HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140506 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, may 6, 2014
REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 219 E. Durant (Chart House Lodge) and 411 S. Monarch
(Dancing Dear Lodge) — PUD Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Code Amendments referral —Mixed Use zone district and
Transferable Development Rights
VII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 1
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of hearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
"For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change"
CITY AGENDAS
City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on
Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 3d Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4
Week of April 28, 2014
5/6 P&Z (ED-4:30
Notice: 4/14
Dancing Bear Tunnel —JP/HS
Mixed Use Code Amendment referral — SA
TDR Code Amendment referral - SA
5/20 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 4/28
Dancing Bear ll, PD Amendment—JP
6/3 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 5/12
Work program in review - JG
100 E. Francis, Hallam Bluff review— JB
6/17 P&Z (aD-4:30
Notice: 5/26
Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment—SA
7/1 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 6/9
Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment—SA (continuation if necessary)
7/15 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 6/23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
RE: Chart House Lodge (219 E. Durant) and Dancing Bear Lodge
(411 S. Monarch) PUD Amendment
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2014
APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S): Chart House PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes a
Lodge Project Owner, LLC,A.K.A. Sunrise pedestrian tunnel beneath Durant Ave.
Company; Dancing Bear Project Owner, LLC, connecting the Dancing Bear Lodge and the Chart
A.K.A. Sunrise Company House Lodge. A PUD amendment is requested to
memorialize the tunnel for each property and a
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann,Vann permanent easement would be required to construct
Associates,LLC the project.
LOCATION: 219 E. Durant Ave. (Chart House STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on referral
Lodge) and 411 S. Monarch St. (Dancing Bear department concerns,the Utilities and Engineering
Lodge) departments do not support the request but have
provided conditions of approval if the request is
supported.
r.: SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning
�- - and Zoning Commission a recommendation of
approval to amend the prior PUD approvals for the
not Wagner
�r
Park Chart House Lodge and the Dancing Bear Lodge to
permit the construction of a private pedestrian tunnel
beneath E. Durant Ave. connecting the two lodges.
House
a
v
s�
CURRENT ZONING& USE: Lodge(L)Zone
District with Planned Unit Development(PUD)
overlay
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals:
• Amendment of PUD development order(Subsection 26.445.l 00.13, Other Amendment) to
the Chart House Lodge and Dancing Bear Lodge PUDs to allow for the construction of a
pedestrian tunnel beneath E. Durant Ave. connecting both properties. Aspen City
Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Background
The Dancing Bear Lodge PUD was approved by City Council in August of 2003 pursuant to
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2003. The Dancing Bear Lodge PUD included Minor PUD,
Subdivision, Timeshare, Mountain View Plane, and Growth Management Quota System
Exemptions (GMQS) for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing land use approvals for the
development of nine(9) timeshare lodge units with eighteen (18) rentable keys and two two-
bedroom affordable housing units. It also contains underground parking, a restaurant, and hotel
amenities on the rooftop. The Dancing Bear was issued a Certificate of Occupancy in 2009 and
is currently operational.
The Chart House Lodge PUD was approved by City Council on August 8, 2005 pursuant to
Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005. Approvals included the development of eleven(11)timeshare
lodge units with twenty-one (2 1) rentable keys, two (2) affordable housing units, and 27 parking
spaces. Construction of the Chart House Lodge is currently incomplete. Approvals for
excavation, laying foundation and constructing the structural frame were granted January 1, 2008
via a building permit but construction was stalled due to the recession. The Chart House Lodge
was granted an extension of vested rights by City Council via Resolution No. 78 Series of 2010.
The property has since been purchased and it is anticipated the owner will apply for a building
permit by June 30, 2014, which is when the vested rights expire.
Proposed Development
The applicant requests approval to construct a private pedestrian tunnel beneath E. Durant Ave.
connecting the Chart House Lodge to the Dancing Bear Lodge. The applicant proposes to amend
both the Dancing Bear Lodge PUD and the Chart House Lodge PUD approvals for construction
of the tunnel. Both lodges would require a setback variance for the tunnel to accommodate the
area of the tunnel between the buildings and the property lines. The applicant also proposes to
amend the Chart House Lodge PUD to remove two of the approved parking spaces to allow for
completion of the tunnel and some necessary circulation. A minimum of 16 spaces are required
at Chart House Lodge and 25 will be provided after the reduction of two spaces to accommodate
the construction of the tunnel. The Lodge would maintain adequate parking should the PUD
amendment be approved.
The applicant is proposing the tunnel as a way to relive additional congestion and enhance public
safety at the intersection of Durant and Monarch. The applicant states the tunnel will result in
enhanced pedestrian safety and reduce congestion at the intersection. The applicant provided a
transportation study in Exhibit 16 of the application; which states without a pedestrian tunnel, the
amount of pedestrian traffic between the two lodges would trigger the need for a 4-way stop at
the intersection of Durant Ave. and Monarch St. According Exhibit 23 - Construction
Management Plan; the applicant does not anticipate any street closures for the project. All
construction would occur below grade rather than the more disruptive"cut and cover"technique
to reduce noise, visual, pedestrian and transit impacts. Construction will be completed in a single
three and a half month phase; at the time of application it was anticipated the project would start
on May 19, 2014 and end on September 4, 2014.
STAFF COMMENTS:
PUD Review
The applicant requests to amend the current PUD approvals of Dancing Bear Lodge to allow for
a setback variance to accommodate the construction of a subgrade pedestrian tunnel. The
applicant also seeks approval to remove two parking spaces from Chart House Lodge PUD
approvals and a setback variance. Due to the nature of the proposed action, the greatest impacts
will be to the right-of-way and underground utilities, including,but not limited to, water mains
and storm sewers. Comments regarding the proposed action were received by the following
referral agencies: City Engineering, Fire, Transportation, Parks, Sanitation, Building, Housing
and Utilities. These comments are outlined below.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 9, 2014 in City Council
Chambers. Received comments and recommendations can be found in Exhibit C—Referral
Department Comments. Approval conditions from the referral departments have been included in
the resolution.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD).
The ACSD does not feel the project would adversely affect ACSD facilities. Modifications may
be required to the 6"PVC service line previously stubbed into the Chart House Lodge.
Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
The affordable housing units at Dancing Bear Lodge were not compliant with APCHA rules at
receipt of application. The applicant has resolved the compliance issue and APCHA has no
further concerns at this time.
Fire Department
Fire does not support the project because of potential impacts of a worst-case scenario event to
the water system. The impacts would impact fire service and create potential life/safety issues to
a significant portion of town. If Council supports the development of the tunnel the following
will be required prior to building permit issuance: the applicant will provide Fire with a
comprehensive Construction Management Plan and an Emergency Management Plan for
approval.
Engineering Department
Engineering does not support the project as Section 21.12.010 of the municipal code does not
allow for private use of public right of ways. Additionally, the Engineering Department feels the
numbers provided by the owner in the Transportation Study are artificially high and projected
pedestrian trips between the two lodges would not necessitate a four-way stop at the intersection.
The tunnel would preclude implementation of one of the options in the City's 2001 Stormwater
Master Plan for a 60" stormwater pipe. The applicant provided a design alternative to the 60"
pipe that would still convey a 100 year event. The design alternative includes two smaller
parallel pipes that may result in a greater cost to the City; however, a 60"pipe would potentially
be in conflict with existing water, sanitary and shallow electric lines.
Parks Department
Due to the depth and method of the tunnel construction the project will not impact any of the
mature narrowleaf cottonwoods along Durant Ave.
Transportation Department
Overall, the Transportation Department is supportive of this project as it will remove some
pedestrian traffic from Durant Street. Transportation's greatest concerns are potential impacts to
RFTA service and any closure of Durant Avenue during construction is prohibited.
Utilities Department
The Utilities department does not support the project because of potential to affect its customer
base. If the project is to receive Commission's support; the applicant must comply with the
following conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. Utilities requests that potholing to
locate existing water main infrastructure to ensure adequate clearances. Provisions to protect the
water main during construction must be in place. The applicant has proposed either shutdown of
the water mains while constructing within the vicinity of the main or utilizing authorized
personnel at the water valves to shutdown the mains should either line be compromised during
construction. Shutting down the 6"line would result compromised water service and fire
protection for the duration of the shutdown for a portion of town. A shutdown of the 20"water
main would result in no water service or fire protection a majority of the service area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The request by the applicant has very minimal land use concerns from the perspective of
regulation of private property but hinges on whether the installation of a private pedestrian tunnel
is an appropriate use of the public right-of-way. Are the benefits of removing some pedestrian
traffic from Durant Avenue worth the potential private use and construction impacts to the right-
of-way? In particular, with the potential to impact water and fire service and create potential life
and safety issues to a significant portion of town. Clearly some departments do not support the
proposal,however, conditions have been included if the Commission believes otherwise.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2014, recommending an amendment to the
Chart House Lodge and Dancing Bear PUDs as proposed, with conditions."
Attachments
EXHIBIT A—PUD Amendment Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B—Public Comment
EXHIBIT C—Referral Department Comments
EXHIBIT D—Supplements to the Application
April 25, 2014—Response to Engineering Comments
April 24, 2014—Response to Utilities Comments
Dancing Bear Pedestrian Tunnel Risk Management Strategy
EXHIBIT E—Application
RESOLUTION NO.--
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE CHART HOUSE APPROVALS GRANTED
BY ORDINANCE NO.32,SERIES OF 2005 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS
6-9,BLOCK 3 OF THE EAMES ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BEING A
PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 219 E. DURANT AVENUE,AS WELL
ASAPPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE DANCING BEAR LODGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 29 (SERIES 2003)
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS P, Q,R,AND S,BLOCK 77, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BEING A PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 411
S. MONARCH ST. .
Parcel No. 2735-131-06-002 (219 E. Durant Ave.)
