HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.202205241
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
May 24, 2022
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place
ZOOM
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join.
https://zoom.us/j/95799823081?pwd=czlJS0ZMYitKdUVuaGVDOFFhbGt4dz09
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 957 9982 3081
Passcode: 81611
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
(Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please
limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VA.Month of the Young Child Proclamation
VI.CONSENT CALENDAR
(These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
1
2
VIA.Resolution #068, Series of 2022 - 949 W. Smuggler Extension of AspenModern
Voluntary Landmark Designation Negotiation Period
VIB.Resolution #069, Series 2022 - Open Space Partnership Acquisition
Draft Minutes of May 10th, 2022
VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP
VIII.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
VIIIA.Ordinance #12, Series of 2022 - 949 W. Smuggler AspenModern Voluntary
Landmark Designation, Growth Management, Subdivision and TDR and Notice of
Call-Up of HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2022
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 - Short-term Rental Regulations
IX.PUBLIC HEARINGS
IXA.Ordinance #11, Series of 2022 - Municipal Code Revisions - Trails
X.ACTION ITEMS
XI.EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Session:
Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 24-6-402 (4)(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale
of any real, personal, or other property interest; (4)(b) Conferences with an attorney for the
local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (4)(e)
Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing
strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators. (4)(f) Personnel
The specific items of discussion involve the following:
1) The Centennial Owners’ Association, v. The City of Aspen, et al. Case No.:
2015CV030158.
2) The lease, transfer or acquisition of real property or property interests, contract
negotiations, and communication with counsel regarding such subjects. Due to market forces,
negotiation strategies and confidentiality demands of parties involved, and necessitated by
the subject of the specific legal advice, which further disclosure would be a detriment to the
City’s strategic position, the exact properties cannot be disclosed.
3) City Attorney Review
XII.ADJOURNMENT
2
PROCLAMATION
1881
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS,The first years of a child’s life are the period of the most rapid
brain development and lay the foundation for all future learning;
and
WHEREAS,76% of children in Pitkin County have all available parents in the
workforce; a high percentage of parents return to work in the first
six weeks after the birth of a child when childcare is available;
and
WHEREAS,Participation in high–quality early childhood education saves
taxpayer dollars, makes working families more economically
secure, and prepares children to succeed in school, earn higher
wages, and live healthier lives; and
WHEREAS,High–quality early childhood education depends on high–quality
early childhood educators who ensure that children, supported
by families, have the early experiences they need for a strong
foundation; and
WHEREAS, The average wage for child care providers, who are skilled and
valuable front-line professionals who have risked their health to
provide education and care during a global pandemic, averages
$22 an hour, or $45,760 annual gross income in Pitkin County;
and
WHEREAS,At the same time, the cost of one year of childcare averages
over $18,000. These costs, which frequently exceed the cost of a
year of college tuition, are often paid by new parents, who can
least afford it; and
WHEREAS, We celebrate the 32
nd Anniversary of the Month of the Young
Child in Aspen, and the contributions of the City of Aspen and
Kids First, so that we can continue to recognize and advance
early childhood education.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, May 2022 as
Month of the Young Child
In the City of Aspen and urge all citizens to recognize and
support the valuable and important contributions of early childhood
educators and families in our community.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor 3
Page 1 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: May 24, 2022
RE: Resolution #068, Series of 2022, 949 W. Smuggler Extension of
AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation Negotiation Period
SUMMARY: On March 31, 2022, Community Development declared complete a land use
application for AspenModern historic landmark designation and redevelopment related to 949 W.
Smuggler Street. The proposal is exempt from the applicability of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021
and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, ordinances which generally placed a temporary moratorium
on residential development, and has been allowed to proceed because land use reviews involving
voluntary AspenModern landmark designation are specifically permitted to be processed at this
time. Submittal of the application initiated a Land Use Code-mandated 90-day timeframe within
which the review process and negotiation for any site-specific preservation benefits is to be
finalized between the property owner and City Council.
Prior to Council review, designation requires recommendations from HPC. This process is
complete. While Council First Reading of the AspenModern designation ordinance will occur
during the 90-day window prescribed by code, Second Reading needs to be delayed until July
12th due to the schedule for Moratorium code amendment adoption, therefore an extension is
necessary.
Staff and the applicant request Council extend the negotiation period by 14 days, from June 29,
2022 to July 13, 2022. Additional extensions may be granted by Council if necessary, if the
applicant is amenable.
APPLICANT: Vandemoer Family, Inc., c/o Chris Vandemoer, P.O. Box 668, Sterling, Colorado
80751
PROJECT ADDRESS: 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID 2735-122-12-003.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #068, Series of 2022, extending the
AspenModern negotiation period for 949 W. Smuggler Street to July 13, 2022.”
4
Page 2 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: __________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBITS:
Resolution #068, Series of 2022
A. Applicant agreement to extension
5
RESOLUTION #068
SERIES OF 2022
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ASPEN
MODERN NEGOTIATION PERIOD RELATED TO THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 949 W. SMUGGLER STREET, LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT
SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-122-12-003
WHEREAS, Vandemoer Family, Inc., c/o Chris Vandemoer, P.O. Box 668, Sterling,
Colorado 80751, has requested approval for AspenModern historic designation for their
property located at 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025
and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C.1, a ninety-day timeframe within which
the applicant and City Council agree to evaluate the proposed designation commenced on
March 31, 2022 and will expire on June 29, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the property contains historic architectural resources, the preservation of
which will support the historic preservation policies and objectives of the City of Aspen;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing cannot be scheduled before City Council until July 12,
2022, therefore staff and the property owner are in agreement that a 14-day extension of
the negotiation to July 13, 2022 is appropriate to allow additional time to discuss options
for the property; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the extension of the historic designation negotiation
period furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
The 949 W. Smuggler AspenModern landmark designation negotiation period established
by Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C is hereby extended to July 13, 2022.
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on May 24, 2022.
Approved as to form:
______________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attest: Mayor:
______________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
6
From:Amy Simon
To:Amy Simon
Subject:949 Council meeting date change
Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:16:12 AM
From: Chris Vandemoer <cvandemoer@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:23 AM
To: mitch hlpaspen.com <mitch@hlpaspen.com>
Cc: Derek Skalko <derek@1friday.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@aspen.gov>
Subject: RE: 949 Council meeting date change
Amy an Mitch,
Although I am never thrilled about delays, it seems that the timing issue is somewhat out of your
control and Amy needs to be present at the meeting. I agree to extent the 90 day Aspen Modern
negotiation and Council’s 2nd reading until July 12th.
Thank you all for your time spent on this process.
Chris
Sent from Mail for Windows
7
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Matt Kuhn, Parks and Open Space Director
THROUGH:Austin Weiss, Director of Parks and Recreation
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE:May 24, 2022
RE:Resolution #069, Series 2022 - Moore Ranch Acquisition Partnership Funding
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Parks and Open Space staff seek Council support for a $1 million dollar contribution towards the
acquisition of open space property in partnership with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. The
property under consideration is the Moore Ranch located north of Aspen along McClain Flats Road. If
Council approves this partnership, staff will return to Council with a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Pitkin County that will outline the final terms of the partnership.
SUMMARY / BACKGROUND:
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff have been working with the landowners, Tom and Carolyn
Moore, to conserve the important and historic 274 acre property along McClain Flats Road. These
discussions have resulted in an agreement that conserves the property in two general parts, with
roughly 95 acres of property to the west of McClain Flats Road being conveyed directly to the County,
while placing a conservation easement on the remaining 179 acres of land.
The agreement price is $10 million, and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board have agreed to
$9 million towards the acquisition. The Board of County Commissioners will consider the contract at
their May 25, 2022 meeting.
The City’s Open Space and Trails Board reviewed this request at a meeting on September 16th, and
unanimously recommended that staff continue to work on the conservation of the parcel in
collaboration with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails.
Partnerships between the City and the County have been somewhat common over the years. The City
and County have partnered on projects such as Sky Mountain Park (City contribution $1m), James H.
Smith parcel at North Star ($6.75m split), Smuggler Mountain Open Space ($7.5m each). Additionally,
the City has solely acquired open space outside the City limits, notably at Cozy Point Ranch and the
Aspen Mass properties.
8
DISCUSSION:
Staff reviewed the proposal with the Open Space and Trails Board during executive session in mid-
September, and with City Council on September 28th. There are several elements of this proposed
acquisition that benefit the City and our interest in open space and conservation. This parcel is
positioned near several other City open space parcels, and the conservation of the agricultural uses on
the property in this area is important and would emphasize the importance of agricultural heritage
whilst maintaining the ability to produce hay for use at Cozy Point Ranch. Further, the lower bench of
the 95 acre open space parcel is intact sagebrush habitat adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail. The
preservation of this parcel adds to the conserved land within the Roaring Fork Gorge landscape, and also
ensures that the County and the City are able to maintain the corridor for recreation and transit along
the Rio Grande Trail. Finally, the partnership between the City and County Open Space and Trails
program remains a strong collaboration, and a 10% contribution to this acquisition illustrates our
commitment to joint projects and broader scale landscape management and conservation.
Staff have reviewed the most current Long Range Plan for the Parks (100) Fund. Based on the current
LRP forecasts, and given projected capital projects and increasing sales tax revenue in consideration, a
contribution of $1 million within the 2022 budget would not impact fund balance and target reserves
negatively.
Staff propose that a $1 million dollar contribution be made for the acquisition of the parcel and
conservation easement, and that this be added to the 2022 budget in the fall supplemental
cycle. Additionally, staff will work with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails to draft a MOU that outlines
the payment of funds to the County. There is precedent for this type of agreement and has been used in
past acquisitions such as at Smuggler Mountain Open Space.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The sale price of this parcel is $10,000,000, and Pitkin County has pledged $9,000,000 towards the
acquisition. The proposed 2022 Parks and Open Space budget does not reflect this expenditure, and if
Council directs staff to proceed with a partnership on this acquisition, staff will include this funding
request in the 2022 Fall Supplemental request. The current Parks and Open Space fund has sufficient
reserves to cover this acquisition at $1,000,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
There are many environmental benefits to preserving this land. Most notably, the preservation of this
parcel will help maintain the integrity of an important wildlife corridor, for a variety of animals such as
elk and migratory songbirds, and shall serve as a continued connection to numerous conserved lands in
the surrounding area.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose to not pursue the acquisition of this property, and direct staff to not partner with
Pitkin County for the conservation of the parcel. Council could direct staff to partner for an amount
other than the proposed staff recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Parks and Open Space Staff recommends a partnership contribution of $1,000,000 towards the contract
to purchase the Moore Ranch parcel and conservation easement.
9
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Vicinity Map
Exhibit B – Parcel Detail
10
RESOLUTION # 069
(Series of 2022)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A ONE MILLION DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION TO
PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN PITKIN
COUNTY KNOWN AS THE MOORE RANCH.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a request to
contribute $1,000,000 from the Parks Fund to Pitkin County Open Space and
Trails for the acquisition of the Moore Ranch, that will be further detailed in a
forthcoming Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Pitkin County;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board recommends
the contribution of City funds towards the purchase of this property; and
WHEREAS, after due deliberation and consideration the City Council has
determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to approve said
contribution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contribution
of one million dollars towards the acquisition of Moore Ranch, subject to the final
approval of the acquisition by Pitkin County and approval of a Memorandum of
Understanding between Pitkin County and the City of Aspen regarding the
contribution.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24
th day of May 2022.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 24, 2022.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
11
Pitkin County
Highway 82
Rivers/Streams
Moore Ranch
Rio Grande Trail
Pitkin County
City of Aspen
Conservation Easement
Federal
BLM
USFS
State
Moore Ranch
Sky Mountain ParkGOCO Funded 2011$2,500,000
Rio Grande TrailGOCO Funded(Lower Reach)
City of Aspen
Buttermilk Ski Area
Snowmass Village
Snowmass Ski Area
Highland Ski Area
Aspen Ski Area
Seven Star RanchGOCO Funded 2004$750,000
Cozy Point SouthGOCO Funded 2005$700,000
Roaring Fork Gorge Planning Area
Vicinity Map
12
13
1
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 2022
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilors Doyle, Mesirow present
and Councilor Hauenstein joining via Zoom. Councilor Richards was absent.
Mayor Torre read a proclamation and introduced several employees: John French, Lee Liebmann, Steve
Saunders, Thor Knutson, Pitkin County Sheriff Anthony Todaro, Dr. Giora Hahn, and Paige Shapiro. This
group of people acted quickly and saved the life of an adult hockey league player during a game as the
player went into cardiac arrest. He read the proclamation and recognized the professionals who saved
the players life. Mayor Torre invited each person who was present to say a few words.
Mayor Torre introduced the swearing in of new officer Ethan Oster who graduated from the police
academy last Friday. His family is here. Mayor Torre swore in officer Oster.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Gordon Leddingham – Mr. Leddingham said he is humbled to be here in person in the town that his
family has been in for over a half century. He is here to make a request about short term rentals. He’s
owned a condo here in town for many years. His mother Norma Dahl built it in the 1970’s. She had the
Snow Queen Lodge. He is here trying to live in his unit and rent it part time. He’s asking council to keep
this unit short term without limitations. He is surrounded by multi lodging projects and really thinks his
unit should be included in the without limitation category.
Councilor Mesirow said that Gordon reached out to him, and he understood that they had missed the
deadline on getting a permit. Mr. Leddingham said their permit is inactive because when COVID
happened, they started renting more long term. This was a special circumstance.
Councilor Hauensteinasked if they have a business license and he said yes, and they’ve also always paid
tax. Councilor Hauenstein suggested they consider this as part of the extension. He’s willing to listen and
understands their circumstances. It’s in a residential neighborhood. We’ll look into this and discuss with
staff. He said let’s look at the proposed ordinances and take it one step at a time.
Junior from Mezzaluna – Mayor Torre introduced Junior and said he is back asking to waive the
$500/day fine until his hearing in June. They have an existing roof structure over the patio and are in for
permit for a similar roof structure. Tomorrow morning it will be reduced to 499 square feet from 566
square feet or so. The permit they are applying for is a patio covering of 499 sq ft. they are asking to
leave the structure up, but to modify it down to the new amount. Philip Supino, Community
Development Director, said it’s his understanding that on the 21
st, the Planning & Zoning Commission
will review this request and either approve or deny on that date. If it’s approved, they would submit a
building permit and then have it reviewed and issued from there. The structure would stay up and they
would reuse the existing roof.
Councilor Hauenstein said no one likes to say no and he has a long history of being a valued member of
this community. His concern is that they are circumventing the process and his cursory look is that a
street level public amenity needs to be open to the sky. He doesn’t want to go to war over this but
doesn’t want to make an exception when everyone else complied.
Councilor Doyle saidthe last time this question was before us, there were three places asking for an
exception, but making exceptions, makes more complexity. He said that Jing and Mi Chola were very
gracious regarding the outcome of the last meeting and Mezzaluna was less than gracious. However, he
14
2
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 2022
doesn’t feel good about throwing material away that is perfectly good. He will let this go forward but is
not happy about it.
Mr. Supino said there would be a mitigation fee, and Junior agreed that he is aware of that.
Councilor Mesirow said he is in support and comfortable with the request. If it’snot approved, it’s gone
the next day and that seems perfectly reasonable.
James R. True, City Attorney, said it’s important for the city to treat people equally. They have an
application in and a hearing set. There may be others out there in a similar position and we would need
to treat them the same way.
Councilor Mesirow said this is a unique situation.
Mr. Supino suggested that Mezzaluna sign another temporary waiver in the event of a life safety
situation, so the liability would fall on them until the structure meets our requirements.
