morning when cars are most
likely to be parked there from the night before, then the trash truck would be unable to
access the trash bins. The applicant may wish to reconsider the design of this back area
for the trash utility area.
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer/f,
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer
Date: December 2, 1996
Re: Stage 3 Penthouses Residential GMQS Allotment, GMQS Exemption for Affordable
Housing & Special Review
(Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-002)
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - These are in place, however due to snow conditions, it was not
practical to examine their condition. Any sections in disrepair must be replaced prior to final
inspection of any building work.
2. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements must be
provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Meter locations
must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage.
3. Site Drainage - This public infrastructure system is incapable of handling additional loads of
storm runoff. We recommend that the site development be improved to meet runoff design
standards of Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and that the building permit application include a drainage
mitigation plan and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
Note that the commercial building across the alley reconstructed their parking spaces this past fall
and installed snow melt, perimeter drains and a dry well. system.
4. Site Improvement Survey - The application is incomplete. The Land Use Code, Section
26.52.030.B.5 requires a "site improvement survey." Any survey that is submitted must have that
1.
title in order to include the information required by state and local statute. The submitted survey
was performed some eight years ago and does not make reference to a current title policy, which is
also required at Sec. 26.52.030.B.3. It is critical to the site development planning process to have
easements identified. A current and complete "site improvement survey" must be submitted prior
to proceeding.
5. Condominium ization - If the applicant is contemplating the possibility of future
condominiumization of the property, it must be remembered that when structures change from
single ownership to multiple private ownerships, operational difficulties arise for both the water and
waste water (sanitary sewer) utilities. The difficulties must be addressed either by construction of
such facilities as additional service lines or additional metering or by clauses in condominium
declarations, covenants, or other agreements with the individual utility.
6. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement
districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -
way.
7. Work in the Public Right-of-way wayway - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
M96.278
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks
department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for
street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development,
including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community
development department.
2
•
1W lqq
•
Exhibit C
May 6, 1997
PHILIP ROTHBLUM
617 EAST COOPER AVENUE
UNIT 314
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Planning & Zoning Commission
Community Development Dept
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO. 81611
Attn: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
Dear Commission Members:
Re: Stage 3 Penthouse Subdivision
Inasmuch as this submission before you is as a result of a
technical error in the GMQS scoring process, I assume that you will
re -score this proposal solely as presented. No wish list or
assumptions that shortcomings can or will be rectified by Aspen
City P & Z in subsequent review should have part in this re -scoring
process.
I submit that in Category 4: Maintaining design quality, historic
compatibility and community character, the applicant has failed to
meet the requirement.
A - "Improving and maintaining the appearance and function of
alleys for.... residential use"
- See enclosed photos B and C of existing rear wall and
superimposed bulk of the two additional flat plane stories
proposed.
- Applicant indicates on drawings submitted "Existing
stucco wall", with no indication whatsoever to ameliorate its
appearance.
- The placement of the existing garbage dumpsters is
illegal and they should be removed regardless of this application
to meet current City code.
B - " Ensuring design compatibility with existing building in
the vicinity of the proposed project, in terms of scale, massing,
building materials, fenestration, other architectural features and
open space". In Mr. Richman's words, these standards are of a
public nature, which I address.
- See enclosed photos A and C, exhibiting the
inappropriate mass, scale, and lack of open space as proposed.
- The existing Stage 3 building mass, including volume,
has a FAR of some 14,600 sq. ft. The proposed penthouse subdivision
addition, under existing Building Code regulation as applicable to
buildings with residential use requiring inclusion of volume in
calculating FAR, would result in a FAR of some 21,000 sq. ft.,
egregiously incompatible with the neighborhood character. This
proposed 200% FAR/lot area ratio contrasts drastically - and
unfavorably- with the 62% FAR/lot area ratio of the home we
recently completed on East Hopkins, directly behind the Stage 3
Theatre property -see photo D.
This submission, while it may be admirable in its intent to
create affordable housing, is seriously flawed in "pushing the
envelope" and fails to ensure design compatibility with the
neighborhood character.
I urge reaffirmation of your prior scoring.