Parcel No. 2735-182-19-002 (411 S. Monarch St.)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Sunrise Company, represented by Sunny Vann, requesting a PUD amendment for The Chart
House Lodge at 219 E. Durant Ave. pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005 and a PUD
amendment for The Dancing Bear Lodge at 411 S. Monarch Street pursuant to Ordinance No. 29
(Series 2003) Granted August 11`h, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2003 approving the
Dancing Bear Timeshare Lodge PUD, which included Minor PUD, Subdivision, Timeshare,
Mountain View Plane, and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions (GMQS) for Lodge
Preservation and Affordable Housing for the development of a timeshare lodge consisting of
twenty-seven (27) lodging bedrooms and two (2) affordable housing units (consisting of two 2-
bedroom units); and,
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005, which approved a
subdivision/PUD for the development of eleven (11) timeshare lodge units with twenty-one (21)
keys and two (2) affordable housing units and 27 parking spaces until September 8, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and
recommended approval the removal of two parking spaces and setback variances for construction
of a pedestrian tunnel between both lodges; and,
WHEREAS, a number of referral agencies within or associated with the city have
reviewed the application and recommended denial of the construction of a pedestrian tunnel; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,referral agencies and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing on May 6, 2014; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: General Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a PUD amendment to City Council to
construct an underground pedestrian tunnel in the Durant right of way, removal of two parking
spaces, and a reduction in setbacks for the projects as further described below:
Section 2: PUD Amendments
The Chart House PUD is amended to permit 25 parking spaces rather than the 27 originally
approved to accommodate the circulation necessary for the pedestrian tunnel, while a zero feet
setback is permitted, solely in the footprint of the tunnel from the property line to the connection of
the tunnel to each lodge.
Section 3: Conditions associated with construction of the pedestrian tunnel.
A. Construction management. Prior to building permit issuance, a Construction
Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant for appropriate approval(s).
B. Emergency Management. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant will provide an
Emergency Management Plan for appropriate approval(s).
C. Construction documents. The applicant will demonstrate the project meets minimum
required clearances from the utilities in the right-of way on construction documents prior
to issuance of a building permit. The applicant must satisfactorily address groundwater
levels and soil assumptions as a condition of building permit issuance.
D. Transportation. Durant Ave. should not be shut down in preparation for, construction of,
or staging for the project. RFTA access on Durant Ave. must be maintained at all times.
In the event of potholing on Durant Ave. to locate utilities; the applicant will submit a
Traffic Control Plan for appropriate approval(s). The applicant is responsible for any
public notice for any transit service impacts resulting from the project. Public notification
will be approved by the transportation department and posted one week in advance of any
service disruption.
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this _th day of
, 2014.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney L.J. Erspamer, Chair
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual,final,consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited
issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review,
certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to
show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards
and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding: The construction of a pedestrian underpass is not specifically
addressed in the 2000 AACP. The proposed tunnel will allow for safe passage of
private pedestrian traffic, reduce potential pedestrian/vehicular conflict, and
mitigate potential traffic congestion on Durant Ave between Dancing Bear Lodge
and Chart House Lodge. According to the applicant the tunnel will reduce potential
vehicular/pedestrian conflict; meeting Goal E, Reduce the adverse impact impacts
of automobiles on the Aspen area; Transportation, P. 23. Furthermore, the tunnel
is considered an innovative transportation mode meeting Goal L; Transportation,
P.23. Staff finds these criterion met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The proposed development will not affect the character of
surrounding land uses; therefore, Staff finds the criterion met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The construction of a pedestrian tunnel will not affect the future
development of the area as infrastructure will not be affected by the tunnel Staff
finds this criterion met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is considered non-unit space, because it is a
common space similar to a hallway and therefore allotments are not necessary.
Staff finds this criterion met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The applicant is seeking approval of a setback variance for both
PUD approvals. The pedestrian tunnel is considered non-unit space and exempt
from allowable floor area calculations since it is completely subgrade with no
exposed wall area. The applicant is requesting a reduction of two parking
spaces in the Chart House PUD, reducing the number of approved spaces from
27 to 25 spaces. The approved two affordable housing parking spaces will be
unaffected by the proposal. These amendments would not affect the character
of or the compatibility with existing and anticipated future land use. Stafffinds
this criterion met.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
Staff Finding: There are no known natural or man-made hazards within the
vicinity of the proposed project, therefore this criterion is not applicable_
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms.
Staff Finding: The proposed project is subterranean in nature. There are
mature narrowleaf cottonwood trees in the tree lawn on the Durant Ave/north-
facing side of the Chart House. The excavation limits of the tunnel will be below
the root mass of these trees and will not adversely affect the trees. Staff finds
this criterion met.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The tunnel will reduce some pedestrian traffic at the
Durant/Monarch intersection will reduce impacts to the surrounding traffic and
transit use. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The criterion is not applicable as no changes to the open space
and site coverage of either the Chart House or Dancing Bear Lodge PUD
approvals are requested by the applicant.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any non-residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding: No changes to the existing off-street parking approvals at Dancing Bear
Lodge PUD are proposed. The tunnel would require removal of two parking spaces at
the Chart House to allow for a more gradual slope and ADA compliance. Current
approvals at the Chart House are for 27 parking spaces, two of which are designated
for the two affordable housing units. Pursuant to Chapter 26.515.030, Required
Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces; 0.5 spaces are required per unit in a hotel/lodge,
one space is required per residential multi family unit in a mixed-used building and
one space per 1,000' of net leasable space. There are a total of 21 lodge units (keys)
requiring 11 spaces, two two-bedroom affordable housing units requiring 2 parking
spaces, and 2,240' of net leasable space would require 3 spaces. The total number of
required spaces for the Chart House PUD is 16 and the proposed amendment would
reduce the number of spaces to 25; therefore the proposal meets land use requirements.
Staff finds this criteria met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically,the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities
to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: These review criteria are not applicable as no reduction density is
proposed.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: These review criteria are not applicable as no reduction density is
proposed.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or
lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on
average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of
the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum
allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing a pedestrian tunnel, considered non-unit
space, and not requesting a change in density. These criteria are not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces,
and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: The proposed pedestrian tunnel will be subgrade; therefore, will not
affect public spaces. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel will be subgrade; therefore will not impact open
spaces or vistas. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the above grade
features of either PUD approval. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is a subgrade structure and will not affect the urban
context nor provide visual interest or engage vehicular movement. The tunnel will
facilitate pedestrian movement between the two lodges. Stafffinds this criterion to be
met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is subgrade and there are no changes proposed to
either the Chart House or Dancing Bear Lodge buildings or access. Stafffinds this
criterion met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding:According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. Stafffinds these criterion met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel would be subgrade and not affect site drainage;
therefore the criterion is not applicable.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed
to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel would be subgrade and while a setback variance
would be required, the project would not affect the use of at-grade space between
buildings. Staff finds this criterion met.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the
visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding: The proposed pedestrian tunnel would be subgrade; therefore, this
criterion is not applicable.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: The proposed pedestrian tunnel would be subgrade; therefore, this
criterion is not applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features
is appropriate.
Staff Finding: The proposed pedestrian tunnel would be subgrade and not impact
existing or proposed landscaping plans; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate
to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable
for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding: There are no proposed changes to the architectural character approvals of
either the Chart House or Dancing Bear Lodge PUDs; therefore the criterion is not
applicable.
2. Incorporate,to the extent practical,natural heating and cooling by taking advantage
of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-
intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding: The criterion is not applicable because there are no proposed changes to
the existing approvals to mechanical design of either the Chart House or Dancing Bear
Lodge PUDs.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is subgrade; therefore, the criterion is not applicable.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site
features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to
the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is sub-grade and there are no proposed changes to
the existing exterior lighting plan approvals of either the Chart House or Dancing Bear
Lodge PUDs. These criteria are not applicable.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Finding.- Neither Chart House or Dancing Bear Lodge include open spaces,
recreation areas, or shared facilities. These criteria are not applicable.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden
on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified
financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the
development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding: The proposed PUD amendments would not result in a need for additional
public infrastructure capacity. The criterion is not applicable.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding: The Engineering and Utilities Departments reviewed the application and
provided several comments related to potential impacts to public infrastructure.
Primary concerns are noted in this criteria review. Comprehensive comments provided
by all referral departments can be found in Exhibit C—Referral Department Comments.
Engineering stated that according to the municipal code (Section 21.12.010), private
use of the public right-of-way (ROW) is not permissible. Utilities requests that
potholing to locate existing water main infrastructure to ensure adequate clearances.
Provisions to protect the water main during construction must be in place. The
applicant has proposed either shutdown of the water mains while constructing within
the vicinity of the main or utilizing authorized personnel at the water valves to
shutdown the mains should either line be compromised during construction. Shutting
down the 6" line could result compromised water service and fire protection for the
duration of the shutdown for a portion of town. A shutdown of the 20" water main
would result in no water service or fire protection a majority of the service area.
Because of the potential to impact public infrastructure; this criterion is not currently
met with the level of information provide but can be required as part of the building
permit application.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: The proposed pedestrian tunnel should not create a need for oversized
utilities, public facilities, or site improvements; therefore, the criterion is not
applicable.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure,or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other
area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel will be a private point of ingress/egress to the Chart
House and Dancing Bear Lodge properties. No changes are proposed to the previously
approved public street access provided to each lot and structure in the Chart House
and Dancing Bear PUDs. Stafffinds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a reduction of two spaces at
the Chart House Lodge; however, this reduction would not result in an adverse impact
to existing traffic conditions. No change is proposed to existing access points on either
PUD approval. Stafffinds this criterion met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel is subterranean and therefore will not affect bicycle
or pedestrian trail systems; or access to public lands and rivers. This criterion is not
applicable.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: The proposed tunnel s subterranean and should not impact the
recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan or City Parks Department plans.