Councilor Hauenstein is going to object to this and make the rules apply equally. His heart says yes but
his head and fairness say no.
Mayor Torre is going to support this. He said if he’s wrong, he will be wrong. He’s ok with allowing it.
Councilor Doyle said this is a tough one. He finds it hard playing favorites, but you’re promising to use
the stuff that’s already there. He’s reluctantly supporting.
Mr. Supino said that we will get inquiries from other businesses on private property. He doesn’t know
what to say to them. He’s concerned about staff’s ability to staff the COVID program.
Mayor Torre said the delineation is clear on this. It’s existing. It’s also important that they have been in
this permit process for some time now.
Councilor Hauensteinasked Mr. True what the proper procedure is for this since it’s not an action item.
Mr. True reiterated that he doesn’t want this to be a one off. If there are others in the same position, we
need to do the same for them. Staff will treat everyone who is in a similar or equal position the same.
We don’t need a formal action, just understand intent and direction of staff. We will recognize or
evaluate who else is in the same position.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilor Hauenstein, (calling in from Costa Rica), saidvacations are necessary and everyone should
take one.
Councilor Doyle gave his climate news from today’s Guardian regarding snow and water. He spoke
about Lake Powell. There is no escape from a third poor runoff year in a row. It’s beautiful outside
though.
Councilor Mesirow said he moved this weekend. Studios aren’t for everyone, but they are for
somebody. Diversity of housing is important. He loves his new place.
Mayor Torre read the Arbor Day proclamation presented by the Parks Department. Arbor Day is May
21st. A celebration will take place in Paepcke Park. Folks will need to show proof of residency for a free
15
3
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 2022
tree. Hot dogs and drinks are available. This will be from 9-12pm on Saturday and the tree giveaway
starts at 10 am. Our community is doing very well in terms of COVID, but people out there are still
getting it and getting sick from it. Please be mindful and do what you can to stay safe. He would like to
recognize some community members that we have recently lost. Michael and Susie Lee and Michael
Reveal. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers. They will be missed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager,reminded folks it’s wildfire season. We had a scare the other day,
so it’s a good reminder to have a go bag ready.
BOARD REPORTS:
Councilor Hauenstein said they are whittling down the list for the CORE director. He said he was on a
tour today in the jungle and was informed that Costa Rica has 98% renewable energy.
Councilor Mesirow said he had APCHA and reviewed a variety of regulationchanges. Yes, we want to
consider them. They also held their first Facebook live and will also have a Spanish offering.
Mayor Torre said this Thursday he has RFTA and then a Board of Health retreat. He sent the agenda to
the councilmembers, so if you have comments before the retreat, please share.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilor Hauenstein said he would like a discussion on Resolution #067.
Resolution #067, Series of 2022 – Professional Services Agreement – Interim IT Director Services –
Dian Foster
Ms. Foster said she will be handling this for Alissa Farrell. Councilor Hauenstein asked what assessments
the staff will be doing and if IT will be staying in the old building. He asked if cyber security will be
assessed. Ms. Foster said the expenses can be covered under departmental savings. We do have housing
in available in Water Place. Staff is working with Sara Ott on staff location. Alissa Farrell has spent a lot
of time recently with the IT staff and is starting to understand where they are and what their needs are.
The firm being hired, will provide interim IT support and they recommend an evaluation.
Councilor Mesirow motioned to approve the consent calendar; Councilor Doyle seconded. Roll call vote:
Doyle, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Torre, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES:
Ordinance #11, Series of 2022 – Municipal Code Revisions – Trails – Matt Kuhn, Parks Director and Brian
Long, Open Space & Trails Supervisor
Mr. Kuhn said about nine months ago, they decided it was time to review the trail section. Mr. Long has
worked with the Open Space & Trails Boardand others to complete this. A special thanks to the
attorney’s office for their help as well.
Mr. Long said these are timeless and include: announcing as you pass, requiring bells on rental fleets,
etc. and a lot of this was a long time in need. Some of it is in response to COVID regarding ebikes, etc.
and a lot has to do with trail etiquette. There are changes to whichvehicles are allowed on the trail
16
4
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 2022
system. On advisement of the city’s Open Space & Trails Board, it comes down to user behavior and not
the device they are on. This code reflects that. Ranger staff is four this summer making sure everyone
plays nice.
Councilor Hauenstein suggested limiting speed of ebikes on the trail system. He wants to know if that
could also be implemented here for safety. Mr. Kuhn said that Mr. Long spent a lot of time on foot
visiting all the bike shops in town and providing them with the code and discussing ebikes. Rental fleets
larger than five bicycles, we would like to continue with the trend of requiring those users to watch a
safety video that ACRA produced which provides etiquette and information.
Councilor Doyle motioned to read Ordinance #11; Councilor Mesirow seconded. Roll call vote: Doyle,
yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Torre, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk, read the ordinance.
Councilor Hauenstein motioned to approve Ordinance #11 on first reading; Councilor Mesirow
seconded. Roll call vote: Doyle, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Torre, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS: – Food Truck Discussion – CJ Oliver, Environmental Health & Sustainability Director and
Philip Supino, Community Development Director
Mr. Oliver said this discussion is a product of the April 18th work session regarding questions
surrounding food trucks. Mr. Oliver summarized the current rules and regulations and said the current
land use code only allows vending on private property and in commercial zone districts. Staff would
work with selected vendors to ensure all other City of Aspen requirements are met including food
service licensing, business licensing, local air quality regs, and safety protocols for the right of way. This
could be very time bound. City council could amend land use approvals. This would impact only the
section of town included in the City Hall campus PD. It would have to go to P&Z review and would take
some time before they could enact this. Council could amend the land use code to potentially allow
vending in more areas of town with similar vending.
Councilor Doyle said at first blush, he was very interested in food trucks, but with what Mr. Oliver just
pointed out, that it would add more work to staff and with what’s already going on, he’s not interested
in moving forward with this.
Mayor Torre said Councilor Richards sent him her thoughts earlier in the day. She would rather spend
the time and dollars on getting Tasters open again, and she’s aware of what this might do to other
businesses in town.
Councilor Hauenstein said he doesn’t want to open up a PD or go through the process of the land use
code. He would like to just do this for the interim. The Armory could be part of the process. We could do
RFP for the Taster’s location. He’s concerned how it would affect a number of affordable food locations
within a short distance to this location.
Councilor Mesirow said he doesn’t want to delay moratorium work for this, buthe’s excited that we are
finally talking about food trucks. He’s a little deflated by Councilor Doyle and Richards, but it’s about
time we do something that other communities have been doing. He said we can test it out before we go
changing the code. We could have a couple different trucks, which would be welcome and overdue. He’s
had two operators reach out to him directly: an antique truck with ice cream and an Indian food truck.
17
5
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 2022
We can seek out some creativity. He recognizes the concern with competition but said this is short
sighted.
Mayor Torre said they are looking for a summer season term. A food truck wouldn’t land there again,
and this would just be through the summer. He would like this person to use compostables.
Ms. Foster said this is a yes or no from Philip as to whether it would take away from moratorium work.
Mr. Supino said they can get there from a staffing perspective. He asked if we would have limited hours
and limited days and Mayor Torre said that conversation would start with the vendors and a realistic
view of what that would look like. Ms. Foster asked if it needs to be affordable and Mayor Torre said
yes, but he doesn’t know how to define that. She said they can do an RFP to figure out what’s available
and come back to you with this if that is what we’re going to do. She said the goal is to provide
affordable food options and that the police will thank you.
Mr. Supino said there are three parking spaces in front of Tasters and in the event that four or more
responses are received, he asked if they should fill all of the available spots.
Mayor Torre said it depends on what we see for applicants.
Mr. Supino asked if they would like for them to come up with a fee structure and they all agreed, yes.
Ms. Foster asked about a local preference and council said yes.
Mayor Torre said hopefully this will be a fun adventure and bring back some messy vitality. Hopefully
this will be fun and exciting.
Councilor Hauensteinmotioned to adjourn; Councilor Mesirow seconded.
Roll call vote: Doyle, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Torre, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
_____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
18
Page 1 of 5
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: May 24, 2022
RE: First Reading, Ordinance #12, Series of 2022, 949 W. Smuggler
AspenModern Voluntary Landmark Designation, Growth Management,
Subdivision and TDR and Notice of Call-Up of HPC Resolution #7, Series of
2022
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Vandemoer Family, Inc., Chris
Vandemoer
REPRESENTATIVE:
Haas Land Planning
1 Friday Design
LOCATION:
Street Address:
949 W. Smuggler Street
Legal Description:
Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split,
City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-122-12-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Single-family home,
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE:
Subdivision; Parcel A with two
detached homes, Parcel B with
one Single-family home.
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
SUMMARY: The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern
historic designation of a 1946 Chalet style home, and
requests Major Development, Relocation, Demolition,
Variations, Growth Management, Subdivision and TDR, and
other preservation benefits be approved for a project which
involves preserving the resource in place and the
development of two new adjacent homes in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council grant
approval of Designation and benefits, Growth Management,
Subdivision, and Transferable Development Rights, and
recommends Council uphold Notice of Call Up as required by
HPC’s approval of Major Development, Relocation,
Demolition and Variations.
Site Locator Map – 949 W. Smuggler
949
19
Page 2 of 5
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
949 W. Smuggler is an 18,000 square foot lot located in
the R-6 zone district. The site contains a 1946 Chalet
home, which is essentially unaltered, and two related
outbuildings, built by the family who has owned the
property for 75 years. The site has no landmark
protection in place and has long been identified as a
priority for preservation through AspenModern.
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL
Council is asked to address the following:
• AspenModern Historic Designation (Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030) for
negotiation of a voluntary designation.
• Growth Management (Section 26.470.080 and 26.470.100) to provide an allotment for
Parcel B, the corner lot.
• Major Subdivision (Section 26.480.070) to divide the existing parcel in two.
• Transferable Development Rights (Section 26.535.070) to allow one TDR to be severed
from Parcel B, the corner lot.
• Notice of Call Up (Section 26.415.120.B) for Council to review HPC’s approval of Major
Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variations.
This application was permitted to be submitted during the current residential development
moratorium because the Council ordinance specifically exempted voluntary AspenModern
designations from being held up. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) provided
decisions on review processes which are fully assigned to the board, and made a
recommendation to Council on those processes which must be approved by Ordinance. This
application has been designed to secure HPC Conceptual and Final review at one stage.
Following Council approval, if granted, the proposed development will be eligible to proceed to
building permit review.
Submittal of an AspenModern application triggers a 90 day negotiation period, during which the
applicant and City attempt to find agreement and passage of a designation ordinance within three
months. The negotiation is proposed to be extended by 14 days under a separate action by City
Council. Extension is needed due to full Council agendas related to the Moratorium ordinances.
The applicant has agreed to the delay.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As detailed in Exhibit A, Historic Designation and Benefits, Staff and HPC support the voluntary
landmarking of this property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Chalet style home
in Aspen. The City has adopted a scoring system to provide an objective analysis of the physical
integrity of the structure under consideration for designation. The property has scored of 19 out
of a possible 20 points, identifying 949 W. Smuggler as a particularly significant remaining
20
Page 3 of 5
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
example of a modest housing type that was common and important to the early development of
the ski resort.
Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A through E for findings on the
reviews to be addressed by Council and Exhibits F and G for HPC’s review of the processes
subject to Notice of Call Up.
In exchange for designation the applicant has requested the following benefits:
1. A full waiver of compliance with the Residential Design Standards for a proposed new
home on Parcel A, the Chalet lot.
2. A waiver of the requirement to comply with slope reduction on Parcel A, the Chalet lot.
3. A determination that the fence near the entry to the Chalet home is original and historically
significant and should remain in place (with maintenance and repair as needed) and be
granted a permanent encroachment license to sit in the public right-of-way.
4. Setback variations for development on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, and Parcel B, the corner
lot, to place future development in a manner that preserves the integrity of the historic
Chalet, and public views of it.
5. Removal of development rights on Parcel B, the corner lot, through the severing of one
TDR. This is paired with the applicant forgoing 30 square feet of allowed floor area on that
lot.
6. Deferral of affordable housing mitigation on Parcel A, the Chalet lot.
7. Negotiation of affordable housing mitigation requirements on Parcel B, the corner lot
8. 10 years vested rights.
Staff finds these requested benefits to be reasonable in consideration of the community benefit of
preserving this home in perpetuity. HPC has recommended the applicant drop their request for
benefit 2, waiver of slope reduction compliance. A small amount of floor area is removed from
the allowable development of the property due to the presence of a small embankment on the
west side of Parcel A. HPC finds that compliance with this reduction is appropriate.
HPC also recommended the applicant forgo benefit 6, a request to defer affordable housing
mitigation on Parcel A.
Staff recommends the request for 10 years vested rights be eliminated as the land use code is
being revised currently and if the property owner does not act on this approval within the three
years of vested rights provided by state statute, the new provisions should apply.
Staff supports the voluntary designation of this property as one of the best and most intact
examples of a Chalet in Aspen. This is likely among the first buildings constructed here after
World War II and is therefore particularly illustrative of the early spirit of the ski resort. Staff finds
that benefits for designation are very important in consideration of the community gain from
preservation of this important piece of Aspen history.
21
Page 4 of 5
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The attached ordinance states the benefits recommended for approval. Two not listed above
were deferred by HPC to Council and require evaluation.
The applicant requests approval to mitigate the affordable housing impacts on all development on
this property as an Administrative Exemption, according to the land use code in place at the time
of building permit application. Exhibit B illustrates that mitigation for Parcel B, as a lot requiring a
Growth Management allotment, is approximately 4.5 times greater than provided in an
Administrative Exemption. These provisions are all subject to amendment as part of the
moratorium, and the applicant will mitigate according to the new ordinance, however the general
premise that mitigation other than an Administrative process will be significantly higher is likely.
Staff recommends Council consider all possible flexibility on the applicant’s request as it is
meaningful to their ability to offer designation.
The second topic for Council input is the idea of a possible City purchase of Parcel B, after
Ordinance adoption. This is a staff generated idea that has been coordinated with Asset
Management and the City Manager’s office, and discussed with the applicant. It is in no way
being suggested as a condition of the negotiation. With the idea that any opportunity to develop
affordable housing in town should be explored, the applicant may be willing to offer the City a 30
day exclusive window to negotiate a purchase of Parcel B, the corner lot following the adoption of
this Ordinance. If that were the case, language in the conditions of approval needs to be modified
to ensure that affordable housing development is provided as an alternative to a single family
home. Staff has provided a draft of such language in the proposed ordinance.
In summary, staff and HPC find that the designation and project approach model the ideal
preservation outcome. The Chalet is preserved with no addition, and new construction is
detached and located at the rear and side of it. Staff and HPC have no concerns with the alley
house design. In order to ensure that the future development of the corner lot supports
preservation and public visibility of the Chalet, staff and HPC supported setback variations to
place that home towards the rear of the lot. The project has heritage preservation value to the
community.
NOTICE OF CALL-UP
As is customary with HPC reviewed projects, Council is provided with a Notice of Call-Up for the
development aspect of the project. As prescribed by code, following the adoption of a resolution
approving, approving with conditions or denying a Conceptual Development Plan application for
a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval
of a designated property, HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City
Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure. Council may uphold HPC’s decision
or may remand it to require reconsideration of specific issues. HPC’s decision on remand, is a
publicly noticed hearing, shall be final.