Very truly your ,
•
•
Marcia & Bob G. Bailey
3215 Tarry Hollow
Austin, Texas 78703
512 477 5500
Home/Office Phone & Fax
512 / 477 8116 (*51)
Mr. John Bennett, Mayor
Members of City Council
Growth Management Commission
Dec. 3 - Feb. 25
600 East Main # 406
Aspen, CO 81 61 1
Phone and Fax
970/92014151,0
iary 1 �997 A
e
Attomey, City of Aspen
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to the published report that the r iew for Stage 3 deve ent
has been reopened. Having a copy of the ordinance I will quote from Section 26.100.060 C of the
Land Use Regulations:
DISTRIBUTED TO:
��iZLVi C-
r
Respcnse By:
By Da .
a. Each growth management commission member shall assign a
whole number score (not a fractional number) to the project.
b. Following the initial scoring, commission members shall be
free to discuss individual scores and to offer justification for such scores.
C. Following the close of Growth Management Commission discussion initial
scoring, a final scoring round will be held, during which each Growth Management
commission member shall again identify the number of points, expressed as whole
numbers, assigned to the project. Growth Management Commission members shall
be free to revise the number of points awarded to a project between the
preliminary and final scoring rounds."
Logic and common sense quickly says that the right to discuss individual
scores and to offer justification for such scores (under b. above) and any final
scoring (as defined in c. above), is an option, not a requirement. The language of
the ordinance specifically says "shall be free to discuss ..." If the Commission
does not exercise that option at that time, the option no longer exists.
Our entire legal system is full of options, however that does not mean that
every time a decision is made there is a "requirement, without request, to
review" every option available. In this case the options that were available,
were not exercised, and were therefore automatically, and permanently lost.
Certainly your council is not going to open a Pandora's Box on all your
actions allowing those who disagree with your decisions to have the legal right to
make you reopen the procedure because, after the meeting was closed, they had
found some option that you had not considered. That practice would be a disaster.
Also of major importance is parking. The applicant has in no way successfully addressed
that problem. At one time they alluded to the fact that many of the qualified employees do not have
cars. Who are they trying to kid about this.
Next, they offer to pay the penalty option by providing $15,000 for future parking
facilities. First, if additional underground parking is planned for the future, you will quickly
find that $15,000 for each space is grossly under priced. Even more important, the current
problem is still not solved. Come down to our part of the town between 6:30 and 10:30 PM every
evening, and see what the parking situation, and often congestion, is.
Another inadequate suggestion made at the meeting is the owner could lease space from
some existing, city owned, parking lot. That also is no appropriate answer for that would take
away the availability of existing parking specifically designed for other purposes. If allowed, who
is going to monitor that parking arrangement? Who actually thinks that any of us are going to
drive and park elsewhere, when a closer space is available.
It is my understanding that at the current time you already have what may be described as
a similar problem to some of these future problems with employee housing people now using
existing parking at the hospital. Why create new problems for yourselves?
This letter does not address the proposed building design. Your own appointed board had
major concerns about this in the first meeting. Also in that meeting, the proponents pointed out
they had set poles on top of the building showing the limits of the new addition and how much view
would be blocked. At that meeting it was pointed out by opponents and admitted to by the
proponants, that the poles were not properly set and on the west end. One section of the proposed
building would be at least five feet wider and four or more feet higher than the poles indicated.
These poles have not been removed nor corrected and still leave the inaccurate impression that the
addition would not block as much view as would be the actual case.
My wife and I own a condominium across the street. Yes, we are concerned about the loss
of view and probable lower evaluation of our property due to the loss, but please do not represent
that our loss of view is our only major concern. Our concern at this time is that legally
the case can not be reopened, the parking and congestion problems have not been
solved, and the proposed building design has been ruled inadequate. Your Growth
Management Board made the proper decision the first time. I suggest you have your attorney
restudy your legal position in ruling this case can be reopened after failing to take action at the
proper time.
Regardless of my strong conviction on this legal point, I will now put on my other hat and
express to each of you my appreciation for your willingness to serve our community in what too
often is a thankless job.