Potential transportation issues are discussed in Section I(2) of the review criteria. This
criterion is not applicable.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public
and emergency access.
Staff Finding: There are no internal streets proposed as part of the PUD Amendment;
therefore this criterion is not applicable.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of the proposed PUD
amendments; therefore, the criterion is not applicable
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed,
each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding: According to the Construction Management Plan (Exhibit 23) the
proposed tunnel would be constructed in a single phase requiring approximately three
and a half months to complete. Staff finds the criterion not applicable.
F-�S*g m �g
Hillary Seminick
From: Susan C ONeal <susaninaspen44 @gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:27 PM
To: L.J. Erspamer; Steve Skadron; Dwayne Romero;Ann Mullins; Adam Frisch; Art Daily,
Councilman; Hillary Seminick
Cc: Galen Bright; Hugh Hatcher; Robert Kingsbury; Robert Barnes & Karen Bisset
Subject: strong objection to both requests by Sunny Vann
To: Aspen Mayor
Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Committee
Date: 26 April 2014
Re: The request by developer Sunny Vann to build a"private pedestrian tunnel" connecting the two Dancing
Bear time-share properties across Durant Avenue.....and a request for an amendment to reduce the number of
parking spaces at the Mountain Dancing Bear.
Regarding the tunnel: there can be no doubt this project serves no purpose whatsoever other than to benefit the
few elite time-share owners of these two buildings. This proposal has nothing to do with the greater public
interest of the people of Aspen. I agree Durant Avenue has become full of traffic congestion, but there are other
ways to reduce the congestion which do NOT include the building of an underground tunnel which would
benefit few people, not to mention create a huge construction disruption to busy Durant Avenue. If these boys
with their toys want to dig, let them dig a parking lot beneath Wagner Park—which would benefit the entire
community, not just a few who want to traverse Durant Avenue.
Regarding the loss of parking spaces: clearly this developer has not spent time on Durant Avenue or he
would be aware there is a parking CRISIS on Durant Avenue which is the result of the City allowing down
valley commuters to park in residential areas. Cars by the score arrive from down valley and park all day on
Durant Avenue creating a crisis for residents. It is NOT in the best interest of the community to reduce the
number of parking spaces anywhere!
Please let common sense rule—do NOT approve a pedestrian tunnel and do NOT approve the reduction of
much needed parking spaces. The crisis on Durant is insufficient parking.
Susan O'Neal
(and numerous other common sense advocates)
i
Hillary Seminick
From: Susan C ONeal <susaninaspen44 @gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:35 PM
To: Hillary Seminick
Subject: object to tunnel and reduction of parking spaces
Dear Hillary,
Please make known my strong objection to the ridiculous proposal of building an underground tunnel for elite
pedestrians between the two Dancing Bears and my VERY STRONG OBJECTION to the idea of reducing parking spaces.
There is a CRISIS on Durant Avenue of insufficient parking and any suggestion of reducing planned parking is totally
unacceptable.
Thank you,
Susan O'Neal
205 E. Durant Avenue,# 1-1
Aspen, CO 81611
1
Exhibit C - Design Review Committee Comments
A Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 9, 2014. The following referral
agencies commented on the application: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Aspen Fire
Department, City Building, City Engineering, City Parks, City Transportation, and City Utilities.
The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority also provided comment but were not present at the DRC
meeting.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD)
ACSD Site-Specific Requirements-
1. The amendment for the tunnel does not appear to adversely affect our facility.
2. The applicant should be made aware that modifications may be needed to the 6" PVC
service line that has previously been stubbed into the Dancing Bear II (Chart House) site.
ACSD Standard Requirements-
3. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
4. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections
(roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
5. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
6. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit.
7. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
a. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
b. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
8. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements and before any and all soil stabilization
measures are attempted.
9. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
10. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
11. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
12. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office
can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to
the district.
13. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected
over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
14. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will
be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would
be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the
area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).
Exhibit C - Design Review Committee Comments
15. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building
stubouts prior to building permit.
16. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
17. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines or within 3
feet below a district owned main sanitary sewer line.
18. ACSD will need to approve swimming pool facilities and drain size.
Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
1. The applicant is out of compliance with two deed-restricted units located in the existing
hotel. The process has been that no additional development approval can be done until
this is remedied.
APCHA Follow-up: The owner of the Dancing Bear has provided information to APCHA
on the tenants located in the three deed-restricted units at the Dancing Bear. The one
outstanding issue of having one person in a two bedroom is being worked on and we
expect full compliance; therefore, APCHA has no.issues with the amendment that is being
requested by the applicant.
City of Aspen Fire Department
The Fire Department would like to see and evaluate a thorough Construction Management Plan
and an Emergency Management Plan for the construction phase of the project. We would like to
gain assurances and comfort with the techniques that will be utilized and understand the
construction timeline for the project, in order to formulate our response plans appropriately.
Secondarily, we would like to know that City Council understands the possible impacts of a
"worst case scenario" event to the water system and its potential impacts to life/safety in a
significant portion of town.
Engineering Department
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
General:
Based on the municipal code, the use of the right-of-way (the "ROW") is not intended to house
a private tunnel. The municipal code currently states the following:
• Section 21.12.010 —"New and existing structures should be able to accomplish their
various needs within the confines of their property boundaries and required setbacks."
The pedestrian trips generated in the traffic study was based on by the assumptions provided by
the owner of the project. We believe that the trips generated are artificially high. As the code
Exhibit C- Design Review Committee Comments
states, "new and existing structures should be able to accomplish their various needs within the
confines of their property boundaries." Certain activities could be contained within the
proposed Dancing Bear/Chart House property as originally contemplated in the approval
documents. Activities that could be contained within the proposed property include:
• Housekeeping
• Garbage removal/linen + supplies replenishment
• Other Housekeeping Trips
• Room Service
• Bellstaff(w/ luggage cart)
• Mail/Shipment deliveres + requests
• Concierge Services
• Residence Lock outs
• Building Lock outs
• Self Parking
The activities above account for 328 of 915 trips (36%) during peak (4pm-6pm) winter hours.
Drainage:
There are not drainage concerns with regard to the URMP as this is a subgrade structure.
However, there are concerns with the location of the tunnel and how it impacts the City's
ability to upgrade its storm sewer system.
In the City's 2001 Stormwater Master Plan, there are two pipe options presented. One is the
existing 15" pipe and the other is a 60" pipe. Currently, the City has elected to pursue the
alternative that utilizes the 15" pipe. In this case the tunnel will not impair the storm sewer
system. Some changes to the tunnel elevations will be required to meet the City's standards.
Please provide room to allow for seven feet of cover above a 15"pipe as well as a three foot
separation between the bottom of the pipe and the top of the tunnel.
The applicant has demonstrated that the tunnel and above 1 S"pipe requirements are not in
conflict.
However, if the City elects at some point in the future to pursue the 60"pipe alternative, then
the tunnel will preclude the City from making this improvement.
The applicant's engineer has provided a response to our concern and has provided a design
alternative to the 60"pipe that would still convey the 100 yr event. Upon initial review, it
appears that installation of a 60"pipe would conflict with water, sanitary and potentially
shallow electric. The applicant's engineer's alternative to install two'parallel pipes is likely a
more feasible option. Cost maybe higher for the proposed alternative because two pipes
would be installed rather than one.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
Exhibit C -Design Review Committee Comments
This project is a subgrade structure and therefore, sidewalk, curb and gutter concerns are not
addressed herein. However, there are concerns with the sidewalk, curb and gutter which must
be evaluated at building permit for the building or at CO for the building.
Applicant will address if needed.
Construction Management:
Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe
mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
Applicant will address.
Report Assumptions:
The tunneling report has a number of statements and makes a number of assumptions that
need to be further vetted or verified. As a condition of the building permit application, we
would like the following to be addressed:
1. Groundwater Levels. The report assumes that the tunnel construction will occur
during the months of May and June of 2014 because they can verify that the
groundwater levels will not affect construction during the period. If there are truly
concerns with the groundwater level affecting the construction, then the report should
describe the periods when construction is allowed.
2. Soil Assumptions. The report makes soil assumptions that are important to the design
of the tunnel. The soils assumptions must be vetted and where reasonable the
assumptions should be made known. For example, it is reasonable to test for shear
strength and compressibility as well as determine backfill conditions around the two
buildings.
Applicant will has not adequately addressed and the requirement will remain in effect as a
condition of the building permit.
Parks
Due to the depth and construction method of the tunnel, the project does not have the potential to
impact any of the mature cottonwood trees along Durant Ave.
Transportation
Transportation is supportive of this project with the following conditions:
1. Durant Street should not be shut down as part of the preparation for, construction of or
staging for this project due to the major impact that would have on RFTA services.
2. Any impact to transit services (which hopefully won't occur given item 41) related to this
project must be communicated to City of Aspen Transportation with at least one week's
notice in order to allow for re-routing of services.
3. The project is responsible for public notification for any transit service impacts that it
causes. Public notifications must be posted at least one week in advance and should be
Exhibit C -Design Review Committee Comments
approved the Transportation Department. These notifications may include signs on bus
stops, newspaper ads, signs on buses, handouts, etc.
4. If/when potholing is necessary on Durant Street, Transportation will review the traffic
control plan, and access for RFTA on Durant Street must be maintained.
5. Staging on Monarch Street that would interfere with bus routes should be avoided if
possible.
6. Transportation requests to review the construction management plan as a means of
ensuring minimal impact to transit.