After careful review of the project relative to the historic preservation design guidelines, HPC
approval was granted by a 6-0 vote with one abstention. The HPC memo, resolution, application
and minutes are attached as Exhibit F. Staff recommends Council uphold the Commission’s
22
Page 5 of 5
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
decision and allow the project to proceed through the designation review which will be presented
to Council for First Reading at this hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #12, Series of 2022 on First Reading
and to uphold HPC’s approval for Major Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variations at
949 W. Smuggler Avenue.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Growth Management Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Subdivision Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D – TDR Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit E – Application
Exhibit F – HPC packet related to Notice of Call Up
Exhibit G – HPC draft resolution
23
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
949 W. Smuggler, AspenModern designation
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE #12
(Series of 2022)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS,
SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND A TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 949 W. SMUGGLER
STREET, LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-122-12-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Vandemoer Family, Inc., c/o Chris Vandemoer, P.O. Box 668,
Sterling, Colorado 80751, has requested review of AspenModern Historic Designation and
Benefits, Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Variations, Subdivision, Growth
Management and a TDR for the property located at 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer
Hill Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID 2735-122-12-003; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been deemed to be exempt from the applicability of Ordinance #27,
Series of 2021 and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, ordinances which generally placed a temporary
moratorium on residential development, and has been allowed to proceed because land use
applications involving voluntary AspenModern landmark designation are specifically permitted to
be processed at this time; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed to be complete on March 31, 2022 and is to be reviewed
according to the land use regulations in affect prior to the adoption of Ordinance #27, Series of
2021. The date of completeness commenced a code mandated 90 day period for the City to
negotiate historic designation with the property owner. Since the review process could not be
completed within 90 days, City Council, through Resolution #068, Series of 2022, granted a 14
day extension of the negotiation period, from June 29 to July 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and
Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code and allows for City Council approval of site specific
benefits to secure voluntary historic designation; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation
period, “the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of
the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;” and
WHEREAS, the property owner and representatives met with the Historic Preservation
Commission on April 13, 2022, April 27th, 2022 (site visit), and May 11, 2022, considered the
application, the staff memo and public comments, and found that the property is a “best” example
of AspenModern era architecture and the proposal is consistent with the review standards. HPC
granted approval for Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, and Variations and
recommended Council approval of AspenModern designation and Benefits, Subdivision, Growth
24
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
949 W. Smuggler, AspenModern designation
Page 2 of 5
Management, and Transferable Development Rights, with conditions, by a vote of 6 to 0, with
one abstention; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council may
negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development
Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that “as part of the mutually acceptable
agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee
waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another
Board or Commission, including variations;” and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application
for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements
of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby finds that 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado meets the criteria for landmark designation as an AspenModern
historic resource.
Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records
of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the
historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of
the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department.
Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the following associated with this historic designation.
1. Designation will affect the entire property; Parcel A, the Chalet lot and Parcel B, the corner
lot. As such, future development of Parcel B is subject to HPC Major Development Review
and Residential Design Standards Review.
25
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
949 W. Smuggler, AspenModern designation
Page 3 of 5
2. A full waiver of compliance with the Residential Design Standards is granted for the new
home on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, as a negotiated benefit. This house is not designed to
relate to Smuggler Street and its character as an alley/back-drop structure is appropriate.
3. The applicant shall comply with slope reduction on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, rather than
asking for a preservation benefit on this topic.
4. The fence near the entry to the Chalet home is original and historically significant and
should remain in place (with maintenance and repair as needed) and shall be granted a
permanent encroachment license to sit in the public right-of-way.
5. The applicant is asked to continue their excellent regular maintenance of the Chalet and to
work closely with the Parks Department to preserve the significant trees adjacent to the
home, while also taking note of the impacts of the tree roots and branches continually
moving towards the historic structure.
6. For relocation of the chicken coop, a letter from an engineer or housemover demonstrating
the structure is capable of withstanding the relocation, a plan for the safe relocation of the
building, and a financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required prior to
building permit submission.
7. Setback variations are approved on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, for the “chicken-coop” and the
proposed new home along the alley. The chicken-coop is permitted a 5 foot east setback
where it should have 10 feet. The new house along the alley is permitted a 5 foot rear
setback rather than the 10 feet required for proposed below grade space, a second floor
deck, and a lightwell.
8. A combined sideyard of 15 feet is permitted on Parcel B, the corner lot, where 25 feet is
required. A 30’ front yard setback is required, only above grade. These requirements may
be adjusted by an affirmative vote of HPC at the time that development is proposed.
9. One TDR shall be severed from Parcel B, the corner lot, and the property will thereafter
forgo 30 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area and be permitted the development
of a single- family home of 3,240 square feet. A duplex or other residential structure is
only permitted if this condition is amended by future action of City Council. Should
affordable housing become a by-right use on this property, this shall be a development
option, however the setbacks established above remain applicable.
10. The applicant shall withdraw the request for deferral of affordable housing mitigation on
Parcel A, the Chalet lot, as a preservation benefit.
11. The applicant shall be permitted to mitigate the affordable housing impacts on all
development on this property as an Administrative Exemption, according to the land use
code in place at the time of building permit application.
12. If the property owner is agreeable, the City accepts the opportunity for a 30 day exclusive
window to negotiate a purchase of Parcel B, the corner lot following the adoption of this
Ordinance.
Section 3: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a
vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the
Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said
26
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
949 W. Smuggler, AspenModern designation
Page 4 of 5
property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved
amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three (3) years
which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended,
failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein,
within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of
said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of §
26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan
shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause
to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and
creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to §
26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use
Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID 2735-122-12-003
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance.
The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review.
The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate
this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of
vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development
approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than
those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 4: Material Representations
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 Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: Litigation
This ordinance 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.
27
Ordinance #12, Series of 2022
949 W. Smuggler, AspenModern designation
Page 5 of 5
Section 6: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 7: Public Hearing
A duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 12th day of July, 2022 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of May, 2022.
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a __ to __ vote on this __ day of July, 2022.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
28
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties. The designation of properties to an official list,
that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is
maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what
buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community.
Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or
conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect.
C. Aspen Modern
1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site,
structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a
demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be
evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district,
the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two (2) of the
criteria a-d, and criterion e described below:
a) The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution
to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the
specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted
context paper;
b) The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state,
regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are
identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
c) The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the
technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or
design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design,
designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper;
d) The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented
by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history,
architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the
property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish
the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the
community, and
e) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other
devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation
Commission to apply this criterion.
29
Page 2 of 5
Staff Finding: According to the Pitkin County Assessor, and corroborated by this applicant, the
Chalet home at 949 W. Smuggler was built in 1946-47 and appears to be one of the first new
homes constructed in Aspen following World War II. The applicant is the great grandson of the
original builder and the family has owned the property and used it as a vacation home continuously
for 75 years. It is an excellent and unaltered example of European chalet references being
incorporated into the architecture of the ski resort town, more fully detailed in the City’s historic
context paper on the Chalet style of design in Aspen.
Regarding the designation review criteria, staff finds that three of the five criteria are met (only
one is required.) The home demonstrates the early development patterns of the ski town and it
clearly demonstrates the following key features of the Chalet Style in Aspen; low pitched roof with
deep eaves, decorative fascia, balconies, and railings with cut out motifs from nature. To judge
the integrity of the property, the City developed, and City Council adopted scoring sheets. Staff
agrees with the assessment provided in the application, which indicates the integrity score for this
30
Page 3 of 5
structure is a 19 out of 20, putting it in “best” range for historic integrity. Staff fully supports the
designation of this property that contains the oldest and best example of a postwar Chalet style
home in the community. Please note that although the applicant’s original proposal was to
designate only the Chalet lot, it is necessary and mutually agreeable to designate the entire
subject property to proceed with awarding of preservation benefits and to satisfy HPC interests in
the placement and character of development on the corner lot.
The designation of properties as AspenModern is voluntary and allows the applicant to
request benefits on a case by case basis as follows.
26.415.025.C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen’s 20th century
history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be
eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be
awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as
follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation
commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on
appropriate development and benefits.
1. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the
AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark
designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated.
A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety-day negotiation
period shall accompany the land use application. The ninety-day negotiation period may
be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or
longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein
shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting
the subject property during the ninety-day negotiation period.
Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur:
a) The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be
eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
b) The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or
building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting.
The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring
sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment
of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1.
When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the
property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development
that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation
program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional
31
Page 4 of 5
measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine
whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century
historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council.
c) The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the
proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the
staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and
the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting.
d) The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct
the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate
with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation
of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive
Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the
City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver
permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to
another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the
appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a “good,
better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century history and shall also seek to be
equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value
of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek
compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property.
When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and
limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the
mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use
application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the
property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic
significance of the property.
Once a property identified on the AspenModern Map is designated to the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this
section is not allowed.
e) If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property
owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use
applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable
provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, or the property
owner, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time.
Staff Findings: The applicant has requested benefits related to voluntary designation, which are
to be evaluated by HPC and recommended to Council.
32
Page 5 of 5
Staff finds that the preservation approach in this project is ideal and deserving of the City’s
partnership. This is a voluntary landmark designation resulting in the Chalet being preserved in
place with no addition, and all new construction completely detached.
33
Exhibit B
Growth Management Criteria
Staff Findings
The applicant has indicated that affordable housing mitigation required by Growth
Management will be provided according to the code in place at the time of construction.
The mitigation standards are currently being amended as part of the moratorium on
residential development, so current code is referenced below, but not binding.
The proposal involves preserving one existing home without expansion, and the future
construction of two new homes. As it stands, the subject property has the right to develop
one new home through an Administrative Exemption to the Growth Management
review system. This process will be applied to the home behind the Chalet. In order to
receive the exemption, the owner must provide affordable housing mitigation. The
existing code language at Section 26.470.090.a allows a property owner to select from
a list of options which range from creating affordable housing on or off-site, to paying
cash-in-lieu, or providing affordable housing credits. Full-time working residents may
defer their mitigation until the time they sell to someone who is not. The applicant
originally requested that, if they construct the unit behind the Chalet before the corner lot
is sold, they would be allowed to defer affordable housing mitigation until one month after
the corner lot is transferred to an unrelated party. If the corner lot is sold before the new
house on the Chalet lot is built, mitigation will be paid when required at building permit
issuance. APCHA has indicated that they are willing to accept this request by recording
a binding agreement with the applicant, however, because the applicant has expressed
that this sequence of development is unlikely, staff and HPC recommend the
deferral be dropped from the AspenModern negotiation.
The request to subdivide the applicant’s property into the Chalet parcel and a new corner
parcel when it was itself recently created through a lot split action is required to be
reviewed as Major Subdivision. According to Aspen’s land use code, a site can only be
split once through a simple lot split review process and Growth Management exemption.
The review standards below must be met. The calculation of affordable housing
mitigation is significantly different. The applicant has requested that the corner lot be
mitigated through the same methodology as the Chalet lot.
26.470.080. General Review Standards.
All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth
management review shall comply with the following standards.
A. Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B.
Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A
shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the
allotments are requested.
34
Staff Finding: The Growth Management Quota System allows for 19 new free-market
homes that do not qualify under the exemption language noted above, to be approved
per year. No allotments have been granted for 2022, so there are sufficient allotments
for this proposal. Staff finds this review criterion to be met.
B. Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the
requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site specific development
plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including
the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial
Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as
applicable.
Staff Finding: The development is being reviewed for conformance with the Municipal
Code and is seeking Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval. Staff finds
this review criterion to be met.
C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade
public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water
supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and
police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: No required improvements to public infrastructure have been identified at
this time. Staff finds this review criterion to be met.
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation.
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated
by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section
26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision
of affordable housing.
2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by
the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee
generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section
26.470.100.G.
3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not
previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for
affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 2017, and by 3% each
year thereafter until 65% is reached, as follows:
35
Development Order applied
for during calendar year -
Mitigation required
(percent of employees generated by
the existing space that has
previously not mitigated)
2017 15%
2018 18%
2019 21%
2020 24%
2021 27%
2022 30%
2023 33%
2024 36%
2025 39%
2026 42%
2027 45%
2028 48%
2029 51%
2030 54%
2031 57%
2032 60%
2033 63%
2034 65%
4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between
development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on
the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is
being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements
for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are
being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the
requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above.
36
5) For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall
be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional
free-market residential net livable area.
6) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on
Section 26.470.110.D.
7) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to
this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined
in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable
housing credit, or cash-in-lieu.
c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall
be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site
within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation
by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.B. When off-site units within
City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval
of the growth management application.
d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section
26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the
calculations in Section 26.470.050.F, Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than 0.1 FTEs, a cash-in-lieu
payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is
0.1 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval,
pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C.
f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D,
Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant
may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
g. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty
percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished
grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through
Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430
8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary
units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential
occupied (RO).
37
Staff Finding: As stated above, the applicant has indicated that mitigation for both new
homes will be provided at time of building permit, according to the codes in effect at the
time of building permit. This is the standard process.
Because this application is the second subdivision of the former Vandemoer/Hill property
that stretched from 8th street to Power Plant Road, the form of required mitigation for the
corner lot is significantly higher than a standard townsite lot. This additional subdivision
is perceived as new growth in the way that an unsubdivided lot is not.
Under the current code provisions, mitigation for the corner lot would be approximately
as follows: 3,240 of allowed floor area x 30%= 972 square feet. To convert the 972 square
feet into employees to be mitigated, divide by a standard number established as 400
square feet of livable area needed per full-time equivalent employee, so the required
mitigation would be 2.43 FTEs. Typically, this mitigation would be provided through the
property owner purchasing Affordable Housing credits from a developer who produced
them. Affordable Housing credits are currently very scarce. To the extent that the owner
could mitigate by cash-in-lieu, the payment pre-moratorium would be approximately 2.43
x $302,879 (standard Category 4 cash-in-lieu rate per FTE) = $735,995. A lot which does
not require a Growth Management allocation, such as the Chalet lot, which will be
considered to be the fathering parcel already assigned a development right, mitigation for
3,240 square feet of new development would result in a cash in lieu fee of approximately
0.52 FTEs with a mitigation value of $157,012.
The applicant has asked to have the corner lot locked into the mitigation methodology for
a lot that does not require a Growth Management allotment. This is a policy issue that
Council must resolve in their negotiation with the applicant. The regulations which
emerge from the moratorium are likely to increase both mitigation methodologies/fees
described above.
38
Exhibit C
Major Subdivision Criteria
Staff Findings
26.480.070. Major subdivisions.
The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for
Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision
Review Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision,
described below. All subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall
be considered major subdivisions.
A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating
individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according
to the following standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040
– General Subdivision Review Standards.
Staff Finding: The General Subdivision Review Standards are addressed in the next
section of this exhibit. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that
optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development.
Staff Finding: The proposal divides the subject parcel into two smaller lots that are
consistent with the typical lot size of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature
vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual,
or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Finding: Large trees are preserved around the historic resource, which will be
protected in perpetuity for the benefit of the community. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for
development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property,
including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil
creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit,
avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or
man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the
community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if
adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in
compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for
39
mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of
implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to
Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Finding: The lot is relatively flat, and undeveloped. No mitigation of hazards is
anticipated. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation
techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with
the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design
Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The
City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and
implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development
Agreement.
Staff Finding: The density of the proposed development is typical of the surrounding
neighborhood. No special mitigation efforts are anticipated beyond the standard
stormwater requirements applied to all single family homes in Aspen. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities
necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the
developer.
Staff Finding: Engineering has preliminary commented on upgrades needed for utilities
on private property, but has not yet indicated public infrastructure improvements are
required. Staff finds this criterion is met.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth
management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota
System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and
replacement development as applicable.
Staff Finding: Growth Management review and findings are addressed as another
exhibit to this packet. Staff finds this criterion is met.
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of
Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land
acceptance pursuant to said Chapter.