Resp fully,
Bob Bailey
cc Aspen Times
Aspen Daily News
CJ
PHILIP ROTHBLUM
617 E COOPER AVE #314
ASPEN, CO. 81611
December 10,1996
Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen Pitkin Coyunty Development Dept
130 So Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Re: Stage 3 Penthouse Subdivision
December 17, 1996 Hearing
Dear Ms Wolff:
In regard to this development, I wish to submit my thoughts of the compat-
ibility, scale, design, and impact on the surrounding area of the applicant's
proposal.
Having owned a o6ndominium in Aspen since 1970, my wife an I are currently
constructing a detached residential dwelling at 624 E Hopkins - directly
behind the Stage 3 building - anticipating this to be our permanent home. Our
new home includes an Accessory Dwelling Unit and we share the concern of the
City and the desireability of creating affordable housing.
In the interest of brevity, this will set forth my general concerns, with the
specifics to be presented to you at the public hearing.
Basically, this proposal, while worthy in the interest of creating much -needed
affordable housing, fails to meet reasonable review standards compatible or con-
sistent with the underlying C-1 district and neighborhood characteristics.
1. Parking - Gross inadequacy for the number of dwelling units being pro-
posed in cinfiguration neither permitted by code nor practically func-
tional, and I question whether code permits any waiver of residential
multi -family parking requirements in such a shared configuration.
2. Mass - The proposed building will create a structure incompatibile
with the neighborhood character, vastly increasing the mass of an al-
ready massive structure with no attempt at mitigating adverse impacts.
I question whether provisions of the code as to dimensional require-
ments are being met insofar as (a) lot area required per dwelling unit
in multi -family configuration, (b) interior floor area of existing
building, plus (c) volume calculation of the existing thaters, to be-
come part of a mixed -use building of residential character.
I submit that this proposal "pushes the envelope", isjust too much and
fails to consider human scale.
3. Height - The proposed 40' roof height ( plus mechanical and chimney
flue structures) is not in accord with the Neighborhood Character De-
sign Guidelines, which calls for buildings to step down inscale as they
approach smaller adjacent structures, in this case, on all sides of the
site.
0 0
Re: Stage 3 Penthouse Subdivision Page 2
4. Density - The existing theater is actually two stories and the pro-
posal adds two more. The addition of four residential units to the
currently oversized and high occupancy structure adds excessive con-
centration of activity into this confined area and normal usage will
have a substantial auto and delivery truck traffic impact on the
surrounding area.
5. Configuration - The existing boxy building is being replicated with
two additional boxes above, with little, if any, design features.
The South (alley) elevation proposes retaining the existing shabby
stucco wall, repeating the flat facade in the third and fourth floor
elevations. albeit with minor setbacks and places a hot tub at the
very edge of the building at the alley lot line. There is no evidence
of thoughtful design or of compatibility with neighboring structures.
The policy of providing affordable housing is laudable, but not at the expense
of good site design or of mitigation efforts of adverse effects on the neigh-
borhood. I strongly urge you to reject this popoosal as presented and to con-
sider a resubmitted proposal more compatible with or enhancing the character of
surrounding land uses, of human scale, and with quality of design, including
functional parking poovision.
I urge the P & Z members visit the site to verify my assertions, and I would
be happy to be available between 11:30 and 12:30 on the meeting day behind the
Stage 3 theater, where the driveway of our new home enters the alley. If any
other time is preferable, kindly call me at 925-5554 Tuesday morning.
Thank you for your consideration.
i
Sincez,
J_
Philip Rothblum
• •
Marcia & Bob G. Bailey
3215 Tarry Hollow
Austin, Texas 78703
512 / 477 5500
Home/Office Phone & Fax
512 / 477 8116 (*51)
Dec. 3 - Feb. 25
600 East Main # 406
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone and Fax
970/920 9724
December 11, 1996
Ms. Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Stage 3 Metro Residential Request
December 17, 1996
Dear Ms. Garton,
My wife and I own property in Concepts 600, Unit 406, immediately across the street
from Stage 3. The property was purchased in her name in 1990. We have major concerns
concerning the request to build two floors of housing above the theater.
I have looked at the plans submitted and learn that the new proposed height of the building
will be approximately 40 feet. That height is concerning enough, but it is my understanding that
in addition to that, allowances are to be made for an elevator, which could easily be another 5 to
10 feet. I understand that the exact heights were not given on the plans, but realistically, part
of the new building, with the elevator, could be between 45 and 50 feet.