Utilities
1. Utility's greatest concern is the potential to compromise the water mains and the potential
service implications caused by such a breach. Provisions to protect the water main during
construction must be in place. The applicant has proposed either shutdown of the water
mains while constructing within the vicinity of the main or utilizing authorized personnel
at the water valves to shutdown the mains should either line be compromised during
construction. Shutting down the 6" line would result compromised water service and fire
protection for the duration of the shutdown for a portion of town. A shutdown of the 20"
water main would result in no water service or fire protection a majority of the service
area.
2. The consultant should plan on potholing existing infrastructure (20" and 6" water lines)
in Durant street to confirm crossing elevations and ensure that there is a minimum of 18"
vertical clearance from the bottom of the pipe to the top of any tunnel infrastructure (that
includes any temp shoring or permanent installation.)
3. As grouting of void space is the approach I would like to know the "zone of influence"
for said grout. If the grout touches the Water line in the area there is concern for future
maintenance of either line, how will bond breaker be established, or what assurance does
the Utility have that grout will not come in contact with the existing infrastructure.
4. All life and safety concerns were discussed additional information as to the waterproofing
of the tunnel should be addressed.
5. The construction management plan should include provisions for crossings as they occur,
for example:
a. will the water main be isolated out during crossings,
b. what customers will be affected during these crossings,
c. will the potential for fire flow reduction (due to 20"being off line) effect fire
departments ability to respond to any area of town?
6. Finally, does the indemnification proposed adequately address the future maintenance,
and operation of the City Utility system?
Zoning
1. The exceptions for items in the setbacks does not include `tunnel'.
Memorandum
To: Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, LLC
P.O. Box 4827
Basalt, CO 81621
vannassociates@comcast.net
From: Yancy Nichol/f
John Petaisto sp
Date:April 25, 2014
Re: Response to COA Engineering DRC 04/18/2014 comments
This memo responds to the Dancing Bear Tunnel Design Review Comments received from the City of Aspen
Engineering Department in a letter dated April 18, 2014. The comments are related to Drainage,Sidewalk and
Curb&Gutter,Construction Management,and Design Report assumptions. The comments are included below
and then are followed by our response in bold font.
Drainage:
There are not drainage concerns with regard to the URMP as this is a subgrade structure. However,there are
concerns with the location of the tunnel and how it impacts the City's ability to upgrade its storm sewer system.
In the City's 2001 Stormwater Master Plan,there are two pipe options presented. One is the existing 15"pipe and
the other is a 60"pipe. Currently,the City has elected to pursue the alternative that utilizes the 15"pipe. In this
case the tunnel will not impair the storm sewer system. Some changes to the tunnel elevations will be required to
meet the City's standards. Please provide room to allow for seven feet of cover above a 15"pipe as well as a three
foot separation between the bottom of the pipe and the top of the tunnel.
However, if the City elects at some point in the future to pursue the 60"pipe alternative,then the tunnel will
preclude the City from making this improvement. The City Council should determine whether the project is
allowed to utilize the Right of way and prevent the possibility of a future pipe upgrade.
SE response:
SE reviewed the 2001 Stormwater Master Plan specific to the site. The plan identifies a storm sewer alignment
that conveys the large storm event north on Monarch,west on Durant,and continuing north on Garmisch. The
study provides a preliminary size of 15"for the conveyance of the 10 year storm event and a 60" reinforced
concrete pipe(RCP)for the conveyance of the 100 year storm event. The master plan model has 14 cfs for the
10 year storm and 154 cfs for the 100 year storm event.
The master plan is not a design document,it is a city wide stormwater study. The study did not have a design
survey with which to size the various design solutions. The concept recommendation for pipe size and material
was a 60"RCP. After review of the plan,SE has prepared a preliminary design alignment that uses an SE existing
conditions survey of Durant Ave from Garmisch to Monarch Street. The alignment generally is parallel and
matches the alignment of the existing shallow storm sewer system in Durant Avenue. This alignment was used
as a basis to understand the tunnel and utility conflicts of the 15"storm,sewer and the 60" storm sewer. In
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRis ENGINEERING * LLC ciyi► consultants
SEk 13120.01 -COA Eng DRC-SE Response
04/25/2014
Page 2
addition to the tunnel,from Garmisch Street to Monarch Street there are 2 sanitary sewer crossings and 5
surveyed water crossings with potential utility conflicts.
The existing conditions survey also shows that a low point exists in Durant from Garmisch to Aspen Street,and
the slope in Durant falls at approximately 3.1%east to west from Aspen to Monarch Street. These two items
will affect the depth and slope of any storm sewer solution.
15" RCP Storm Sewer design:
The proposed tunnel depth is 12.1'to the top of tunnel. This will provide the requested room for a 15"storm
sewer with the COA depth of cover and clearance noted above. The preliminary design is discussed below.
➢ The 15" RCP Storm Sewer(Refer to Exhibit 1 attached):
• The proposed tunnel provides the requested room for seven feet of cover above a 15"RCP as
well as a three foot separation between the bottom of the pipe and the top of the tunnel.
• Per the existing survey of the sanitary sewer manholes,the sewer crossings at Aspen Street and
Garmisch Street should be approximately 1'below the bottom of the 15" RCP storm sewer.
• The Aspen Water department minimum cover requirement is 7' The depth of cover for the
existing water mains is not known, but the storm sewer may conflict with the water crossings.
• As noted above the low point in grade in between Aspen and Garmisch will require the storm
sewer depth of cover to increase above the minimum required 7'. Assuming a minimum slope of
0.5%,the depth will increase to 10+feet.
Drainage:
However, if the City elects at some point in the future to pursue the 60"pipe alternative,then the tunnel will
preclude the City from making this improvement. The City Council should determine whether the project is
allowed to utilize the Right of way and prevent the possibility of a future pipe upgrade.
SE Response: The tunnel does conflict with a 60"storm sewer with the noted depth and clearance
requirements. However,these requirement for the 60"storm sewer also conflict with numerous sanitary sewer
and water utility main lines. Construction is not possible without relocating all sewer mains,sewer services,
water mains,and water services.
The tunnel project however does not prevent the possibility for a future 100 year solution. Based on our
preliminary design analysis,there are other 100 year storm sewer conveyance options which work with the
existing utilities and work with the tunnel as designed. These design solutions consider a depth of cover of less
than 7'. It is our professional opinion that because of utility conflicts,any detailed analysis would recommend a
design with less than T of cover. Also,in our experience designing storm sewer in the City ROW, in about every
instance the City has granted variances on the required 7'depth of cover,because all of the existing water and
sewer utility infrastructure has major conflicts with the 7'of bury.
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704.0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SopRis ENGINEERING • LL C civil consultants
SE#. 13120.01 -COA Eng DRC-SF.Response
04/25/2014
Page 3
The 60" RCP Storm Sewer design with the required 7'of cover,as well as several alternative 100 year
conveyance options are discussed below.
➢ 60" RCP Storm Sewer with 7'depth of cover(Refer to Exhibit 2):
• The proposed tunnel does conflict with the proposed 60" storm sewer. The physical conflict is
approximately 1.1'. With a required 3'clearance the conflict is 4.1'.
• With a 7'depth of cover and a 6'outside diameter of a 60" RCP pipe,the minimum excavation
depth required to install the storm sewer would be 13'.
• Per the existing survey of the sanitary sewer manholes,the sewer crossing at Aspen Street has
approximately 10'of cover. The sewer crossing at Garmisch Street has approximately 12.5'of
cover. Both sewer mains are in conflict with storm sewer. Realigning and revising the depth of
gravity sanitary sewer mains would involve significant replacement of existing pipe and in our
opinion makes this storm sewer alignment unfeasible.
• The Aspen Water department minimum cover requirement is 7'and maximum depth of cover is
10'. The depth of cover for the existing water mains is not known,but the storm sewer will very
likely conflict with the water crossings. Any conflict solutions will require the water depth to be
raised a minimum of 2'which will require frost protection measures.
• As noted above,the low point in grade in between Aspen and Garmisch will require the storm
sewer depth of cover to increase above the minimum required 7'. Assuming a minimum slope of
0.5%,the depth will increase to 10+feet. This means the excavation depth for the storm sewer
would be 16'.
➢ 100 YR Storm Sewer conveyance option#1-60" RCP Storm.Sewer with 2.5'-3'of cover(Refer to Exh 3):
• The proposed tunnel would not conflict with a 60"RCP storm sewer system if the pipe was
raised 4'. This would still provide 2.5'-3'of cover for the pipe and 3'of clearance over the top of
the tunnel. Because of utility conflicts or inadequate clearance, it is our opinion that a 60" RCP
pipe does not provide a feasible design solution.
• With a 3'depth of cover and a 6'outside diameter of a 60"RCP pipe,the minimum excavation
depth required to install the storm sewer would be 9'.
• Storm to sewer clearance does not really work. Per the existing survey of the sanitary sewer
manholes,the sewer crossing at Aspen Street has approximately 10'of cover. The sewer
crossing at Garmisch Street has approximately 12.5'of cover. With this solution both sewer
mains would cross under the proposed storm sewer,but would only have about 1'of clearance.
• Storm to water clearance does not really work. The Aspen Water department minimum cover
requirement is 7'and maximum depth of cover is 10'. The depth of cover for the existing water
mains is not known, but the storm sewer will very likely conflict with the water crossings. Water
mains can re-routed under the storm sewer, but they would need to go deeper than 10'to
maintain 3'clearance below the storm.
• As noted above,the low point in grade in between Aspen and Garmisch which will require the
storm sewer depth of cover to increase. With this solution,assuming a minimum slope of 0.5%,
the depth will increase to 6+feet at Garmisch Street.