Staff Finding: The development proposed in the future on this property will be subject
to impact fees, including Park Development fees and Transportation Demand
Management fees. Only the historic resource and accessory building receive exemption
from these assessments as a standing provision of the code. The City collects School
Lands fees on behalf of the school district. The amount of payment required is related to
the amount of new floor area developed and/or the value of the lot the development is
occurring on. These calculations will occur at time of building permit. It is possible to
40
dedicate land to the School District instead of paying a cash-in-lieu fee but the applicant
is not suggesting that option. Staff finds this criterion is met.
9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Finding: A draft plat is provided in the application and will be finalized and recorded
after the land use review is complete. Staff finds this criterion will be met.
10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval
Documents.
Staff Finding: The proposal does not involve any unique obligations, responsibilities or
improvements be committed for the benefit of the community, therefore a Development
Agreement will not be required. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and
limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not
eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All
streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use
to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access
points and driveways are prohibited.
Staff Finding: The two lots resulting from this subdivision will front Smuggler Street
and/or 8th Street, as well as an alley, and will therefore maintain their existing access to
public ways. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and
additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original
platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved.
Staff Finding: The two new lots are orthogonal and divided north/south, following the
pattern of the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved
pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless
41
unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently
with subdivision review.
Staff Finding: The zoning for the newly created lots will remain as is; R-6 Medium
Density Residential. Staff finds this criterion is met.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not
create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application
or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel
may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the
structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to
application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance
that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such
assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or other legal mechanism
acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Finding: The proposal includes moving a small existing structure to a new location
that requires a setback variation. Setback variations are also required to accept the areas
identified for future construction of new homes on each of the subdivision’s lots. The
merits of these variations will be addressed as part of the landmark designation review,
and if approved, the conditions will not be considered to be non-conformities.
42
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit D
Transferable Development Rights Criteria
Staff Findings
Section 26.535.070
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption
of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties
on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Findings: 949 W. Smuggler is proposed to be a designated a historic landmark and will
therefore become an eligible sending site that can establish and sever transferable development
rights (TDRs). Single-family and duplex residential are permitted uses in the R-6 zone district
where this property is located.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either
a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square
feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
Staff Findings: One TDR is proposed to be removed from Parcel B, the corner site, which is
currently vacant. Conditions of approval in the Council ordinance for this project will clarify the
floor area that remains to be built on the site after the TDR is severed.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase
the specific nonconformity.
Staff Findings: The creation of the proposed TDR will not create or increase a nonconformity.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning
for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending
site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home or
duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted
to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized
lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs and does not
permit the on-site development of 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized
lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20% of allowable floor area exceeds 500 square
feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at any time in the future.
43
Page 2 of 3
Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to
the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void.
Staff Findings: The applicant’s original proposal was to not designate the corner lot as a
landmark and to offer it for sale as a single-family home site. The allowable floor area for the
8,000 square foot lot would be 3,520 sf. The applicant requested approval for one 250 square
foot of floor area TDR as an AspenModern designation benefit and then planned to forgo 30
square feet of floor area to leave the lot with 3,240 square feet for a new home. This is what
would be allowed for a lot 2,000 square feet smaller; meaning a 6,000 square foot lot which is the
common module in the West End. Staff supports this proposal and the applicant’s sensitivity to
building scale adjacent to the resource.
Since the original proposal, the applicant is now amenable to designation of the corner lot,
recognizing that this is necessary to receive TDR and setback benefits there, and also recognizing
HPC’s strong interest in having a design review role on this site. As a landmarked lot, the corner
would technically be eligible for a duplex of 3,920 square feet. Staff does not support amending
the development proposal to allow this option and recommends a condition that the property is
limited to single family development unless amended by City Council.
E. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor
area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall
be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR
certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as
may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor
area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as
may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to
the City Attorney.
Staff Findings: At the time of issuing a TDR certificate, the applicant will be required to file a
deed restriction that will permanently reduce the allowable floor area on the corner lot by 250 sf.
The applicant may obtain a template for the deed restriction from staff when needed. All
documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to execution.
44
Page 3 of 3
F. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and
deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property
together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk
and Recorder's office.
Staff Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue.
G. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area.
Staff Findings: The applicant will likely create and sell or retain the TDR prior to selling the corner
lot. The plat will be labeled to indicate that no more than 3,240 square feet of floor area will be
allowed to be built on that parcel, to be calculated at the time that a building permit is submitted.
H. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable
development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen
Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of
such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total
value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such
transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void.
Staff Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue.
I. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
Staff Findings: N/A
J. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the
affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide
Council with a recommendation.
Staff Findings: Staff and HPC recommend in favor of establishing one TDR with this application.
HPC is a recommending body and City Council is the final authority for granting a TDR request.
45
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
1
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
420 E. Main Street, Suite 220 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 309-2773 mitch@hlpaspen.com
March 18, 2022
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and City Council
c/o Aspen Community Development Department
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear HPC, City Council and Staff:
Please accept this application for voluntary AspenModern (hereinafter “AM”) historic
designation. As part of the AM negotiation, the following approvals are requested in this
application: Combined Conceptual and Final Major Development Review, Demolition,
Setback Variations, Historic Benefits, Major Subdivision, and Growth Management.
Introduction:
As detailed in “The Proposal” section below, this application volunteers Landmark
Designation for proposed Parcel A of the “Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision,” including the
existing home and “chicken coop” outbuilding at 949 West Smuggler Street, and assurances
of historic preservation in exchange for the granting of approvals and incentives available
through AM negotiation.
AM is a program adopted by the City of Aspen to address, through negotiation of incentives
for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have
on the health, peace, safety, and general well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen,
and the diminishment of Aspen’s unique architectural character, livability, and attractive-
ness as a destination. Inherent in this negotiation process is a clear recognition by the City
that incentives and benefits beyond the typical scope of the Land Use Code must be offered
and conferred upon many property owners who would otherwise forego landmark
designation in favor of demolition and replacement absent the restrictions and processes that
come with historic designation. In other words, the willingness to accept not only permanent
landmark designation but also the perpetual preservation and protection through the
oversight of the HPC of a landmark property and the structure(s) located thereon are the
benefits the City receives while the benefits to be conferred upon the applicant in exchange
is what gets negotiated.
This application is submitted by Chris Vandemoer of Vandemoer Family, Inc. (hereinafter
the “Applicant”), pursuant to Sections 26.415.025(c) and 26.415.030(c) of the Aspen Land Use
Code (the Code). Given the codified terms and provisions of the AM program, those are the
only directly applicable Sections of the Code. Since the AM program is a negotiated approval
process through which preservation benefits and incentives beyond those identified in the
46
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
2
Code are available to an applicant, the applicable sections and provisions of the Code take
on a flexibility that does not exist with other types of applications. The normally applicable
Code Sections include: 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including
26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.410, Residential Design Standards; 26.415.025(C),
Identification of Historic Properties; 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties;
26.415.070, Development Involving Designated Historic Properties; 26.415.080, Demolition
of Historic Properties; 26.415.110, Benefits; 26.470, Growth Management; 26.480, Subdivision;
and 26.710.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District.
For the reviewer’s convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project
are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements, Homeowners Association
Compliance, Fee Agreement, and Chalet Historic Integrity Scoring Forms.
• Exhibit 2: Full Plans Set, including: Existing Lot Split Plat; Improvement Survey;
Proposed Subdivision Plat; Grading, Drainage and Underground Piping Plan; Existing
and Proposed Site Plans; Site Coverage Diagrams; Existing and Proposed Floor Area
Plans and Calculations; Existing and Proposed Floor Plans; Existing and Proposed
Elevations; Site Context Photos and Elevations; Proposed Exterior Lighting Plan; and
Models/Renderings
• Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Simon.
• Exhibit 4: Review Requirements/Code Standards and Responses.
• Exhibit 5: Previous Approvals (Ordinance No. 02-2020, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split Plat,
and Notice of Exemption and Authorization to Apply During term of Moratorium).
• Exhibit 6: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership and Authority.
• Exhibit 7: 90-Day Negotiation Understanding Letter from Applicant.
• Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map.
• Exhibit 9: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC and 1 Friday Design Collaborative
to represent the Applicant.
• Exhibit 10: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300-feet
of the subject property.
In addition, with the architectural plans and renderings prepared by Derek M. Skalko of 1
Friday Design Collaborative, a proposed “Final Subdivision Plat of The Vandemoer Lot 2
Subdivision” is included as part of Exhibit 2.
While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions
may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land
Planning, LLC and 1 Friday Design Collaborative will provide such additional information.
47
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
3
Background/History:
Back in the 1940s, just after the end of World War II, Herbert Robbins (H.R.) Vandemoer and
his son Herbert (Herb) Vandemoer came to Aspen to purchase and develop land. The father
and son built a 3-bed/2-bath home with an accompanying garage and “little house” on West
Smuggler Street to welcome generations of their families into for decades to come.
H.R. would bring the entire family to the home on weekends, over holidays, and for various
getaways throughout the years. Herb eventually had children of his own: Cory, Craig and
Chris. They were raised between farming in Northeast Colorado and enjoying the nature in
Aspen, hiking and camping throughout the area, climbing many of its notorious peaks,
fishing every creek for fresh trout, and riding the area’s first chairlifts. They experienced
Aspen’s development into a World Class ski resort and tourist destination.
Chris is now 65 years old and has spent every single Christmas holiday in Aspen, except in
2016 when his father (Herb) passed. The same is true of his daughters, Isabel and Phoebe,
Herb’s only two grandchildren and the fourth generation of Vandemoer’s to cherish this
property. Herb adored his grandchildren. Any day skiing with them was “the best day ever,”
and we know if he was here today, he would be right by Chris’s side applying for the
preservation of the Vandemoer’s Aspen home.
Keeping and maintaining the property has not been easy. Increases in property value and
the growing resort and tourism economies brought tax burdens and the pressure to sell. This
led to the family selling a portion of the property on the north side of Smuggler Street many
years back. That helped to lighten the pressures for some time, but not permanently.
The latest challenge was the internal pressure from the secondary family members to sell.
That pressure grew to an uncomfortable degree that divided the family and evolved into an
emotional and strenuous legal battle, eventually ending in an arbitration agreement that
resulted in the land’s current state: Lots 1 and 2 of the Vandemoer Hill Lot Split.
The Vandemoer’s gave the Hill’s the 39,129 square foot Lot 1 and kept only the 18,000 square
foot Lot 2, even though the Vandemoer’s owned the majority stake. The Hill’s have since
sold their lot and received the windfall they desired.
With only one modest cabin and three families (Chris and his two siblings) left owning the
18,000 square foot property, Chris’s siblings recognized that ownership of the property
should lie with Chris. Having the only Vandemoer grandchildren, Chris had too strong of
an emotional connection to the property and Aspen itself to walk away from both, despite
the large windfall he would have gained by selling.
Chris committed to undertake the huge financial burden that was necessary to pay his
siblings fair market value to keep this legacy property in his family. However, Chris now
finds himself in the same stressful position as his predecessors and needing to find a way to
afford the property, preferably while preserving the historic significance of the home and
48
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
4
outbuilding --- thus, this Aspen Modern application. If this application is not successful,
reality may force Chris to sell the property to the highest bidder, who is not likely to keep
the historic 75-year-old structures that his father built.
Chris wants dearly to keep this property in his family for his daughters to have and cherish
the way he has for 65 years. He also wants to keep his family legacy alive as a part of the
Aspen community. It is hard to fathom just how deep the emotional ties are to the property
the family has known and loved for their entire lives. It is the place of their dearest childhood
and family memories, and a place for future memories and “best days ever” to be created.
The home serves as a humble reminder of simpler times in Aspen, Colorado for visitors and
residents alike.
49
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
5
Existing Conditions:
The subject property was recently created through a 2020 minor subdivision for a lot split
that divided the original larger parcel into two. The property is a rectangular-shaped 18,000
square foot lot (180’ x 100’) in the R-6 Zone District. It is legally described as Lot 2,
Vandemoer Hill Lot Split according to the final plat thereof recorded November 6, 2020, in
Plat Book 129 at Page 11, and it includes Lots D-I of Block 3, City and Townsite of Aspen (see
Exhibit 5). Lot 1 is a vacant parcel under separate ownership and is not part of this
application. A Vicinity Map showing the property’s general location relative to the
surrounding area is attached to this application as Exhibit 7. Existing conditions are also
summarized on the Dimensional Requirements Form included with Exhibit 1.
Excerpt Screenshot from Final Plat of the Vandemoer Hill Lot Split (Subject Property Outlined in Red):
Modern architecture made its first appearance in Aspen after World War II. The period of
historic significance for modernist buildings in Aspen is between 1945 and approximately
1975. according to the City’s published Aspen Modern National Trust for Historic
Preservation booklet, “The Swiss-style is a favorite, with a range of homes tucked into
neighborhoods like little Alpine cabins. Yet, this traditional look (such as the 1946 single-family chalet
50
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
6
at 949 West Smuggler Street, possibly Aspen’s oldest example of this style) mixes easily with the more
contemporary versions, referred to locally as ‘Modern Chalets’.”
Furthermore, per the City of Aspen’s website (http://www.aspenmod.com/places/949-w-
smuggler/), the home at 949 West Smuggler Street “is a highly decorative, classic example of the
Chalet style, and was likely the first example built in town, just as the first chairlift was opening on
Aspen Mountain. The house appears to be as originally designed. Built for a family from the Denver
area, it is an example of an early ski vacation home in Aspen.” The home is considered
representative of the period of ski industry development in Aspen and, having never
changed hands, remains under the ownership of the Vandemoer family, its original
developers.
Completely intact and unaltered, with an historic integrity score of 19 points (out of a
possible 19 points), the home has often been referred to by City historic preservation staff
and commissioners as the single “most important property” on the AM list of potentially
historic structures. This application offers the chance to have this one-of-a-kind, important
historic treasure forever preserved and protected against intentional loss, inappropriate
alteration, or redevelopment.
In addition to the original chalet-style home built circa 1946, the lot also contains an historic
“chicken coop” outbuilding as well as a storage shed. The screenshots pasted below depict
an existing conditions site plan, as well as photos of the existing structures.
51
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
7
While the actual dates of the black-and-white photos below remain unknown, they are
believed to be from shortly after the home was built in 1946. As can be seen in the more
recent, color photo of the house (farther below), the same architectural form and detailing
remains. It is also interesting to note that the same plantings remain, although the trees
flanking the corners of the house have grown from maybe 8-feet tall in the black-and-white
photo to more like 60-80 feet tall today. A pair of current photos of the associated “chicken
coop” outbuilding are provided below as well, including a close-up of the original “HERBERT
VANDEMOER” weathervane.
52
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
8
53
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
9
As mentioned above, the current configuration of the subject property is the result of
Ordinance No. 2 (Series of 2020) (hereinafter the “Ordinance”) and the associated Final Plat
(see Exhibit 5). The Ordinance did not historically designate the property or put any
restrictions of note on it. Instead, any future development on Lot 2 is merely subject to the
requirements of the R-6 zone district in place at such time as a development or
redevelopment application is submitted (which time is now).
Due to setbacks resulting from the Lot Split, the two outbuildings (shed structures) are noted
in the Ordinance as being subject to the Non-Conformities regulations in Land Use Code
Section 26.312. Furthermore, the Ordinance provides that Lot 2 “shall not be further subdivided
through the Minor Subdivision – Lot Split process.” As such, this application does not seek a
Minor Subdivision or Lot Split but instead requests Major Subdivision approval through the
AM process to divide Lot 2 into Parcels A and B.