My concern is:
1. It will obstruct the treasured view of Aspen Mountain that we and our
fellow 35 plus owners will have. Many of these owners have owned their property
for ten to twenty years.
2. Because of the loss of view, there is no doubt that the actual value of our
property will be lowered. Some of those on the lower floors will not be able to see
any of the ski runs. That is what attracted most of us to this property, and why we
were willing to pay additional value for the property. I talked to a local broker this
morning, and he said that there is no question but what this is true.
I realize that always there are many sides to these issues. One of the enticements driving
this request is the offer to create additional affordable housing units. I understand the need we
have for such additional units, but I wonder if the owner is doing so only in order to secure the
fourth unit that will certainly not fall in the category of affordable housing.
The parking is another issue involved. My understanding is that in order to waive some
of the requirements, a fee of $15,000 is offered for each space requirement not met. This only
adds to the adage that "everything has a price".
We, owners of housing immediately across the street, request the following input before
any consideration or decision is made:
1. It blocks out the view for which we paid.
2. It will directly reduce the value of our property.
3. If such construction is allowed, there will be some possibility that thirty owners will
seek to have our tax evaluation lowered. I do not have our tax statements with me, but
it would be very safe to estimate that the current value of our property is on your tax
rolls at this time between $10,000,000 and $15,000.000.
We are a major contributor to the tax structure in this community. We are not one
building across the street, but more than 30 individuals who own property and
contribute to this community.
4. Definite consideration should be given to the fact of adding additional
traffic, parking and noise to the down town section. Presently at peak traffic periods
and certainly around "picture show time" we have enough traffic in this downtown area,
without adding more housing and automobiles.
5. We admit that whenever anyone buys a property, this type of loss could happen,
but our concern in this case is that in order for this permit to be issued, your body
can not do so without "going to the exceptions. "
I feel there is much difference in accepting the risk of the possibility of what might
be normal, from that which could only be achieved by "going to the exceptions."
6. This issue should not be decided based on how much money the petitioner offers to go
outside the basic rules.
Thank you for giving consideration to this position. I certainly would make this
presentation directly to you next Tuesday night, but a prior commitment out of town makes it
impossible. My wife plans to be there, but will probably prefer not to make a public statement.
Also thank you for the many, many hours each of the committee gives to our city in
serving as members of the P & Z. So very often it is a thankless job.
Respectfully,
Marcia and Bob Bailey
PS My compliments to your staff member Suzanne Wolff. During my visit with her I found
her to be very fair, knowledgeable and helpful.
DEC- z;E 17 .. bs 0L457Ph1 ASPEN E5(l�:T. ACCOMDT FAX K0. 8167 72930 P. 1 02
t o .�a1h�i1�Y1 nc- <d " 0- 5 q so)
Deceutber 17. 1996
Aspen Planning and ,Zoning Commission
s / Sara Garaan, Chair
We are owners of the duplex at 629 E. Main and have several concems about the Stage 3 application.
1. The }weight of the proposed building will block our view to ihu West by at least 30% to 40%.
The panoramic view of our property and its central location were major reasons for our purobase
in 1987, Privacy will also be affected by living units on top of the theater.
Z. parking at the theater is already a problem, TaWg away umployee reserved locations is not a
goad idea. Four spaces for four residential locations will not be enough for personal and Visitor
Uft for those units. We have on oceWon had to go to the theater and have ears moved off
Spring Street that blocked the drive to our basement garages. There are four undergro�d
parking spaces for our two units.
3. The stairs at the top of our building look out of proportion on the architoct pleas that Shows
North elevation from Main Street. If that is true, Z am concerned the building lines are correct
in the drawings.
4. A building 50% over the allowed square footage based on the lot size is a concern Does the
current building meet all the current codes for. building in Asper today? The building as we
understand is 20 years old. Was asbestos aged in its construction? Is this or any other problems
consistent with an aging building or does it present problems in adding two floors above current
structure?
Wo would appreaia-m more information about the Stage 3 Application.