• With this shallow depth of cover shallow utility conflicts will likely be encountered. Our survey
identifies one electric utility just north of Durant on Garmisch. This location will not conflict with
the storm sewer because depth of cover is approximately 6'.
➢ 100 YR Storm Sewer conveyance option#2-2-Parallel RCP Storm Sewer pipes(Refer to Exhibit 3):
o Design option#1 identifies a shallower solution that would convey the 100 year storm flow in
RCP pipe. Design option#2 maintains the type of pipe and the alignment,but considers 2
parallel pipes. Considering the Durant section of pipe from Monarch to Aspen St.,we have
501 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (910) 104-0311 • Fax (910) 104-0313
Sums ENGINEERING * LLC C1Y11 consultants
SE#.13120.01 -COA Eng DRC-SE Response
04/25/2014
Page 4
calculated that 2-42" RCP pipes would carry the 100 year storm flow of 154 cfs. The outside
diameter is 52.5"which is 19.5"smaller than a 60" RCP solution. The depth of cover over the
pipe would be 4-4.5'. The smaller diameter pipe would provide flexibility in the design in
relation to pipe cover and utility conflicts.
o It is our opinion that a two parallel pipe option would provide for the required clearance from
utilities,and can be considered for other sections of pipe.
➢ 100 YR Storm Sewer conveyance option#3-ADS N12 Storm Sewer(Refer to Exhibit 4):
• Design option#3 uses one pipe and maintains the alignment and general depth of cover,but
considers ADS N12 HDPE pipe. This pipe is a more efficient hydraulic pipe because it has smooth
wall that reduces friction losses. Because of the better hydraulics and because the pipe slope is
3.2%,in Durant from Monarch to Aspen St,we have calculated that the pipe size can be reduced
to 48". This pipe size reduction would provide more flexibility in the design. It will increase the
cover,and/or reduce conflicts with utilities.
• Further benefits of ADS N12 pipe include:a smaller outside diameter than an equivalent size RCP
pipe,it is less expensive,and is easier to install.
➢ 100 YR Storm Sewer conveyance option#4-2-Parallel ADS N12 Storm Sewer pipes(Refer to Exhibit 4):
• Design option#4 would use two ADS N12 parallel pipes. Again considering the Durant section of
pipe from Monarch to Aspen St.,we have calculated that 2-36 ADS N12 pipes would carry the
100 year storm flow of 154 cfs. We estimate the depth of cover would be 4.5-5'. The outside
diameter of a 36"ADS N12 pipe is 42". This even smaller diameter pipe would provide
additional flexibility in the design in relation to pipe cover and utility conflicts.
• It is our opinion that a two parallel pipe option would provide for the required clearance from
utilities,and can be considered for other sections of pipe.
In conclusion based on our design analysis,we have found that the utility conflicts represent more of a design
challenge than the tunnel. At the storm crossing,the tunnel is proposed to have 12.1'of cover. This is equal to
or more cover than the utilities encountered. Any solution that works with the utilities will work with the
tunnel.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
This project is a subgrade structure and therefore, sidewalk,curb and gutter concerns are not addressed herein.
However,there are concerns with the sidewalk,curb and gutter which must be evaluated at building permit for the
building or at CO for the building.
➢ SE Response:Acknowledged.
Construction Management:
Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site.The plan shall describe mitigation for:
parking, staging/encroachments,and truck traffic.
➢ SE Response: The CMP plan:includes an application for construction parking spaces in Appendix B,
discusses parking and staging in Section 5.0,and discusses truck traffic in section 2.3.
Report Assumptions:
The tunneling report has a number of statements and makes a number of assumptions that need to be further
vetted or verified. As a condition of the building permit application,we would like the following to be addressed:
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS
ENGINEERING • L L C civil consultants
SE#. 13120.01-COA Eng DRC-SE Response
04/25/2014
Page 5
1. Groundwater Levels. The report assumes that the tunnel construction will occur during the months of
May and June of 2014 because they can verify that the groundwater levels will not affect construction
during the period. If there are truly concerns with the groundwater level affecting the construction,then
the report should describe the periods when construction is allowed.
➢ SE Response:As noted in the tunneling report section 3.0 "The highest groundwater elevation
measured at the site occurred in May 2004,in well TH-3,at an elevation of 7883 feet,
approximately 17 feet below the proposed construction."The study also states that "A
comprehensive groundwater study is outside of the scope of the current study;however,given
the available information, we do not anticipate groundwater to affect the proposed
construction."
➢ Groundwater is well below the tunnel elevation and is not anticipated to be a problem.
Regardless of the time of year,during the initial stages of construction this will be verified.
2. Soil Assumptions. The report makes soil assumptions that are important to the design of the tunnel. The
soils assumptions must be vetted and where reasonable the assumptions should be made known. For
example, it is reasonable to test for shear strength and compressibility as well as determine backfill
conditions around the two buildings.
➢ SE Response:The water main lines in the ROW will be potholed to verify location and
proximity to the tunnel excavation prior to permit submittal. At this time a soils engineer will
test for shear strength and compressibility. Both buildings were constructed with sheet piles,
so native soil exists around the two buildings.
➢ During construction,the tunneling report identifies additional measures that may be
implemented to if soils conditions are found to be less than the soils reports and assumptions
indicate.
Please call or email with any questions or if you need additional information.
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 - (910) 104-0311 • Fax (910) 104-0313
SopRis ENGINEERING • L L C civil consultants
Memorandum
To: Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, LLC
P.O. Box 4827
Basalt,CO 81621
vannassociates @corn ast.net
From: Yancy Nichol/ "
John Petaisto�
Date:April 24,2014
This memo responds to the Dancing Bear Tunnel Design Review Comments received from Andy Rossello the City of
Aspen Utilities Engineer. The comments were received in an email from Hillary Seminick on Monday April 14,
2014,and are related to the City's potable water main system. The comments have been broken up from the
email text from Andy Rossello, and are included below. The SE response follows in bold font.
The consultant should plan on potholing existing infrastructure(20"and 6"water lines) in Durant street to confirm
crossing elevations and ensure that there is a minimum of 18 vertical clearance from the bottom of the pipe to
the top of any tunnel infrastructure (that includes any temp shoring or permanent installation.)
➢ SE response:The water mainlines in the ROW will be potholed to verify location and proximity to the
tunnel excavation prior to permit submittal. The design will be modified as necessary based on the
pothole findings.
As grouting of void space is the approach I would like to know the"zone of influence"for said grout. If the grout
touches the Water line in the area there is concern for future maintenance of either line, how will bond breaker be
established,or what assurance does the Utility have that grout will not come in contact with the existing
infrastructure.
➢ SE response:The excavated area of the tunnel(void space)represents the furthest extent of shotcrete
for the proposed tunnel. No grout is proposed to be injected into the existing ground. The minimum
clearance from grout to existing water infrastructure shall be 18",as specified in your comment above.
All life and safety concerns were discussed additional information as to the waterproofing of the tunnel should be
addressed.
➢ SE response:We have discussed this with the contractor Brannan Construction. The shotcrete specified
for this project is 99%water proof. The design also includes a drain board. The waterproofing for this
tunnel is equal to or better than the adjacent building foundations.
The construction management plan should include provisions for crossings as they occur i.e.will the water main be
isolated out during crossings,what customers will be affected during these crossings,will the potential for fire flow
reduction (due to 20" being off line)effect fire departments ability to respond to any area of town?
➢ SE response:Brannan Construction has prepared a risk management plan which addresses these
questions. We have included the plan here for review.
Finally,does the indemnification proposed adequately address the future maintenance, and operation of the City
Utility system.
➢ SE response:Yes. This will be addressed by the Applicant's Attorney and the City Attorney.
Please call or email with any questions or if you need additional information.
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 Fax (970) 104-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
II III I ��I, I
"**fto
lo
DANCING BEAR PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
WATER LINE CROSSINGS
Contents:
• Comments and concerns following the meeting held 4/9/2014
• Response/ Risk Management Strategy relating to tunnel activities while crossing
beneath existing 6" and 20" water lines.
COMMENTS: Relayed via email
From:Andy Rossello
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Hillary Seminick
Cc:Jennifer Phelan; Michael McDill
Subject: RE: DRC Review- 219 E. Durant, Dancing Bear 2 (formerly the Chart House) and 411
S. Monarch, Dancing Bear
Hillary et. al,
I addressed the Utility department concerns at the meeting on 419114, the majority of comments
pertain to water and not electric.
The consultant should plan on potholing existing infrastructure (20"and 6"water lines) in Durant
street to confirm crossing elevations and ensure that there is a minimum of 18"vertical
clearance from the bottom of the pipe to the top of any tunnel infrastructure (that includes any
temp shoring or permanent installation.)As grouting of void space is the approach I would like
to know the "zone of influence"for said grout. If the grout touches the Water line in,the area
there is concern for future maintenance of either line, how will bond breaker be established, or
what assurance does the Utility have that grout will not come in contact with the existing
infrastructure. All life and safety concerns were discussed additional information as to the
waterproofing of the tunnel should be addressed. The construction management plan should
include provisions for crossings as they occur i.e. will the water main be isolated out during
crossings, what customers will be affected during these crossings, will the potential for fire flow
reduction (due to 20"being off line) effect fire departments ability to respond to any area of
town?Finally, does the indemnification proposed adequately address the future maintenance,
and operation of the City Utility system.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns.
Thanks,
Andy Rossello, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
City of Aspen
(970)429-1999
RESPONSE: Risk Management Strategy-Water Main Crossings-6" and 20"
There are several factors that will determine which option(s) are selected when approaching
and passing beneath the existing water lines. The water main of primary concern is the 20"
water main, although these considerations apply equally to both.