Under current Code and zoning, as an existing 18,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district,
the subject property can be developed with two (2) detached single-family homes or a duplex
using a combined 4,590 square feet of floor area (or roughly 9,000 square feet of gross area,
including basements). The existing structures can be demolished and lost forever, there is no
historic designation, and the redevelopment would not be subject to HPC purview. For the
Applicant to willingly forego the relative ease and value of the status quo by landmarking
the historic structures, this baseline development potential will need to be significantly
improved.
54
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
10
The Proposal: (proposed incentives/benefits are indicated in purple font)
The applicant intends to subdivide the property into two lots, as follows:
(A) Parcel A (also referred to herein as the “Chalet Lot” or “Historic Lot”) to be a 10,000
square foot, historically designated lot (100’ x 100’) and contain the historic chalet and
relocated chicken coop (Outbuilding “B”), as well as a new detached single-family
residence along the alley frontage; and
(B) Parcel B (also referred to herein as the “Vacant Lot”) to be a vacant 8,000 square foot
lot (80’ x 100’) that will be given a residential growth management allotment but will
not be designated or otherwise subject to HPC purview for future development of a
single-family home. The existing storage building (Outbuilding “A”) will be
demolished.
The Applicant seeks approval to maintain the existing fence and parking pull-out area within
the West Smuggler Street right-of-way, as these have existed since the 1940s. The principal
historic chalet structure will be unaltered, and the large, mature evergreen trees marking its
three main corners will be maintained as well. Relocating the circa 1940s fence to match the
West Smuggler Street property line is not feasible or desirable as it would necessitate impacts
to the historically significant trees.
The reduced-size diagrams provided below depict the proposed layout of the lots and
structures as well as the proposed setback requirements.
55
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
11
It is proposed that the standard 10-foot front setback on the Vacant Lot be increased three-
fold to 30-feet for above-grade improvements to assure maximum visibility of the historic
structures from West Smuggler Street and its North 8th Street intersection (utilities and
subgrade improvements would continue to be subject to the standard 10-foot front yard
setback requirement). To accommodate this, it is also proposed that the east side yard setback
for this 8,000 square foot lot be 5-feet, as required (adjacent to the nearly 30-feet of
unoccupied right-of-way between the property line and the N. 8th Street roadway), and that
the combined side yard setback requirement be waived or established at 15-feet (a 10-foot
variation from the 25-foot requirement). The proposed side yard setbacks and the 5-foot/10-
foot rear yard setback are consistent with the underlying R-6 zoning. If preferable to the City,
the Applicant is amenable to establishing these setbacks as a formal “building envelope” to
be delineated on the Final Subdivision Plat.
56
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
12
The proposed Vacant Lot, being 8,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district, would normally
allow 3,520 square feet of Floor Area for a single-family residence. However, in another
proactive effort to ensure sensitivity to the important historic resources on the Chalet Lot,
the Applicant is volunteering that the Vacant Lot be limited to just 3,240 square feet of floor
area, or the same floor area allowed for a lot of only 6,000 square feet. With this 280 square
foot reduction, the Applicant is requesting one (1) 250 square foot historic TDR that can be
sold for use on a different, eligible receiver site within the City. Except for the combined side
yard setback variation discussed above, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6
zoning, as may be amended, would continue to govern development on the Vacant Lot. Such
development will also remain subject to all other applicable codes, including but not
necessarily limited to the Residential Design Standards (RDS).
These “benefits” related to the vacant lot are proposed in the context of the AM negotiation
for the landmark designation of the chalet lot and its unique historic resources even though
the vacant lot will not itself be historically designated. Given that the RDS will continue to
apply and the minimum front yard setback for above grade structures will be established at
three times the normal requirement, it is felt that the primary concerns of an HPC review of
the eventual development on the vacant lot are proactively addressed since visibility of the
historic resources and the inability for new development to overwhelm them in any meaning
manner will already be guaranteed.
The Chalet Lot and its proposed development is consistent in virtually all respects with the
underlying R-6 zone district dimensional requirements, including its limitations on floor
area (see form included with Exhibit 1). The Applicant is not requesting a Floor Area Bonus
from the HPC. As indicated and calculated on the attached plans, the existing chalet
residence includes 1,888.44 square feet of Floor Area (including subgrade and decks), and
the chicken coop (Outbuilding “B”) to be maintained has a Floor Area of 127.5 square feet.
The current Land Use Code and R-6 zoning allow the proposed 10,000 square foot Chalet
Lot two detached residential dwellings with a combined Floor Area of 4,140 square feet.
After deducting the Floor Area of the two historic structures to be maintained, there is
2,124.06 square feet of Floor Area available for use in the new residence (4140 – [1888.44 +
127.5]). Calculated pursuant to current Code, the proposed additional residence has a
measured Floor Area of only 2,108.39 square feet. As such, the total proposed Floor Area to
be located on the Chalet Lot is 4,124.33 square feet, or 15.67 square feet less than the 4,140
square feet of Floor Area the zoning allows.
The only Chalet Lot variations requested from the zoning involve (1) the relocated chicken
coop having a five-foot east side yard setback where ten-feet would otherwise be required;
(2) a five-foot rear yard setback variation to allow a lightwell that exceeds minimum size;
and (3) five-foot rear setback for spaces that will not be used solely as garage, including both
the new residence’s below grade mechanical and laundry rooms under the garage (within
the same foundation) and a deck area on top of the garage. The zoning allows a 5-foot rear
yard setback for that portion of the principal structure used solely as a garage but otherwise
requires a 10-foot rear yard setback; the applicant merely seeks to utilize the spaces above
57
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
13
and below those first five feet of garage. All above-grade massing and scale conditions for
the proposed alley residence comply with R-6 dimensional requirements.
It is further requested that the AM negotiation include approval for all proposed aspects of
development on the Chalet Lot, as depicted on the accompanying plans set, including
Conceptual and Final Major Development and Residential Design Standards review.
Similarly, the AM approval would include Major Subdivision, Growth Management, and
acceptance of the proposed on-site parking for the Chalet Lot (one space pre residence, plus
maintenance of the historic parking in the Smuggler Street right-of-way).
While this AM negotiation application seeks major subdivision approval, it is requested that
both resulting lots be permitted to mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with and
pursuant to the Codes in effect for the development of preexisting parcels or lots created
through a Lot Split process, as such code provisions may exist at the time of building permit
applications.
It is the Applicant’s intention to keep the Chalet Lot, including its two historic structures and
the new residence they will build thereon. It is unlikely but possible that the new residence
at the rear of the Chalet Lot could be developed in advance of the Vacant Lot being sold to a
third party. The developing of this new residence at the rear of the Chalet Lot will trigger a
requirement for payment of an affordable housing mitigation fee. Even though the
Vandemoer family does not permanently reside within Aspen, but in recognition of the
family having owned the subject property for more than 75 years, it is requested that full
payment of the required affordable housing mitigation associated with the new residence on
the Chalet Lot be deferred until at least one month following the Vacant Lot being sold to a
party unassociated with the Vandemoer family. If the Vacant Lot is sold prior to building
permit for the new alley residence on the Chalet Lot, then full payment of the applicable
mitigation fee will be made at the time of its permit issuance.
Finally, once the negotiated approvals are granted, the historic designation will take
immediate and perpetual effect. However, the Applicant does not have the financial
wherewithal to immediately develop the new residence at the rear of the Chalet Lot and
seeks a reasonable time cushion to be able to realize this plan. Consequently, the Applicant
requests a 10-year period of vested property rights with the approvals granted pursuant to
this AM application. With this, it is recognized that fees due for mitigation requirements for
development on a preexisting parcel or lot created through a Lot Split would be based on the
Codes in affect at the time the fee is incurred (i.e., at the time of building permit application),
that the vested rights would not protect against newly adopted or amended rules of general
applicability (i.e., fire, energy, electrical codes, etc.), and that any duly adopted short-term
rental restrictions would apply to the resulting properties.
Please refer to the submitted plan sets for details and renderings of the proposed designs.
The proposal envisions maintaining the historic buildings intact and without alteration other
than the chicken coop’s relocation, and there are no plans for development of the vacant lot.
58
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
14
As proposed, the new alley residence will be set some 68-feet back from the front property
line on a lot that is only 100’ deep. With its 5-foot rear yard setback, this means the new
residence is only a modest 27-feet deep at its largest point from front to back. For sake of
comparison, consider that the chalet structure, including roof overhangs, is 35’-8” deep from
front to back. In addition, the historic chalet structure and the new alley residence will be a
very generous 23’-10” apart (wall-to-wall) in a zone district that requires only 5-feet between
detached structures. These ample distances, combined with the preservation of the extremely
large evergreen trees, ensure that the proposed alley residence’s 25-foot maximum height
(including rooftop solar panels) will achieve a sympathetic and subservient relationship with
the historic assets.
The compact design of the new residence is simply in form, scale, and massing. Combined
with the separation distances described above, the simple and clean form of the proposed
design serves to ensure that the new structure will not visually compete with or in any way
overwhelm the historic resources. It also ensures that the old and new will be clearly and
easily differentiated such that nobody will confuse the two.
59
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
10
The layout of the proposal has been very carefully considered to guarantee the design of the
new residence is sympathetic and subservient to the historic resource while maintaining the
prominence of the chalet and associated trees from West Smuggler and 8th Streets. The
chalet’s iconic north and east facades, including the second-floor deck facing 8th Street, will
forever remain highly visible and unobstructed, especially given the proposed building
envelope/setbacks on the Vacant Lot.
Pursuant to Code Section 26.415.025(C)(1), the submittal of this application initiates a
negotiation period of up to ninety (90) days, which may be extended an additional thirty
days upon resolution adopted by City Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both
Council and the Applicant. The City Council or the Applicant may choose to terminate the
negotiations at any time.
The goal of the negotiation period is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the
landmark designation of the property. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the
City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlements or fee waiver
permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is normally assigned to
another Board or Commission, including variations. Inherent in this negotiation process is a
clear recognition by the City that incentives and benefits beyond the typical scope of the
Land Use Code must be offered and conferred upon many property owners who would
otherwise forego landmark designation in favor of demolition and replacement absent the
restrictions and processes that come with such designation.
Council’s charge includes seeking compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the
subject property and weighing the benefits considering whether the property is identified as
a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century history. It is felt that the proposal
is wholly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the requested
incentives are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for guaranteeing the perpetual
preservation of a substantial community benefit and valuable community asset by landmark
designating Aspen oldest remaining example of a chalet residence and associated
outbuilding. These irreplaceable, “best” rated resources have remained under the ownership
of the original family who built them, and their historic integrity assessment achieves a
perfect score. It is earnestly hoped that demolition and redevelopment will be averted in
60
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
15
favor of the requested benefits and incentives allowing the subject property to be protected
and preserved through its addition to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
Review Requirements
This application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.415.025(c) and 26.415.030(c) of the
Aspen Land Use Code (the Code). Given the codified terms and provisions of the AM
program, those are the only directly applicable Sections of the Code.
Since the AM program is a negotiated approval process through which preservation benefits
and incentives beyond those identified in the Code are available to an applicant, the
applicable sections and provisions of the Code take on a flexibility that does not exist with
other types of applications.
Direct compliance with the normally or otherwise applicable review criteria of the Code is
not necessarily required. Nevertheless, those normally applicable Code Sections include:
26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined
Reviews; 26.410, Residential Design Standards; 26.415.025(C), Identification of Historic
Properties; 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties; 26.415.070, Development
Involving Designated Historic Properties; 26.415.080, Demolition of Historic Properties;
26.415.110, Benefits; 26.470, Growth Management; 26.480, Subdivision; and 26.710.040,
Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District.
These Code provisions are addressed in the various portions of Exhibit 4, attached hereto, as
well as in the Dimensional Requirements Forms attached as part of Exhibit 1.
Summary
It is the Applicant’s desire to see the iconic historic chalet and associated outbuilding at 949
West Smuggler Street preserved in perpetuity via historic landmark designation under the
AspenModern program. In exchange for this perpetual preservation guarantee, the
Applicant seeks benefits that are warranted, necessary and/or enumerated in the Code as
appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.415.110,
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties
are an important aspect of Aspen’s historic preservation program. Historic resources are a
valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the
creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
AspenModern was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation
beyond the scope of the codified regulations, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark
eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well-being of the
residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen’s unique architectural
character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The Applicant is offering assurances
for the perpetual preservation of Aspen’s oldest residential chalet in association with certain
61
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
16
land use entitlements. The proposal outlined herein is fully worthy of City and community
support.
With a Code stating that, to be worthy of preservation incentives and to evaluate the
equitability of such incentives, an AspenModern property must be rated on a “good, better or
best” scale with regard to its contribution to and significance in Aspen’s 20th century history,
it seems more than clear --- and actually obvious --- that the subject property should be
rated as the single “best” of all historic residential chalet properties in Aspen. It is,
therefore, felt that the requested incentives are not only reasonable but fully appropriate
and warranted in an equitable exchange for providing the substantial community benefits
described hereinabove and a valuable community asset by landmark designating a
property that embodies the earliest days of Aspen’s development as an international ski
resort.
It is hoped that the requested approvals will be granted, and the property will be forever
protected through its addition to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (970) 309-2773 or by email to
mitch@hlpaspen.com.
Yours truly,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Mitch Haas
Owner/President
Exhibits:
1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements, Homeowners Association
Compliance, Fee Agreement, and Chalet Historic Integrity Scoring Forms
2: Full Plans Set, including: Existing Lot Split Plat; Improvement Survey; Proposed
Subdivision Plat; Grading, Drainage and Underground Piping Plan; Existing and
Proposed Site Plans; Site Coverage Diagrams; Existing and Proposed Floor Area Plans
and Calculations; Existing and Proposed Floor Plans; Existing and Proposed
Elevations; Site Context Photos and Elevations; Proposed Exterior Lighting Plan; and
Models/Renderings
3: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Simon
4: Review Requirements/Code Standards and Responses
5: Previous Approvals (Ordinance No. 02-2020, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split Plat, and
Notice of Exemption and Authorization to Apply During term of Moratorium)
6: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership and Authority
7: 90-Day Negotiation Understanding Letter from Applicant
8: Vicinity Map
62
949 W. Smuggler AspenModern (PID 2735-122-12-003)
17
9: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC and 1 Friday Design Collaborative to
represent the Applicant;
10: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300-feet of the
subject property
63
64
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the
high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in
the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: _______________________________
Proposed % of demolition: ____________________________________%
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ASPENMODERN (Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split; Parcel ID No. 2735-122-12-003)
Vandemoer Family, Inc., a Colorado company
949 West Smuggler Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
R-6
Primary SFR (Chalet) -2,652 sf (gross):
0 sf demolition proposed Outbuilding (Chicken Coop)
127.5 sf (gross): 0 sf of
demolition proposed
NA NA
1 SFR / 1 hab
(out) / 1 garage
2,015.94 sf
used (total)
"EXISTING / AS IS" CONDITIONS FOR 18,000 SF LOT
NA
Outbuilding (Storage Shed / Non
Compliant Garage) 253.75 sf
(gross)
18,000 SF
18,000 SF
++
4,590 sf total
for 2 detached
dwellings or
one duplex
20
NA NA
8.44%25% maximum
25' maximum
Chalet: 23'-1"
Ridgeline / 24'-4"
Chimney (v.i.f.)
Coop-9'-9.5" Ridgeline /
Shed - 8'-7" RL 25' maximum
13'-10" (v.i.f.)
to porch stair 10' minimum
10' habitable min. /
5' garage min.