Thank you,
Neil and Donr+a Grant
rff
f DEC 17 '96 11:00AM ASPEN RESORT ACCOMDT COMING ATTRA+CTI �P.1
03 16i 1 03Z
j
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 1996
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Gear Board,
I am a resident of 631 E. Main, located directly east of the Stage 3
Theaters.
1 would like to go on record, voicing some concerns I have with
the Theaters' application for adding three "affordable housing"
units and one penthouse apartment.
1) Their plan to add an additional 6600 sq. feet exceeds the floor
area ratio guideline by fifty percent. That is excessive.
2) The penthouse apartment would be looking down on my roof-
top patio, ruining my privacy.
3) The addition would substantially obstruct my view to the west,
including Shadow Mountain and Mt. Sopris, by as much as forty -
percent.
The deciding factor in purchasing my new home was the view from
my roof -top patio. The architecture of the entire living area on th@
Second floor is designed around a spiral stairway leading up to the
third floor patio.
The Stage 3 plan, if approved, would not only seriously impact the
daily enjoyment of.my home but the resale valve as well.
Sincerely.,
Martin chterman, Jr,
C7
(/,Con 6;� c 6- cc Ec-
UCH C
�- Or P15 r�
t�ot,4 X)OIJ6 11-,967ZZ, b
2
d�
PRISNICKEL
o
- -; IV& V�
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER LE'= FAX NUMBER 1-415-499-1801
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FAX NUMBER:
970 920 5439
ATTENTION: Suzanne Wolff
TOTAL PAGES BEING FAXED INCLUDING THIS PAGE 1
FROM -NAME: Jurine Biers
TELEPHONE NUMBER :( 41 5) 4 9 9 1 1 6 9
DATE December 17, 1996
MESSAGE
Re: Stage 3 theater subdivision
I am the owner of the Hunter Square building next door to Stage 3.
My late husband, Irving Biers, built a park between these two buildings
as he was knowledgeable of the importance of green belt open space.
I am concerned about the height of the proposed building and the impact
it will make on sunlight in this mature garden space. There doesn't
seem to be much open space left in downtown so this space will become
more important in our future.
I am also concerned that light will be obstructed for our first, second,
and third floor commercial tenants.
Sincerely,
wylk
Jurine Biers
CALIFORNIA BRANCH OFFICE HOME OFFICE
2900 Las Gallinas Ave. 500 Lake Ave., Suite #169
San Rafael, CA 94903 Lake Worth FL, 33460
415 499-1169 • Fax 499-1801 407 4B24593
NL
,war w•�, } -a
no
F y, fi�:�_,� •j.t/0F• gli#p��lp��7 ,. l 1_,'•,. ►�
-h' S Q" A !- lfN L / '!^ql f, "/k'r��i' ai.r/i1j.i.:A-'- �il�'t�ii�=.4'�JL♦'E1€'/iL+s4' <,; a >
k 1 t%i�rr�
-
�F � �r �'�Et s7i"w'�l}`�'�'fLJ[.rJ�/�..; yr,��ch�1r�/ :♦1r �g�'�� f 1 _ a �, .,L 1�0.}3. .
Zoe
r Y
i t (•�r 1 ri
G..:...�.-�'s�`.$•.�y-
`�F,oww C�. '^ 1-�G_ •X .�Ci- <. si �"'^�`7+i.. t,,it *�l.t�. s`3Ms,+i -
': S i, i �i t 'i'.�
tr �,��..��x.
,� .^,^�
/.
!
t
] �
� �
y
1t:
7 I + .. � t
�
'J� � ..
�l
r�
H i t/� { � -'
t
� ., ..
M'� � J
V� ; �
�;y � , {
,.'�` '� .
� ��
4 �`
.mot, +. , } .
s yr
.y �
��,.. `C f � � ^
'�'' u
5� '
je. .i w
�•'1. l��r�•
I
N
s
4
• .t`: ,��`� -A:y �� � . ��I ,Y� .f 1_' , f i. -_',. y KGfL F. IP,
Y�• �
. � � F }•-�o:-�'-r...h:4 •.tt emu;• il�f � , � �.. ��!•��
tea= .
•
.may �
"�
"..M�NNx '� 1
.f F•.
p� y
1 R
*. .r
� *_ _..
e