1. CLEARANCE: The first determining factor is that of the actual amount of clearance that
exists between the bottom of the water mains, and the top of the proposed tunnel. It is
anticipated - due to the current tunnel design-that there may be as much as 3 ft of
clearance between the tunnel crown and the 20" water line, which will significantly
reduce any potential issues between the tunneling process and the integrity of the
water line. This clearance will be field verified via potholing prior to submittal of final
design drawings.
2. MAIN SHUT DOWN: It has been proposed that it may be possible that the 20" and 6"
water mains could be taken out of service during the shifts that the tunnel construction
is passing beneath it. If this is possible without undue difficulties or water outages, then
Brannan would certainly support this option. Shut down of each water main would take
place 3' before the tunnel crosses under each main. Tunneling activities would be
scheduled such that the crossing would be completed as expeditiously as possible. This
could be achieved by utilizing shorter periods of main shut downs to maintain water
flow. It may be that this size water main would be difficult to remove from service
without impact to the general public.
3. STANDBY: If the water main is to remain in service during the tunneling process, then
this strategy will be implemented. Each water main valve that has the ability to isolate
the 20" and 6" water main sections directly above the tunnel will have a crew member
(or other suitably trained and authorized personnel) with a radio communications
device stationed at the valve. An additional crew member will be stationed at the
tunnel entrance/exit and will act as the watch supervisor. It is not anticipated that a
catastrophic water main failure will occur during tunneling. In the event that water
inflows are observed into the tunnel,the watch supervisor will have the ability to have
the water main immediately closed, at which time all stakeholders would be informed
and a suitable resolution to.the issue determined.
4. MEANS AND METHODS: As currently designed, the initial tunnel crown support consists
of 5' steel spites driven into the soil at an upwards angle of 10 deg+/-. While the spile
ends should still be well under the bottom of the water mains, these spile ends present
the greatest risk to the water mains. To address this potential risk, the following
management strategies will be implemented.
a. Spile installation (the end of the installed spiles) will stop approximately 2'
before the southern edge of each water main. Spile installation will start again
directly under the water main.
b. Additional steel sets (if the ground conditions dictate) will be installed in this
area beneath the water mains, which will eliminate the need for spiles under the
water mains.
c. The tunnel schedule will be monitored and adjusted so that the water main
crossings will be completed in a single shift. If necessary, a double shift, or
alternatively intermittent half shifts, will be implemented to maintain the water
supply under a water shut down (2).
Once the steel sets are installed and completed, the risk to the water mains is effectively
eliminated as direct impact/tunnel movement/settlement is eliminated. If for any
reason a future water main failure occurred directly above the tunnel, the risk of the
tunnel being breached is extremely low due to the construction method and materials
used. Given the depth of cover over the water main, it would most likely result in a road
cavity(opinion).
5. EVACUATION: Evacuation from the tunnel will be via the entry/exit portal. A man
basket will be available at the entry point in the event that an employee is unable to
leave the tunnel under his/ her own means.
SUMMARY: Risk Management Strategy
• Water mains shut down for tunnel crossing duration
• Water main valves continuously manned, ready to shut down
• Spiles eliminated from water main zone
• Additional ground support—steel sets—installed
• Tunnel evacuation plan—tunnel water inflows
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Potential changes to the Mixed Use Zone District, referral comments
DATE: May 6, 2014
SUMMARY: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals for 2014 is "By August 31, 2014 help
ensure the livability of Aspen for future generations by identifying strategies to expand business
diversity and enhance business sustainability." In response to this goal Planning Staff proposes
to amend the Mixed Use Zone District to allow retail and restaurant uses in all buildings.
Currently, only landmark properties are permitted to have retail or restaurant uses. Expanding
the permitted location of retail/restaurant uses may encourage different rental rates and in turn
allow different types of businesses to
operate in Aspen. -
The Mixed Use Zone District is
located in five areas: the Main Street
Historic District; a small area east of
the Commercial Core from Main to
Hyman and Spring to Original; a
small area to the west of the
Commercial Core from Main to
Hyman and Aspen to Monarch; a
small area that includes two lots
behind the Hotel Jerome and the P ��
Community Bank across Mill Street;
and the old Poppy's Restaurant on
Hallam Street. (See the maps = f
provided at right and below.) Besides Ing alp E „
properties within the Main Street
Historic District, the only historic
landmark in the small area east of Figure 1: A portion of the Mixed Use Zone is in light pink, east of
downtown is the Aspen Athletic downtown. Aspen Athletic Club is outlined in white.
Club. The old Poppy's restaurant is
also a landmark.
The Mixed Use Zone District was established in 2005 (as it was formerly known as the Office
Zone District) at which time the ability to have retail/restaurant was permitted as a by right use
Mixed Use Zone District referral comments
5/6/14
Page 1
only to landmarks. Prior to 2005 landmarks were allowed specific uses not offered to other
properties through a conditional use review.
v
e
s r
{y'
rs$.
rL
P
f-
�lV
R
n
P
A
;x
v
, x
9
Figure 2: The Mixed Use Zone is in light pink Arrows point out the areas of Mixed Use that are not part of
the Main Street Historic District.
Mixed Use Zone District referral comments
5/6/14
Page 2
s
h
u
7C / S
;r
'z
Figure 3: Main Street Historic District is highlighted and yellow. Landmarks are in white.
There are 3 out of about 40 landmarks in the Main Street Historic District that have
retail/restaurant uses: the Main Street Bakery and Explore Booksellers, and 02 has some retail
that is accessory to the yoga studio. The Hickory House is a non-conforming use that was
established prior to the requirement that retail/restaurant be located in a historic landmark. The
map on the previous page shows the Historic District in green and the landmarks in white.
Planning Staff requests P&Z's comments on the impact of allowing retail/restaurant for all
buildings in the Mixed Use Zone District. In Staff's opinion amending the Mixed Use Zone
District will not affect the viability of the historic landmarks. The only landmarks that are
currently operating retail/restaurant uses are located close to the Commercial Core and have been
established businesses for many decades. Restricting retail/restaurant to landmarks does not
seem to offer much of a benefit or there would be more retail/restaurant uses along Main Street.
While the uses along Main Street will probably not drastically change with this amendment,
Staff believes that retail/restaurant uses in the pocket of Mixed Use east of the Commercial Core
and the area behind the Hotel Jerome will further Council's goal to expand business diversity
and enhance business sustainability. The Hyman Avenue corridor is undergoing many changes
that will draw visitors and locals east of the Commercial Core - allowing retail/restaurant in this
location will offer new opportunities for new and old businesses. The area behind the Jerome is
currently under construction with a new mixed use building that could offer prime areas for
retail/restaurant spaces along Mill Street that is are a little off the beaten track.
Staff has received split feedback from some commercial brokers. Some brokers are concerned
about eroding the commercial core area by allowing retail/restaurant to creep into other areas and
do not think there will be a significant change to rental rates or business diversity by allowing
retail/restaurant in these areas. Other brokers are supportive of the idea and do not anticipate the
amendment causing any adverse impacts.
Staff is looking for feedback from HPC: Does P&Z think there will be a negative impact to the
Historic District and historic landmarks by amending the zone district? Does P&Z think that
allowing retail/restaurant in the Mixed Use Zone District will erode the commercial core (CC
and Cl)?
Mixed Use Zone District referral comments
5/6/14
Page 3
HPC referral: HPC is supportive of the proposed amendment to the Mixed Use Zone District
and does not think that restricting retail/restaurant to landmarks has been a valuable incentive for
historic preservation. There was some concern raised about parking impacts for retail/restaurant
uses in the historic district.
Next Steps: Staff will propose a policy resolution to City Council to amend the Mixed Use
Zone District.
Mixed Use Zone District referral comments
5/6/14
Page 4
4/29/2014 Office Supplies:Office Products and Office Furniture:Office Depot
Office
D)Ep,QT
Shipment Summary
Shipment 1 Order Number:707350886-001 Estimated Arrival By.04/30/2014 View Order Details
Order Info Shipping Information
Account#:87005057 FLEET
Your Order Number is:707350886 PITKIN COUNTY FLEET
Company Name:PITKIN CNTY FINANCE 76 SERVICE CENTER RD
PO Number:002.80.00000.83000 ASPEN,C081611-2567 USA
Cost Center:
Desktop:
Contact: Contact:BRIAN PAWL
Contact Phone:(970)920-5443
Comments Attn:Kurt Dahl
Environmental Health
Payment Information
Account Billing
Order Summary
Shipment 1 Order Date:04/29/2014
delivery date:0413012014 08:30 AM-05:00 PM Order Number:707350886-001
Description Your
Price/unit Qty.Available BID Total
Realspace0 PRO Quantum 9000 Series Mesh Mid- $264.30/ 1 1 0 $264.30
Back Chair,Black each
Entered Item# 510830
BEST VALUE
Contains TOrycled cnrtent
Available: $264.30
Backorder: $0.00
Subtotal: $264.30
Delivery Fee: FREE
Miscellaneous: $0.00
Taxes: $0.00
Total: $264.30
httos://business.officedeDot.corrdcheclwut/confirmRouter.do 1/1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: Potential changes to TDR landing sites, referral comments
DATE: May 6, 2014
SUMMARY: Alan Richman, on behalf of Neil Karbank, submitted a request to amend the Land
Use Code to expand possible landing sites for transferrable development right certificates
(TDRs). TDRs are equal to 250 square feet of floor area and are only allowed to be created on
historic landmark lots.
Generally TDRs are allowed to land on non-historic landmark sites in most residential zone
districts to either add floor area or to expand free market unit size. The ability to land TDRs in
the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts was prohibited last year when
Council amended the Code to ban free market residential uses. This change significantly limited
the TDR market.