46'-10" chalet /1'-10"
coop / 1'-4" storage
15'-2" (v.i.f.)NA
Existing Chicken Coop - Rear Yard (s) Encroachment : 1'-10" from Property Line / 10' Required (Habitable) // Existing Outbuilding / Shed East Side Yard Encroachment : 3'-1" from east side yard property line /
15' Required // Existing Outbuilding / Shed South Rear Yard Encroachment: 1'-4" from Rear Yard Property Line / 5' Required. No On Site Parking - 2 required per Existing Conditions / Existing Parking Area
Off Smuggler Street (North) / COA ROW - Currently utilized for 949 W Smuggler Parking . It is unknown if any encroachment licenses have been granted at this time for the said existing conditions.
40' Minimum
15' minimum
15' minimum
5' minimum
(w) Chalet: 17'-3"
(w) Coop: 43'-5"
(w) Storage: 156'-7"
(e) Chalet: 109'-3"/ Coop:125'-3"/
(e) Storage: 3'-1"
20'-4" combined
33'-7" between Chalet & Coop
101' Coop / Storage
65
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the
high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in
the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:
Number of residential units: Existing:
Proposed % of demolition: ____________________________________%
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ASPENMODERN (Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split; Parcel ID No. 2735-122-12-003)
Vandemoer Family, Inc., a Colorado company
949 West Smuggler Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
R-6
Primary SFR (Chalet) -2,652 sf (gross):
0 sf demolition proposed Outbuilding (Chicken Coop)
127.5 sf (gross): 0 sf of
demolition proposed
NA
1 SFR / 1 hab
(outbuilding)
2,015.94 sf
used (total)
"PROPOSED" CONDITIONS FOR 10,000 SF INTERIOR LOT
Proposed: NA
Proposed: ___________________________
Outbuilding (Storage Shed / Non
Compliant Garage) 253.75 sf
(gross) 100% demolition proposed
10,000 SF
10,000 SF
++
4,140 sf total
for 2 detached
dwellings or
one duplex
2 per residence0
NA NA
12.45% 37.33% maximum
25' maximum
Chalet: 23'-1"
Ridgeline / 24'-4"
Chimney (v.i.f.)
Coop-9'-9.5" Ridgeline /
Shed - 8'-7" RL 25' maximum
13'-10" (v.i.f.)
to porch stair 10' minimum
10' habitable min. /
5' garage min.
46'-10" chalet /1'-10"
coop / 1'-4" storage
15'-2" (v.i.f.)NA
Existing Chicken Coop - Rear Yard (s) Encroachment : 1'-10" from Property Line / 10' Required (Habitable) // Existing Outbuilding / Shed East Side Yard Encroachment : 3'-1" from east side yard property line /
15' Required // Existing Outbuilding / Shed South Rear Yard Encroachment: 1'-4" from Rear Yard Property Line / 5' Required. No On Site Parking - 2 required per Existing Conditions / Existing Parking Area
Off Smuggler Street (North) / COA ROW - Currently utilized for 949 W Smuggler Parking . It is unknown if any encroachment licenses have been granted at this time for the said existing conditions.
NA - 2 detached
> 10' seperation
10' minimum
10' minimum
5' minimum
(w) Chalet: 17'-3"
(w) Coop: 43'-5"
(w) Storage: 156'-7"
(e) Chalet: 109'-3"/ Coop:125'-3"/
(e) Storage: 3'-1"
20'-4" combined
33'-7" between Chalet & Coop
101' Coop / Storage
3,033.25 sf ft total / 253.75 sq ft demo
proposed = 8.37% demolition proposed
2,015.94 sf FA - existing + 2,108.39 sf
FA - new /proposed = 4,124.33 sf FA
proposed site total
Chalet: 23'-1" Ridgeline / 24'-4" Chimney (v.i.f.) "as existing"
Alley Res: (PROPOSED) 23'-11" Flat-roof / 24'-10" Solar Panels /
26'-7.75" Chimney
Coop: 9'-9.5" Ridgeline / 11'-9" Weather Vein (v.i.f.) "as existing"
2 Detached SFR Dwellings (1 dedicated garage each residence/
1 Outbuilding
1,137.40 Chalet + 127.75 Coop + 1,266.87 Alley
= 2,532.02 sf, therefore: 25.32% site coverage
2 On site Parking Spaces proposed / Requested use of Existing COA
ROW Smuggler Parking
NA
13'-10" (v.i.f.) for Existing Chalet / 35'-6" proposed for Existing Coop/
68' proposed for alley residence
NA
46'-10" for Existing Chalet (hab) / 53' for Existing Coop (hab)
5'-4" for Proposed Garage (above grade + habitable below grade /
deck above garage) / 10'-3" proposed alley habitable above grade
(w) Chalet (EX): 17'-3"
(w) Coop (EX/ relocated): 83'-9"
(w) Alley Res (PR): 10'-4" (lightwell) / 13'-4" Structure
(e) Chalet (EX): 29'-1"
(3) Coop (EX / relocated): 5' building / 3'-5" roof overhang
(e) Alley Res (PR) : 23'-3"
NA - 2 detached : > 10' separation
19' Between Chalet & Alley Res
12'-1" Between Chalet & Coop
5' - East Side Yard Variation requested: Chicken Coop - Proposed Coop Structure 5' from property line (habitable structure) with 16" roof overhang
5' - Rear Yard variation requested for : Proposed mechanical area (habitable) below garage footprint / Lightwell that exceeds minimum size in rear yard setback / Usable
deck "air space" above conforming garage massing. NOTE: all massing and scale conditions for proposed alley residence are in compliance above grade.
66
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the
high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in
the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: _______________________________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET ASPENMODERN (Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split; Parcel ID No. 2735-122-12-003)
Vandemoer Family, Inc., a Colorado company
949 West Smuggler Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
R-6
Proposed % of demolition: _100_______%
NA NA
"PROPOSED" CONDITIONS FOR 8,000 SF CORNER LOT
NA
Outbuilding (Storage Shed / Non Compliant
Garage) 253.75 sf
(gross)- assumes complete demolition
8,000 SF
8,000 SF
3,240 sf total
for 1 SFR
0
NA
NA
43.33% maximum
25' maximum
25' maximum
10' minimum
10' principal min. / 5' accessory min.
NA NA
It is unknown if any encroachment licenses have been granted at this time for the said existing conditions.
25' Minimum
5' minimum
5' minimum
5' minimum
(w) N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
(e)N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
NA
(w) 10' proposed
(e) N/A 5' proposed
15' proposed / 10' variation
requested
NA
No change per R-6 zoning
No change per R-6 zoning
No change per R-6 zoning
NA
NA
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
NA
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
But no more than 1 unit of denisity
No change per R-6 zoning
No change per R-6 zoning
2 per residence
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
N/A (assumes
shed demolition)
30' (ABOVE GRADE) minimum proposed
- variation for 20' ADDITION requested
Existing Storage Shed structure is non-conforming relative to east side yard and rear yard setback requirements, it encroaches upon a 5-foot public utility easement, and its roof
overhangs encroach into the alley right-of-way
VARIATIONS REQUESTED:
REDUCE Allowable FAR by 280SF in exchange for one TDR worth 250SF
INCREASE of Front Yard Setback Requirement (For above-grade structures only) from 10-feet to 30-feet
REDUCE Minimum Combined Side Yard Setbacks from 25-feet to 15-feet (10-foot variation)
67
68
69
1) A large singular roof form, generally low in slope,
with the ridge running along the short dimension of
the structure covers the entire structure without
interruption, the eave of the roof usually comes
down to a low plate height at the upper level
Character Defining Features of the Chalet Style
4) Continuous porch or balcony running at least the length of the primary side
7) Stucco ground floor, may have battered walls,
openings are minimal, with wood lintels
Total Points, 0 –10
6) Rectangular footprint sometimes oriented
towards mountains
2) Deep overhangs with the structure of the roof expressed on the underside
3) Eaves and rakes decorated with cutouts and fretwork bargeboards
5) Decorative elements, usually two dimensional, such as balustrades with cut out
shapes, generally hearts, edelweiss, snowflakes or other decorative themes from
nature
1
4
2
3
5
6
7
Check box if
statement is true.
One point per box.
8) Windows are generally sliders or casements,
horizontally proportioned and used sparingly
10) Colors are restricted to the white of the stucco
base, the dark brown of the wood walls, eaves,
balustrades, etc., bright colors are used sparingly to
accent eaves and balustrades and other decorative
elements, murals and painted decorative details are
sometimes found on the stucco surface
A building must have 6 of the 10
character defining features, either
present or clearly documented
through photographic of physical
evidence to qualify as Chalet Style.
Restoration may be required as part
of the award of incentives.
If the property earned 6 or more
points, continue to the next page.
If the property earned less than 6
points, scoring ends.
9) Decorative shutters or flowerboxes
9
10
8
70
INTEGRITY SCORING
If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement.
Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points:
HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE:
Best: 15 up to 20 points
Better: 12 up to 15 points
Good: 10 up to 12 points
Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points
Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi-
mum of 10 points:
LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT:
The bui l di ng i s i n i ts ori gi nal l ocation.2 poi nts
The bui l di ng has be e n shi ft e d on the ori gi nal parce l , but mai ntai ns i ts ori gi nal
al i gnme nt and/or prox i mi ty to the stre e t.1 poi nt
SETTING :
The prope rty i s l ocate d wi thi n the ge ographi cal are a surrounde d by Castl e
Cre e k, the Roari ng Fork Ri ve r and A spe n Mountai n.1 poi nt
The prope rty i s outsi de of the ge ographi cal are a surround by Castl e Cre e k, the
Raori ng Fork Ri ve r and Aspe n Mountai n.1/2 poi nt
DESIG N:
The form of the bui l di ng (f ootpri nt, roof and w al l pl ane s) are unal te re d f rom
the ori gi nal de si gn.3 poi nts
a.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but l e ss than 25% of the ori gi nal
wal l s have be e n re move d, OR
b.) The al te rations to the f orm al l occur at the re ar of the subj e ct bui l di ng, OR
c.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but the addi tion i s l e ss than 50%
of the si ze of the ori gi nal bui l di ng, OR
d.) The re i s a roof top addi tion that i s l e ss than 50% of the footprint of the roof.
2 poi nts
MATERIALS
Exteri or mate rial s
The original e x te ri or mate ri al s of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the
e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts
50% of the e x te ri or mate ri al s have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts
match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt
Windows and doors
The ori gi nal wi ndows and doors of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the
e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts
50% of the ori gi nal wi ndows and doors have be e n re pl ace d, but the
re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt
71
PVPV
" 9 4 9 s m u g g l e r "
9 4 9 w e s t s m u g g l e r | c i t y o f a s p e n : : c o l o r a d o
C H A L E T D E S I G N A T I O N / A L L E Y R E S I D E N C E P R O P O S A L :: A S P E N M O D E R N H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N H P C design review committee application package :: february 28th, 2022 d e r e k m s k a l k o
E W
COVER
PAGE
FEB 2022
949-COVER
"949-HOUSE"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
72
949 West Smuggler . Aspen . Colorado . 81611 :: " 949 "
Easement / Agreements / Misc.
Cover Letter/ Application Information Submission - Haas Land Planning C/O Mitch Haas / Architectural - 1 Friday Design C/O Derek Skalko
TBD
Architectural Related Drawings / Documents 1 Friday Design
949-1.A : Lot 2 Vandemoer Hill Lot Split Existing (18,000 sf ft) & Proposed Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision (10,000 / 8,000 sq ft) Lot Site Plans + Existing 18,000 sq ft Floor Area Calculations - (1/16" Arch)
949-1.B : Existing Lot 2 Vandemoer Hill Lot Split with House + Outbuildings / Utilities Located / Site represented @ 1' Topographical Contour Intervals / - (1/10" Architectural)
949-2 : Existing Lower Level (and Subgrade Wall Exposure Diagrams) + Existing Main Level Floor Plans: Chalet Residence - (3/16" Architectural)
949-5 : Proposed Lower, Main & Upper Floor Plans / Roof Plan - Detached Alley Residence ( 3/16" Architectural)
949-6 : Proposed 949 W Smuggler North Elevation (Site Context-Street) & Proposed North Alley Residence Elevation with Materials Callouts / Schedules ( 3/16" Architectural)
949-7 : Proposed East & West Alley Residence Elevations + Site Existing / Proposed Relationship Context Elevations with Materials Callouts / Schedules ( 3/16" Architectural)
949-8 : Proposed South (Alley) Elevation - Alley Residence with Materials Callouts / Schedules ( 3/16" Architectural) / Materials Graphic Examples Description Provided
949-10 : Proposed Massing Models & Scale Perspectives - Alley Residence Site Concept - 10,000 sf lot (No Associative Scale)
949-11 : Proposed Massing Models & Scale Perspectives - Alley Residence Site Concept - 10,000 sf lot (No Associative Scale)
Survey + Civil Related Drawings / Documents Sopris Engineering Inc. - Surveyor // Boundaries Unlimited Inc. - Civil Engineer
949 West Smuggler Application Architectural Related Drawings / Documents Package :Pages Index
949-COVER : 949 West Smuggler . Aspen . Colorado :: Aspen Modern Historic Preservation Application
949-INDEX : 949 West Smuggler Pages Reference , Conceptual Locate + Site Imaging / Context + Preliminary Legal Lot Descriptions (Existing & Proposed)
Final Recorded Plat - Vandemoer Hill Lot Split , Book 129, Page 11 - (1/30" Engineering Scale)
C.1 : 949 West Smuggler Grading, Drainage & Underground Piping Preliminary Planning Information & Specification (1/10" Engineering Scale)
Stamped Improvement Survey Plat with 1' Topographic Representation - Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split - (1/10" Engineering Scale)
Proposed Draft of Final Subdivision Plat - Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision - (1/ 20" Engineering Scale)
949-1.C : Proposed Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision with House + Outbuildings (Existing & Proposed) / Utilities Located / Site represented @ 1' Topographical Contour Intervals / - (1/10" Architectural)
949-3 : Existing Upper Level + Roof Plan : Chalet Residence // Existing Main Level Floor Plan + Roof Plan : Chicken Coop (Outbuilding) - (3/16" Architectural)
949-4 : Existing Elevations : Chalet Residence + Chicken Coop (Outbuilding) - (3/16" Architectural)
ZN-003 : Lot 2 Vandemoer Hill Lot Split Existing (18,000 sf ft) & Proposed Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision (10,000 / 8,000 sq ft) Lot Site Coverage Diagrammatic Plans & Calculations - (1/16" Arch)
ZN-004 : Existing Lower Lvl. (and Subgrade Wall Exposure Diagrams) + Existing Main Lvl. Floor Plans: Chalet Residence & Chicken Coop Outbuilding Diagrammatic Plans + Floor Area Calculations - (1/8" Arch)
ZN-005 : Existing Upper Lvl. Floor Plan: Chalet Residence & Roof Plans : Chalet Residence + Chicken Coop Outbuilding : Diagrammatic Plans + Floor Area Calculations - (1/8" Arch)
ZN-006 : Proposed Lower Lvl. (& Subgrade Wall Exposure Diagrams) Floor Plans: Chalet Residence : Diagrammatic Plans + Floor Area Calculations - (1/8" Arch)
ZN-007 : Proposed Lower Lvl. (& Subgrade Wall Exposure Diagrams) Floor Plans: Chalet Residence : Diagrammatic Plans + Floor Area Calculations - (1/8" Arch)
949-9 : Proposed Alley residence Exterior Lighting Plans & Callouts - Fixture Cut Sheets Provided ( 3/16" Architectural)
949 INDEX,
SITE CONTEXT,
DESCRIPTIONS
FEB 2022
949-INDEX
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
INDEX + SHEET DESCRIPTION: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : N/A
a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
LEGAL PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS (DRAFT): 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : N/A
3
TBD
SITE IMAGES + CONTEXT : 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : N/A
73
74
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXETC XETC XETC XETC XETC XETCXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWL XWL XWL XWLXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXUTXELXETCGXETCGXETCGXETCGxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "LS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEWATER SERVICE LINEWATER MAINS74° 14' 02"E 180.00'N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 180.00'FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPROJECT BENCHMARK ELEVATION = 7897.8'FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE0.2' BELOW GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADE4.3"x7'4.4"x7'5.9"x8'4.7"x7'4.3"x7'4.1"x7'4.1"x7'4.5"x7'25.5"x40'8"x16'7.7"x14'2-4.1"x10'3-4.4"x10'11.0"x13'18.6"x30'16.7"x30'21.5"x30'23.6"x20'15.8"x22'9"x13'14.9"x22'7.4"x12'12.6"x18'11.1"x16'12.6"x16'11.2"x13'N15° 45' 58"E (BASIS OF SITE BEARING) 100.00'TWO STORY HOUSEWOOD FRAME HOUSESPLIT RAIL FENCE (TYPICAL)WOOD SHED20.3'12.5'
12.5'20.3'11.3'11.3'11.3'11.3'WOODSTRUCTURE43.3'26.3'43.3'26.3'CONCRETEPADFLAGSTONE WALKWOOD DECKUPPER LEVEL WOOD DECKGRAVEL(HATCHED)ASPHALTSURFACE789878997895 7899 78987895 789878977
8
9
6
78967897789878997900790179007899 7900LOT 2 - VANDEMOER HILL LOTSPLIT18,000 SQ. FT. +/-0.4132 ACRES +/-LOT 1 - VANDEMOER HILL LOTSPLIT949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLCPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO.273512212002GRAVEL(HATCHED)19.44' ALLEY R.O.W.5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 67057275.00' WESTSMUGGLER R.O.W.75.37' N. 8TH STREET
R.O.W.