The applicant proposes two new possible uses of TDRs:
1. Allow 2 TDRs per residence to land in residential zone districts (R-6, R-15, R-30, etc.)
with the condition that certain characteristics are met: for example, large minimum lot
size per unit to land more than 1 TDR or outside the infill area.
a. Staff has expanded upon this proposal to allow 2, 3 or 4 TDRs to land only on
single family homes with a minimum lot size that would support a duplex, which
means a maximum increase of 500 — 1,000 square feet. This calculation would
allow a single family residence to achieve the maximum FAR with TDRs
currently allowed in the Code for a duplex. Staff will provide an example at the
meeting on May 6th
b. Staff is not supportive of the proposal to allow 2 TDRs per residence for duplex
homes, which equals up to 1,000 sf of additional floor area (the current Code
allows 1 TDR per residence). An additional 1,000 sf could have an adverse
impact on more dense neighborhoods like Cemetery Lane that allow duplexes on
smaller lots (15,000 sf lot for a duplex).
The only exception to this would be for duplex homes in the R-30 zone district
outside the infill area (Black Birch area, some of Red Butte area, some of Castle
Creek area). The minimum lot size for R-30 is 30,000 sf and 15,000 sf per unit
for duplex. The location of these areas on the outskirts of town and the large lot
TDR referral comments
5/6/14
Page 1
sizes may be appropriate for a potential 1,000 sf floor area increase (2 TDRs per
residence).
2. Allow TDRs to mitigate for affordable housing in administrative GMQS applications as
described in the attached proposal.
a. Staff is not supportive of this request.
The use of TDRs to increase aspects of lodge redevelopment is being incorporated into the lodge
incentive program.
Staff is looking for feedback from P&Z: Increasing landing sites supports the removal of
square footage from landmarks in the form of TDRs.
• Does P&Z support allowing more than 1 TDR to be landed on non-historic sites with
specific conditions?
• Distinguish between inside and outside the infill area to land more than I TDR
per residence?
• Only for single family homes?(the number of TDR allowed would be related to
what the Code currently allows for duplex + TDRs as a baseline)
• Allow duplexes 1 TDR per residence?
• Does P&Z support allowing TDRs to replace housing mitigation in specific
administrative GMQS applications?
HPC Referral: HPC is interested in a vibrant TDR program. There were concerns that more
than 1 TDR may land adjacent to a historic landmark. Overall, the majority of HPC was
generally supportive of allowing 2 TDRs per residence.
Next Steps: Staff will propose a policy resolution to City Council to amend the Land Use Code.
TDR referral comments
5/6/14
Page 2
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
970-920-1125 oftREIVED
1 7 2014
March 13, 2014
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: APPLICATION FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC TDR REGULATIONS
Dear Sara,
Please consider this letter and the accompanying materials to be an application proposing
Code amendments to establish additional options for the use of historic transferrable
development rights (TDR's) within the City of Aspen. This application is being submitted
Mr. Neil Karbank (hereinafter, "the applicant"), who manages 604 West LLC (which owns
604 West Main Street) and Karbank 430 LLC (which owns 430 West Main Street).
604 West Main and 430 West Main have each recently gone through a development
review process to establish historic TDR's. These land use approvals have collectively
authorized Mr. Karbank to create and convey more than 20 TDR's to prospective buyers.
Mr. Karbank is prepared to extinguish the development rights on these two properties by
recording deed restrictions as a condition of obtaining the TDR's, but only if a market
exists for selling those TDR's. The purpose of these amendments is to create new ways
in which TDR's can be used by landowners in the City of Aspen. We believe that these
amendments will help to create a more robust market for TDR's which will, in turn, create
an incentive for preserving historic landmark properties in their current configurations.
Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services to represent Mr. Karbank for this
application is provided by Exhibit#1.
We held a pre-application meeting with you prior to the submission of this application.
Following that meeting you issued a Pre-Application Conference Summary (attached as
Exhibit #2). Based on this meeting, you confirmed that the application is subject to the
following review procedure:
♦ Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code, pursuant to Section 26.310.020
of the Code.
Ms. Sara Adams
March 13, 2014
Page Two
The applicant's responses to the review standards for this procedure follow below. First,
however, a brief explanation of the currently available Code options for use of TDR's is
presented, followed by the applicant's proposal to add new options to the Code.
Current Options to Use TDR's
There are currently only a very limited number of ways in which landowners can use
TDR's in Aspen. The way TDR's are used most often is to increase the size of a free-
market residence by 250 square feet. Landowners in the R-6, R-15, R-1 5A, R-1 5B and
R-30 zone districts may purchase and extinguish one (1) TDR and in exchange their
allowable floor area will increase (by right) by 250 square feet. In addition, in the R-6
zone district only, a second TDR may be utilized on a site when the historic site and
receiver site are both in the same subdivision/PUD (but are not adjacent properties), if
the subdivision/PUD approval authorizes a second TDR to be utilized. At the present
time this second option applies only to properties in the Fox Crossing Subdivision.
A second, less frequently-used way in which TDR's may be used by landowners is to
increase the size of free-market residential units in certain commercial and lodge zone
districts. A TDR may be used to increase the maximum free market multi-family unit
size by 500 sq. ft. in the SCI, NC, MU, L and CL zone districts. Until 2012 such
increases were also allowed in the CC and C-1 zone district but this opportunity was
eliminated when the City deleted free market multi-family units as an allowed use from
these zone districts. It is important to note that the 500 sq. ft. unit size increase does
not also increase the maximum allowable floor area on the property; it only increases
the maximum size of the unit within the overall allowable floor area.
Given these two quite limited options, it has been the applicant's experience that the
absorption rate for TDR's on the private market has been glacially slow. At the current
rate of usage, there appears to be a 10-20 year supply of TDR's on the market, and it
appears that more TDR's may be proposed for creation in the near future.
Clearly, the rate at which TDR's are used is in part dependent upon the overall health of
the free market in Aspen, and this has varied with changing economic conditions both
locally and nationally. However, we believe that for the TDR program to be successful,
it is imperative that the City identify additional ways in which TDR's can be used by
landowners, provided, of course, that the development resulting from the use of the
TDR's is consistent and compatible with Aspen's community character. The following
section of this application proposes two new ways in which TDR's could be used which
we believe will increase the rate at which TDR's are extinguished, while also ensuring
that the resulting development remains in scale and is consistent with the character of
Aspen.
Ms. Sara Adams
March 13, 2014
Page Three
Proposed Options to Use TDR's
Based on the discussion we have held with the staff, there are two aspects of the Code
which we propose to amend. These two Code provisions are (1) the residential floor
area ratios and (2) the growth management exemptions. Other Code provisions were
explored with staff but raised planning issues that led those options to be dropped from
consideration at this time. The amendments which staff and the applicant believe the
City should consider are described in detail below.
1. Residential Floor Area Ratios
As explained above, the Code currently authorizes landowners in the R-6, R-15, R-1 5A,
R-15B and R-30 zone district to purchase and extinguish one (1) TDR and in exchange
their allowable floor area will increase by 250 square feet. We propose to extend this
right, to allow certain properties within these zone districts to land a second TDR. The
minimum lot sizes we propose for landing a TDR in these zone districts are as follows:
R-6 9,000 sq. ft.
R-15, 15,000 sq. ft.
R-15 A 15,000 sq. ft.
R-15 B 15,000 sq. ft.
R-30 30,000 sq. ft.
Please note that in the R-6 zone district the proposed Code amendment would require a
lot size that exceeds the minimum requirement. This will ensure that this option is only
used on lots where the added floor area impacts can be accommodated. In the R-15,
R-1 5A, R-1513 and R-30 zone district the proposed Code amendment would only allow
the second TDR to be landed on a conforming-sized lot that is located outside of the
Aspen Infill Area. This will limit the applicability of this change to Aspen's less dense,
non-historic neighborhoods.
The language necessary to accomplish these amendments can be found attached to
this cover letter, on the pages labeled Proposal 1A, 1B and 1C. Those pages contain
the existing Code language, with the new language highlighted by underlining.
2. Growth Management Exemptions
The second way in which we propose to allow TDR's to be used is to extend three types
of growth management exemptions the Land Use Code already contains. The first two
of these exemptions apply to change in use or expansion of historic structures while the
third proposal applies to expansion of non-historic structures.
Ms. Sara Adams
March 13, 2014
Page Four
a. Historic Structures. Today, the change of use or minor expansion of an historic
landmark can create no more than one (1) free market residence (see Sec.
26.470.060.3 and .4 of the Land Use Code). Any additional residences created
via change in use are subject to P&Z review as new residential development.
The P&Z review requires the provision of affordable housing mitigation. These
amendments, which are attached on the pages labeled Proposal 2A and 213,
would allow a second residential unit to be created via a change in use or an
expansion, in return for retiring two (2) TDR's, without housing mitigation.
b. Non-Historic Structures. Today, the expansion of a commercial, lodge or mixed
use development that adds no more than 250 sq. ft. of net leasable space or two
(2) hotel/lodge units is exempt from GMQS (see Sec. 26.470.060.5). Any square
footage or units beyond these thresholds is subject to P&Z review as a new
lodge or commercial development, which requires the provision of affordable
housing mitigation. This amendment, which is shown on the attached page
labeled Proposal 2C, would double these allowances, to 500 sq. ft. and four (4)
hotel/lodge units respectively, if one (1) TDR were retired for each type of
expansion (that is one TDR would allow a commercial square footage expansion
of between 251 to 500 sq. ft. and a second TDR would allow the addition of a
third or fourth lodge unit).
These two proposals represent a classic form of trade-off for the community. Today an
applicant who proposes to exceed the above development thresholds is subject to P&Z
review and must provide affordable housing mitigation to do so. The proposed Code
amendment would instead allow the additional development by right, provided the
applicant extinguishes the requisite number of TDR's. So the community would be
trading-off one form of benefit (historic preservation)for another(affordable housing).
Standards for Review of Amendments to the Land Use Code
Section 26.310.040 and Section 26.310.050 provide the standards of review for the
initiation and adoption of a code amendment. Following are the applicant's responses
to these standards for the proposed Code amendments.
Standards Applicable to the Initiation of a Code Amendment
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Response: The City created the historic TDR program several years ago as a way to
offer owners of historic landmark properties an alternative to additional development on
their landmark site. Owners may extinguish development rights from historic properties
and transfer those rights to non-historic properties.
Ms. Sara Adams
March 13, 2014
Page Five
To date, the City has enacted only a very limited number of ways in which such TDR's
may be used on non-historic properties. Because of these strict constraints on how
TDR's may be used, the TDR program has not been as successful as it could otherwise
be. The purpose of these amendments is to expand (within appropriate limits) the ways
in which TDR's may be used within the City, so as to encourage more landmark owners
to preserve their historic landmark properties.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The proposed amendments would further the goals of the City's historic
preservation program. Historic preservation has been a fundamental policy of the City
of Aspen since the first protection ordinance was adopted in the early 1970's and is
enthusiastically encouraged in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and purpose
and intent of this Title.
Response: The proposed amendments have been carefully drafted in coordination
with the staff of the Community Development Department to ensure they achieve a
public purpose and are in harmony with community character. The amendments seek
to broaden the ways in which TDR's can be used without abusing the purpose of the
development rights transfer program. This is done by selectively allowing TDR's to be
used to extend development opportunities in areas that will have limited, and at times
imperceptible, impacts on surrounding properties.
Standards Applicable to the Adoption of a Code Amendment
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this Title.
Response: The proposed amendments have been drafted to be consistent with all
applicable portions of Title 26 of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or
objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy
objectives.
Ms. Sara Adams
March 13, 2014
Page Six
Response: The applicant has obtained authorization to create more than 20 TDR's.
However, if TDB's are not marketable, the deed restrictions on his historic landmarks
will not be recorded and the purpose of the TDR program will not be achieved.
The applicant believes that the proposed amendments will encourage more landowners
to purchase and use TDR's and thus will create the market demand to record deed
restrictions on historic landmark properties and extinguish the development rights on
these properties. These additional TDR usage options will also encourage other
owners of historic properties to apply to extinguish their development rights via the TDR
program. So we believe the proposed amendments will achieve the policy goal of
enhancing the City's historic preservation program.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of
the City and is in harmony with the public interest and purpose and intent of this Title.
Response: Historic landmarks are a key element of Aspen's community character and
their preservation is an important part of what makes Aspen a special place in which to
live and to visit. The development pressures that are posed to historic structures today
can be eased by creating new ways to transfer development rights from historic
properties to sites that are more suitable places for additional development to land.
These proposed amendments seek to carefully match the desire to extinguish those
development rights with appropriate settings in which such rights can be utilized with
little or no impact on the community.
Conclusion
This letter and the attached exhibits and Code amendment proposals provide the
information you need to process this application and demonstrate that the proposed
amendments comply with the standards of the Land Use Code. We look forward to having
this application scheduled for public review as soon as is feasible. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you find there is anything else you require.
Very truly yours,
ALA14 RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
)q(00— "'k
Alan Richman, AICP
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSAL1A
Amendment to Section 26.710.040.D.11, R-6 Zone District Floor Area Ratio
(New language has been underlined)
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished,
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional
two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel,
excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for a floor area
increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed
on the inventory of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase.
No more than one (1) such floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the
following two 2 exceptions:
1. Properties that are a minimum of nine-thousand (9,000) square feet in size shall
be eligible to obtain up to two (2)floor area increases per residence.
2. Properties within the same subdivision or planned unit development as a sending
site may be specified as eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence
pursuant to the subdivision or planned unit development approval. The properties to be
specified as eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence shall be located
within the same subdivision or planned unit development so as to enhance preservation
of the historic resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation
Commission; shall not be located adjacent to the sending site; and shall be described
and depicted in the subdivision or planned unit development approvals granted by City
Council. The total number of floor area increases permitted within the subdivision shall
not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per non-historic residence within the entire
subdivision or planned unit development.
PROPOSAL1B
Amendment to Section 26.710.050.D.10, R-15 Zone District Floor Area Ratio,
Section 26.710.060.D.10, R-15A Zone District Floor Area Ratio, and Section
26.710.070.D.10, R-1513 Zone District Floor Area Ratio.
(New language has been underlined)
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished,
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional
two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel,
excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for a floor area
increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed
on the inventory of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase.
No more than one (1) such floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the
following exception:
1 Properties that are a minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size
and are located outside of the Aspen Infill Area shall be eligible to obtain up to two (2)
floor area increases per residence.
PROPOSAL1C
Amendment to Section 26.710.080.D.10, R-30 Zone District Floor Area Ratio.
(New language has been underlined)
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished,
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional
two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel,
excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for a floor area
increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed
on the inventory of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area
increase.
No more than one (1) such floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the
following exception:
1. Properties that are a minimum of thirty thousand (30.000) square feet in size and
are located outside of the Aspen Infill Area shall be eligible to obtain up to two (2) floor
area increases per residence.
PROPOSAL 2A
Amendment to Section 26.470.060.3, Change in Use of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures (New language has been underlined)
The change of use between the development categories identified in Section
26.470.020 of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as an historic
landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community
Development Director if no more than one (1) free-market residence is created. If more
than one (1) free-market residence is created, the additional units shall be reviewed
pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2. However, a second free-market residence may be
created if the applicant extinguishes two (2) City of Aspen Historic Transferable
Development Right certificates, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development
Rights. An applicant who extinguishes said certificates shall not require review
pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 for the second residence. The change in the amount
of development and number of units shall be added to and deducted from the respective
development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030 but shall not be
added or deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
PROPOSAL 26
Amendment to Section 26.470.060.4, Minor Enlargement of an Historic Landmark
for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development
(New language has been underlined)
The enlargement of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as an
historic landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed use development shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on
the following criteria. The additional development of uses identified in Section
26.470.020 shall be deducted from the development ceiling levels established pursuant
to Section 26.470.030 but shall not be deducted from the respective annual
development allotments.
a. If the development increases either floor area or net leasable space/lodge units,
but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required.
b. If the development increases both floor area and net leasable space/lodge units,
up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not require
the provision of affordable housing. An expansion generating more than four (4)
employees shall not qualify for this administrative approval and shall be reviewed
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.1.
C. No more than one (1) free market residence is created. Provided, however, that
a second free-market residence may be created if the applicant extinguishes two (2)
City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificates, pursuant to Section
26.535, Transferable Development Rights. An applicant who extinguishes said
certificates shall not require review pursuant to Section 26.470.070.1 for the second
residence. These limits shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS
approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007.
PROPOSAL 2C
Amendment to Section 26.470.060.6, Minor Expansion of a Commercial, Lodge or
Mixed Use Development (New language has been underlined)
The minor enlargement of a property, structure, or portion of a structure for commercial,
lodge, or mixed use development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria. The
additional development of uses identified in Section 26.470.020 shall be deducted from
the development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030 but shall not
be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
a. The expansion involves no more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of net
leasable space or two (2) hotel/lodge units.
b. An expansion that involves more net leasable square footage or more hotel/lodge
units than specified in sub-section a above may be approved or approved with
conditions by the Community Development Director if the applicant extinguishes a City
of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate, pursuant to Section
26.535, Transferable Development Rights. An applicant who extinguishes said
certificate may obtain approval for the following types of expansions:
1. The expansion may involve an increase in net leasable square footage of
between two hundred fifty-one (251) to five hundred (500) square feet of net leasable
space if the applicant extinguishes one (1) Historic Transferable Development Rights
certificate for the additional net leasable square footage.
2. The expansion may involve the addition of three (3) or four (4) hotel/lodge
units if the applicant extinguishes one (1) Historic Transferable Development Rights
certificate for the additional hotel/lodge c units.
C. No residential units may be obtained with any of the above expansions.
These expansion limitations shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS
approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007.
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT #1
Ms, Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: APPLICATION FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC TDR REGULATIONS
Dear Sara,
I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc. to act as my designated
representative with respect to the Code amendment application we have prepared. Alan
Richman is authorized to submit an application proposing Code amendments to the City's
historic TDR regulations. He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City staff
and the City's review bodies.
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 are included in the development application, or you may contact me
directly at the address and phone number below.
Sincerely,
Neil D. Karbank, Manager
604 West LLC
Karbank 430 LLC
604 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
920-2899
, f
EXHIBIT#2
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sara Adams, 429-2778 DATE: 3/7/14
PROJECT: Code Amendment, TDRs
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Text Amendment (of the land use code)
DESCRIPTION: The above-referenced representative requested that council consider sponsoring
a code amendment to expand the use of historic transferrable development
rights (TDRs).
Staff supports further consideration of this concept through the processing of a
code amendment; however, staff also requested that the applicant submit a land
use application and sponsor the code amendment.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review procedures (as applicable)
26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map
Review by: Staff for complete application
City Council
Public Hearing: Yes (policy resolution and 2nd reading by City Council)
Planning Fees: $7800. Deposit for 24 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at
$325.00 per hour)
Total Number of Application Copies: 10 Copies AND a digital version either emailed or submitted
on a USI3 drive
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Planning Fee for review of application.
2. Land Use Application (Attachment 2)
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/does/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%2OFees/landuseappfor
m.pdf
3. Agreement to pay (Attachment 1)
Disclaimer.
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning,
which is subject to change in the future, and upon representations by the applicant that may or may not be accurate. The
summary does not create a legal or vested right.