5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 670572 20.65' BUILDING TIE22.39' BUILDING TIESE FIELD TOPOGRAPHYCITY OF ASPEN LIDAR 1 FOOT CONTOURSFINISHED FLOORELEVATION 7901.0'EL:7897.65EL:7895.68EL:7895.09EL:7896.29EL:7897.94EL:7897.68EL:7896.2830.2"x27.6'28.1"x32'22.4"x34'25.2"x32'FOUND NO. 5 .REBARAND CAP STAMPED"PLS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOT 2,VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOFRECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADONOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/7/2021 - G:\2020\30137 VANDEMOER HILL LOT 2\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30137.02 ISP.dwgVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actualfield locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actualfield conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utilitycompanies for field location of utilities prior to construction.IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATI, MARK S. BECKLER, HEREBY CERTIFY TO ISABEL A. VANDEMOER, PHOEBE E.VANDEMOER, AND LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, THAT THIS IS AN“IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT” AS DEFINED BY C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9), ANDTHAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENTLOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES, WATER FEATURESAND/OR BODIES OF WATER , VISIBLE ROADS, UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLSSITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALLBOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCEOR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAYOF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OFRECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DESCRIBED IN LAND TITLEGUARANTEE COMPANY TITLE INSURANCE ORDER NO. Q62012373, OROTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT.THE ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1/15,000.________________________________MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WITH TOPOGRAPHY OFLOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLITA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1SOURCE DOCUMENTS:·PLAT-VANDEMOER HILL LOTS SPLIT (BOOK 129-PAGE 11, RECEPTION NUMBER 670572)ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.NOTES1)DATE OF FIELD WORK: DECEMBER, 2001-JUNE, 2001; SEPTEMBER 2019, SEPTEMBER 2020,AND SEPTEMBER, 2021.2)DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER, 2001--JUNE, 2001; UPDATED SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER2019, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 2020, AND OCTOBER, 2021.3)BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S74°14'15"E BETWEEN THE 1988 CITY OF ASPEN-GPSCONTROL POINTS GPS-20 AND GPS-9(R), AT THE STREET INTERSECTIONS OF 7TH\FRANCISAND 6TH\FRANCIS, WHICH ESTABLISHED A SITE BEARING OF N 15°45'58" E BETWEEN THENORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, BEING FOUNDMONUMENTS AS SHOWN.4)BASIS OF SURVEY: THE VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11,RECEPTION NO. 670572 OF PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS.5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDINGEASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED UPON THE TITLECOMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER No. Q62012373EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.6)BASIS OF ELEVATION: BASIS OF ELEVATION - 2009 CITY OF ASPEN GPS MARCIN CONTROLMAP DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7911.98 (NAVD 1988) ON THE NGSSTATION "Q-159". THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK ELEVATION OF 7897.8' ON THETOP OF A #5 REBAR WITH CAP L.S. 28643 MONUMENTING THE NORTH WEST PROPERTYCORNER OF LOT 22, AS SHOWN HEREON. FIELD WORK SUPPLEMENTED WITH 1 FOOT CITYOF ASPEN LIDAR DATA TRANSLATE TO MARCIN COORDINATE SYSTEM.7)CONTOUR INTERVAL ONE (1) FOOT.8)PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, CO 816119)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBER 27351221200310)PER CITY OF ASPEN MUDFLOW FIGURE 7.1 C -CASTLE CREEK/RED BUTTE MUDFLOW ZONES,REVISED 11/2014, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT IN A MUD FLOW ZONE.11)PER FIRM MAP 08097C0354E, EFFECTIVE DATE 08/15/2019, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLSUNDER SHADED ZONE "X", (AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD, USUALLY DEPICTED ONFIRMS AS ABOVE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL. ZONE X IS THE AREA DETERMINED TO BEOUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD AND PROTECTED BY LEVEE FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD.) SITE(BASIS OF BEARING)S74°14'15"EGPS-9(R)GPS-20(TIE ONLY) S51° 36' 05"E 413.09'(TIE ONLY) S40° 02' 59"E 460.91'TREE LEGENDCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING ELECTRIC METEREXISTING CATV PEDESTALEXISTING LEGENDEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900EXISTING WOOD RAIL FENCExxEXISTING WATER SERVICE/MAINXWLXWLEXISTING GASXETCXETCEXISTING TELEPHONEXGASXGASXGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING CABLEEXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLEXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVXETCGXETCGEXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0101020104054.5" X 7' = 4.5" TRUNK DIAMETER WITH 7' DRIPLINEPURPOSE STATEMENTTHE PURPOSE OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WITH TOPOGRAPHY IS TO SHOW THE EXISTING PROPERTYBOUNDARIES, SITE CONDITIONS, ENCUMBRANCES, AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.10-05-2175
LOT 1 - VANEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLCPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO. 273512212002FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "LS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPOINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL BPOINT OF COMMENCEMENT PARCEL AFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE0.2' BELOW GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPARCEL A10,000 SQ. FT.0.2296 ACRES +/-PARCEL B8000 SQ. FT.0.1837 ACRES +/-75.00' W. SMUGGLER STREET R.O.W.19.44' ALLEY R.O.W.75.37' N. 8TH STREET R.O.W.POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ASET NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADESET NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADE5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 670572N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'S74° 14' 02"E 100.00'N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 80.00'S15° 45' 58"W (BASIS OF SITE BEARING) 100.00'S74° 14' 02"E 80.00'LOT 1 - HOWER EXEMPTIONAEB REALTYPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO. 273512365001LOT 2- HOWER EXEMPTIONSAXON DELTA TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512365002BLOCK 3 - LOTS P, Q, R, & SMCTAMANEY, ROBERT A III TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512365001BLOCK 2 - LOTS Q, R, & SSCHUHMACHER, JOHN W. TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512211002LOT 2 - VANDEMOER LOT SPLITRATNER, DENNIS F. TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512282004NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/9/2021 - 31037.02 - G:\2020\30137 VANDEMOER HILL LOT 2\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30137.02 AMENDED PLAT_LOT 2 SPLIT.dwgVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actualfield locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actualfield conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utilitycompanies for field location of utilities prior to construction.FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THEVANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISIONA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1PURPOSE STATEMENTTHE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT (RECORDED IN BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11, AS RECEPTION NO. 670572), INTOTWO NEW PARCELS TO HEREAFTER BE KNOWN AS PARCELS A AND B OF THE VANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISION.1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0202040208010PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BEFORE LOT SPLITLOT 2,VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOFRECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADOCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CERTIFICATETHIS LOT SPLIT PLAT OF THE VANDEMOER HILL PARCEL A & B WAS REVIEWEDAND APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OFASPEN THIS DAY OF , 202___. TO THE EXTENT THATANYTHING IN THIS PLAT IS INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH ANY CITY OFASPEN DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONOF APPLICABLE LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OTHER APPLICABLE LANDUSE REGULATIONS OR BUILDING CODES, SUCH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ORDERSOR APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE SHALL CONTROL.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY ENGINEER’S REVIEWTHIS PLAT WAS REVIEWED FOR THE DEPICTION OF THE ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS THIS DAY OF ,202__.CITY ENGINEERTITLE CERTIFICATETHE UNDERSIGNED, A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY WHICH ISREGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE OWNERS OFTHE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR OF LEINS,TAXES, AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT FOR THE MATTERS OF RECORD LISTED ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT ISSUEDBY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY UNDER FILE NO. Q62012373 EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021. ALTHOUGHWE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ARE TRUE, THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLENOR AN OPINION OF TITLE NOR A GUARANTEE OF TITLE, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT LAND TITLEGUARANTEE COMPANY NEITHER ASSUMES NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONWHATSOEVER.BY:TITLE:STATE OF COLORADO )) SSCOUNTY OF PITKIN )THE TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 202__, BY AS THE TITLE OFFICER OFLAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEALASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVALTHIS FINAL PLAT OF THE VANDEMOER HILL PARCELS A & B WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYTHE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ON THE DAY OF _______________, 202__, BYORDINANCE NO. _____, SERIES 202__, RECORDED ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK ANDRECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY IN BOOK , PAGE AS RECEPTION NO. .MAYOR, CITY OF ASPENDATEATTEST:CITY CLERKCERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIPKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE UNDERSIGNED BEING THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.DOES HEREBY PLAT THIS REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF THE FINAL PLAT OF: VANDEMOER HILL PARCELS A & B, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKINCOUNTY, COLORADO; DIVIDE THE REAL PROPERTY INTO PARCELS A AND B AS SHOWN HEREON; AND DEDICATES EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS SHOWNHEREON FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. ______________ OF THE PITKINCOUNTY RECORDS.EXECUTED THIS _____ DAY OF _________ , 2022.VANDEMOER FAMILY INCA COLORADO INCORPORATIONBY:___________________PRINT NAME: CRAIG VANDEMOERTITLE:MANAGERSTATE OF __________))SSCOUNTY OF ________)THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE METHIS ____ DAY OF ____________, 202__, BY CRAIG VANDEMOER ASMANAGERS OF VANDEMOER FAMILY INC.MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ___________.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL______________________NOTARY PUBLICSOURCE DOCUMENTS:·PLAT-VANDEMOER HILL LOTS SPLIT (BOOK 129-PAGE 11, RECEPTION NUMBER 670572)·THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER G.E.BUCHANAN DATED DECEMBER 15 1959ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.NOTES1)DATE OF FIELD WORK: DECEMBER, 2001-JUNE, 2001; SEPTEMBER 2019, SEPTEMBER 2020,AND SEPTEMBER, 2021.2)DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER, 2001--JUNE, 2001; UPDATED SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER2019, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 2020, AND OCTOBER AND DECEMBER, 2021.3)BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S74°14'15"E BETWEEN THE 1988 CITY OF ASPEN-GPSCONTROL POINTS GPS-20 AND GPS-9(R), AT THE STREET INTERSECTIONS OF 7TH\FRANCISAND 6TH\FRANCIS, WHICH ESTABLISHED A SITE BEARING OF N 15°45'58" E BETWEEN THENORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, BEING FOUNDMONUMENTS AS SHOWN.4)BASIS OF SURVEY: THE VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11,RECEPTION NO. 670572 OF PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS.5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDINGEASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED UPON THE TITLECOMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER No. Q62012373EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.6)PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, CO 816117)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBER 273512212003SITE(BASIS OF BEARING)S74°14'15"EGPS-9(R)GPS-20(TIE ONLY) S51° 36' 05"E 413.09'(TIE ONLY) S40° 02' 59"E 460.91'DRAFTSURVEYOR CERTIFICATEI, MARK S. BECKLER, DO HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE STATE OF COLORADO,THAT THIS PLAT IS A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE PLAT OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF VANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISION ASLAID OUT, PLATTED, DEDICATED AND SHOWN HEREON, THAT SUCH PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A LAND SURVEY PLAT ASSET FORTH IN C.R.S. SECTION 38-51-106, WAS MADE FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF SAID PROPERTY BY ME AND UNDER MYSUPERVISION AND CORRECTLY SHOWS THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS, EASEMENTS AND STREETS OF SAIDSUBDIVISION AS THE SAME ARE STAKED UP THE GROUND IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REGULATIONS COVERING THE SUBDIVISIONOF LAND. RECORDED EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND RESTRICTIONS ARE SHOWN HEREON AND ARE THE SAME AS THOSE SETFORTH IN THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES COMMITMENT NUMBER 0706274-C2, EFFECTIVEDATE JUNE 5TH, 2020 AND COMMITMENT ORDER NUMBER. Q62012373 EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS ____ DAY OF _________, 2021._____________________________MARK S. BECKLER, L.S. #28643LOT 1 AMENDED - RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION
COLOSAL CORPERATION
PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 273512428001
76
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGTEWSO
EEEEETTTTTGGGGGX X XXX X X X X X X X X
XX X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCWSWSWS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
kWhGM
E
G
C-1 C-2 C-3
AR.4
AR.11
AR.A
AR.A
AR.G
AR.G
AR.4
AR.11
7900789
9
78
9
878977
8
9
678957896789778987897
7900
7
8
9
9789878997898789778957896
7901DD8''Ø 8''Ø 8''ØD AREA INLETWQCV DRYWELL
(SEE DETAIL)PROPERTY LINEEASEMENTBUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKPROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
EASEMENT
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E E E
E
EE
TCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTC TC TC TC TC TC
TC
C
T
E
GRATE ON ENTRY
DRYWELL
NEW ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
& PEDESTALS
REROUTE GAS
AR.3
AR.10
AR.B
AR.B
AR.H
AR.H
AR.3
AR.10
4'
'Ø
PIPE THE NEW ROOF
DRAINS, TYP.4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø 4''Ø
4''ØPIPE THE EX. ROOF
DRAINS, TYP.4''ØSLSLSLNEW WATER SERVICE
IN EASEMENT
APPROX. LOCATION
OF EX. SEWER MAIN
W. Smuggler Street
N. 8th StreetEx. Chalet
Proposed Alley
Residence
Relocated
Chicken Coop
WSWSWSOEX. WATER SERVICE
Gravel Alley PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKXXXXSS SS SS SS SS
7899NORTH
RevisionDate
923 Cooper Avenue
Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
tele: 970.945.5252
fax: 970.384.2833
Engineer or Surveyor Seal
Sheet
Client Information:
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME:
Designer:
Drafter:
Date:N:\PROJECTS\2021\21066-949 W Smuggler\dwg\21066-V-Topo.dwg 12/10/2021 3:35 PM9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
12/10/21
djw
djw
21066-v-topo.dwg
21066
Aspen, Coloroado 81611
949 W. Smuggler Street
Chris Vandemoer
Aspen, Colorado1.HPC Review / Preliminary PlanGrading, Drainage & Underground Piping Plan949 W. Smuggler StreetC.1
00 10'20'
Scale: 1" = 10'
Scale: N.T.S.
Downspout Connection & Area Drain2
TYPICAL
SITE DRAIN TYPICAL
ROOF DRAIN BUILDING30" MIN.TEE TEE REDUCER
(WHERE
APPLICABLE)
90° BEND
HEAT TAPE INSTALLED
PER NOTES
4"Ø RISER
TEE/BENDS WITH GLUED
JOINTS OR WATERTIGHT
ADAPTERS
6"Ø RISER, TYP.
DOWNSPOUT FITTING OR IF DOWNSPOUT IS TOO
LARGE, USE A 12" SQUARE NYLOPLAST INLINE
DRAIN GRATE W/ A HOLE CUT IN GRATE TO
MATCH THE DOWNSPOUT AND SLEEVE THE
DOWNSPOUT/CHAIN AT LEAST 6" INTO THE PIPE.
12"Ø NYLOPLAST AREA DRAIN WITH DOME
GRATE, 6"Ø PVC RISER OR BEND, TYP.
INSTALL HEAT TAPE THROUGH THE PIPE AND
CONNECT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE
GRATE,TYP. INSTALL TEMPORARY FILTER
FABRIC OR SEDIMENT BASKET UNDER THE
GRATE.
CAULK/SEAL
WHERE DOWNSPOUTS ARE NOT IN
IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY, INSTALL HEAT
TAPE THROUGH AN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT.
6"Ø OR 8"Ø STORM
SEWER (PER PLAN)
NOTES:
1.ALL DOWNSPOUTS AND DECK DRAINS SHALL BE
CONNECTED TO ADS N-12-WT CPP (WATERTIGHT),
SCH.40 PVC OR SDR35 PVC. FLEXIBLE CORRUGATED
PLASTIC IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
2.ADDITIONAL FITTINGS AND BENDS MAY BE REQUIRED
TO DEFLECT OVER OR AROUND LANDSCAPE WALLS.
3.HEAT TAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL
DOWNSPOUTS/STORM SEWER PIPES AND
CONNECTED TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL INLET GRATES.RAIN CHAINOR DOWNSPOUT24" (MIN.)
NOTES:
1.PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL MEET ASTM C-478 AND BE H-20 LOAD RATED.
2.THE EDGE OF THE DRYWELL (AT FILTER FABRIC) SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST
10-FEET AWAY FROM ANY FOUNDATION WALL.
3.BACKFILL EXCAVATION AROUND THE STRUCTURE WITH COMPACTED 3/4" CRUSHED
WASHED SCREENED STONE TO THE TOP OF THE DRYWELL AND WITH STRUCTURAL
CLASS 2 ABC TO 12" BELOW FINISH GRADE.COMPACT BACKFILL TO 95% STANDARD
PROCTOR.
4.PERFORATED SECTION TO BE INSTALLED 4 FT. MINIMUM INTO PERVIOUS ALLUVIUM.
ENGINEER TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER OR BEDROCK IS
ENCOUNTERED.
5.INLET AND OUTLET PIPES SHOULD ENTER DRYWELL AWAY FROM THE DRYWELL STEPS.
12"
Scale: N.T.S.
WQCV Drywell with Skimmer Pipe113'PRECAST CONCRETE
SECTION(S)
4'Ø
10' MIN.
PLACE MIRAFI FILTERWEAVE 500 (OR
EQUAL) FILTER FABRIC AROUND, UNDER
AND OVER CRUSHED STONE
SKIMMER PIPE
(SEE DETAIL)
PRECAST PERFORATED RISER SECTION
W/ 1"Ø PERCOLATION HOLES
8" THICK PRECAST CONCRETE LID
SECTION WITH RUST RESISTANT ACCESS
HATCH WITH LIFTING HANDLES.DRYWELL (7')INFLOW STORM/
UNDERDRAIN PIPE
SYSTEM
2' PRECAST
CONE SECTION
3/4" CRUSHED WASHED SCREENED
STONE AROUND THE PERIMETER
AND 1' BELOW THE DRYWELL
UNDISTURBED SOIL
10"Ø SCH.40 PVC TO OTHER
DRYWELL BARREL,
12" ABOVE GRAVEL BASE
10''ØD D
26'-6"8'-10"24"
TYP.
INTERCONNECT DRYWELL BARRELS
WITH 10"Ø SCH.40 PVC
INFLOW
PLAN VIEW
48"
STANDARD 4'Ø
DRYWELL
FILTER FABRIC
24"Ø DUCTILE IRON FRAME AND SOLID LID (H-20),
SHIM TO MATCH THE SURFACE GRADE
RIM: PER PLAN @ CENTER OF MANHOLE
12"
WQCV DRYWELL:
ATTACH THE HEAT TAPE
AND ABSORPTION
PILLOW TO THE TOP
LADDER RUNG, TYP.
SKIMMER PIPE24"8"Ø STEEL RISER WITH
FLANGE END
6"
DRILL (4) 1/2"Ø
WEEP HOLES AT
THE BASE
WRAP THE BASE
WITH A ROCK
SOCK
1/2"Ø AIR RELEASE
HOLEBMP BIO-SKIRT BIO20.
SECURE ABOVE THE
FLANGE WITH STAINLESS
STEEL WIRE. REPLACE
THE SKIRT ANNUALLY)
ACCESS LID
SECTION VIEW
FILTER
FABRIC, PIN
INTO
GRAVELS
10''ØD
REVIEW
CTCURTS
NO NOIFTON R
O
EXISTING/PROPOSED ASPHALT
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS WALK/PATIO
(CONCRETE OR PAVERS)
PROPOSED GRASS/LAWN
GENERAL DIRECTION OF FLOW
T CE EXISTING/PROPOSED UTILITY
PEDESTALS & METERS
T CE GM EM
7965
LEGEND
7965
4''Ø 4''Ø
X X X
C/O
8''Ø 8''Ø
W SO
WM
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING/PROPOSED WATER SERVICE/SHUTOFF/METER
EXISTING/PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE/CLEANOUT
EXISTING/PROPOSED GAS
PROPOSED FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM (BY OTHERS)
HEAT TAPE
PROPOSED 4"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)
PROPOSED 8"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)
WS WS WSWS
SL SL SLSL
GG
PROPOSED 6"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)6''Ø 6''Ø
EXISTING/PROPOSED SEWERSSSS
EXISTING/PROPOSED WATER MAINWW
S
WV
EXISTING/PROPOSED ELECTRICEE
EXISTING/PROPOSED TELEPHONETT
PROPOSED 4"Ø PERF. UNDERDRAIN PIPE
NOTE: THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE PLOTTED IN COLOR. FAILURE TO DO SO
MAY RESULT IN MISSING DATA AND INFORMATION CRITICAL TO THE PROJECT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE>>>>
77
MAIN
CHALET
"B""A"
ALLEY
WEST SMUGGLER
FENCE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
18,000 SF EXSITING
180 x 100
10' FRONT YARD
15' SIDE YARD WEST
15' SIDE YARD EAST
10' REAR HAB/ (PRIMARY)
5' REAR GARAGE
(SECONDARY)
10
15
10
5
15
PARKING / PULL OUT
MAIN LVL:
HABITABLE -
1118.0 SQ FT
DECK (EXISTING) - 701.4
(EXEMPT FA) - 15% of 4,590 SQ FT
= 688.50 SQ FT DECK FA
MAIN DECK: 701.4 (281.2 EXEMPT) = 420.2
5 SQ FT DECK SURFACE
TOTAL MAIN DECK - 425.2 SF
1,118.0 SQ FT COUNTABLE (MAIN)
UPPER LVL:
HABITABLE -
1118.0 SQ FT/ 703.98 SF FA
(OPEN LIVING - 360.55)
(OPEN STAIR - 53.47)
DECK (EXISTING) - 45 SQ FT
(EXEMPT FA) - 15% of 4,490 SQ FT
= 688.50 SQ FT, THEREFORE
0 SQ FT COUNTABLE
703.98 SQ FT COUNTABLE (UPPER)
1,118
360.55
701.4
53.47
45
MAIN CHALET TOTAL:
HABITABLE -
66.46 (L) + 1118 (M) + 703.98 (U) = 1,888.44 SQ FT
(DECK EXEMPT FA) - 15% of 4,490 SQ FT = 688.5 SQ FT
DECK (EXIST) - 746.4 SQ FT / 281.2 SF EXEMPT = 465.2 SF
ROOF / DECK OVERHANG = 5 + 86.6 = 91.6 SQ FT
556.8 SQ FT DECK / = O FA COUNTABLE (131.7 SF UNDER)
1,888.44 SQ FT COUNTABLE (TOTAL)
"B"
127.5
OUTBUILDINGS TOTAL:
"A" HABITABLE -
254 SQ FT
"B" HABITABLE -
127.5 SQ FT
381.5 SQ FT COUNTABLE (TOTAL)
FA TOTAL USED FOR 18,000 SF LOT R-6 ZONING:
4,490 SF POSSIBLE
2,269.94 SQ FT FA USED / 2,220.06 AVAILABLE
MAIN CHALET SUBGRADE LEVEL:
HABITABLE -
590.0 SQ FT TOTAL WALL
108.4 SQ FT EXPOSED WALL=
18.37% EXPOSURE
416.0 SQ FT SUBGRADE (18.37%) =
66.46 SQ FT COUNTABLE FA
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(A)
LINE OF GRADE:
EXTERIOR
21.74 exposed
110.0 total wall7'-6"6'-134"UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
14'-8"1'-414"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"(B)33.4 exposed
185.0 total wall
(C)19.86 exposed
110.0 total wall
UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
24'-8"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"14'-8"
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
36.82
416 /
86.6
ROOF (OVERHANGS):
COUNTABLE FA -
86.6 SQ FT + 5 SF UPPER DECK = 91.6
OVERHANG 4'-6" AROUND CHALET
4' OVERHANG ALLOWABLE FOR FA
EXEMPTION, THEREFORE 6"
PERIMETER SURROUND COUNTABLE
= 0 SQ FT
5
1,11824'-8"24'-8"14'-8"
14'-8"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
24'-8"
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
(D)33.4 exposed
185.0 total wall
281.2 EXEMPT
STREET FACING
DECK TOTALS:
ALLOWABLE FA - 688.5 SF
281.2 (EXM)/ 425.2 SF MAIN
45 SF UPPER
86.6 ROOF OVERHANG
THEREFORE ,
556.8 SQ FT USED
131.7 SF UNDER / 0 SF FA
"A"
OUTBUILDING "A":
254 SF
OUTBUILDING "B":
127.5 SF
MAIN
CHALET
"B"
10,000 SF PROPOSED
100 x 100 8,000 SF PROPOSED
80 x 100
30' FRONT YARD
10' SIDE YARD WEST
5' SIDE YARD EAST
30
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
10 5
ALLEY
WEST SMUGGLER
FENCE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PARKING / PULL OUT
CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLANS
PROPOSED
FEB 2022
949-1-"A"
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
SITE PLAN EXISTING: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
3
TBD
EXISTING (R-6 - 18,000 SF LOT) FLOOR AREA CONDITIONS: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"
2
TBD
SITE PLAN PROPOSED: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"
78
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFND. REBAR W/ALUM CAP
NO MARKINGS
ELEVATION = 7895.94'
PROJECT BENCHMARK
LOT 2
-
V
A
N
D
E
M
O
E
R
H
I
L
L
L
O
T
SPLIT18,00
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
+
/
-
0.413
2
A
C
R
E
S
+
/
-
LOT 1
-
V
A
N
D
E
M
O
E
R
H
I
L
L
L
O
T
S
P
L
I
T
949 W
E
S
T
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
S
T
L
L
C
PITKIN
C
O
U
N
T
Y
P
A
R
C
E
L
I
D
.
N
O
.
2
7
3
5
1
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
19.44
'
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
O
.
W
.
75.00
'
W
E
S
T
SMU
G
G
L
E
R
R
.
O
.
W
.
FINIS
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
ELEV
A
T
I
O
N
7
9
0
1
.
0
'
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
BS PINE
22.4"/ 34' DL
BS PINE
28.1"/ 32' DL
LOT
2
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXISTING WOOD FENCEEXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
BS PINE
25.2"/ 32' DL
BS PINE
25.2"/ 32' DL
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
DECID
8"/ 16' DL
STO
N
E
ENR
Y
P
A
V
E
R
S
WOO
D
W
R
A
P
A
R
O
U
N
D
D
E
C
K
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE15' EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK10' F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10' F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
15' WEST SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
)
5' RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
)
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
18,0
0
0
S
Q
F
T
+
/
-
0.41
3
2
A
C
R
E
S
+
/
-
EXIS
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
/
PULL
O
F
F
DECID
3 - 4.4"/ 10' DL
BS PINE
30.2"/ 27'-6" DL
DECID
11"/ 13' DL
BS PINE
7.7"/ 14' DL
DECID
2 - 4.1"/ 10' DL
DECID
4.5"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.1"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.1"/ 7' DL
DECID
5.9"/ 8' DL
DECID
4.4"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.3"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.7"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.3"/ 7' DL
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXISTING WOOD FENCEDECID
9"/ 13' DL
BS PINE
15.8"/ 22' DL
DECID
16.7"/ 30' DL
DECID
21.5"/ 30' DL
DECID
21.5"/ 30' DL
DECID
14.9"/ 22' DL
DECID
12.6"/ 18' DL
DECID
7.4"/ 12' DL
DECID
11.2"/ 13' DL
DECID
11.1"/ 16' DL
78
9
9789978
9
8
7898789778967895789478987898 789778977897789
6
7896
78
9
878977
8
9
8
7896
789
6
789
578977896
7896
7898EXISTING
SITE PLAN
FEB 2022
949-1-"B"
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
SITE PLAN EXISTING: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 1:10 / 1'-0"= 10'a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
79
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFND. REBAR W/ALUM CAP
NO MARKINGS
ELEVATION = 7895.94'
PROJECT BENCHMARK
LOT 1
-
V
A
N
D
E
M
O
E
R
H
I
L
L
L
O
T
S
P
L
I
T
949 W
E
S
T
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
S
T
L
L
C
PITKIN
C
O
U
N
T
Y
P
A
R
C
E
L
I
D
.
N
O
.
2
7
3
5
1
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
19.44
'
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
O
.
W
.
75.00
'
W
E
S
T
SMU
G
G
L
E
R
R
.
O
.
W
.
FINIS
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
ELEV
A
T
I
O
N
7
9
0
1
.
0
'
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
BS PINE
22.4"/ 34' DL
BS PINE
28.1"/ 32' DL
LOT
2
(
B
)
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXISTING WOOD FENCEEXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
BS PINE
25.2"/ 32' DL
BS PINE
25.2"/ 32' DL
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
DECID
8"/ 16' DL
STO
N
E
ENR
Y
P
A
V
E
R
S
WOO
D
W
R
A
P
A
R
O
U
N
D
D
E
C
K
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE5' EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK(PROPOSED)30' F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
R-6 (
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
)
10' F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10' WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK(PROPOSED)PROPERTY LINE10' R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
)
5' RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
)
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
8,00
0
S
Q
F
T
+
/
-
0.18
3
7
A
C
R
E
S
+
/
-
EXIS
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
/
PULL
O
F
F
DECID
3 - 4.4"/ 10' DL
BS PINE
30.2"/ 27'-6" DL
DECID
11"/ 13' DL
BS PINE
7.7"/ 14' DL
DECID
2 - 4.1"/ 10' DL
DECID
4.5"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.1"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.1"/ 7' DL
DECID
5.9"/ 8' DL
DECID
4.4"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.3"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.7"/ 7' DL
DECID
4.3"/ 7' DL
EXIS
T
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
EXISTING WOOD FENCEDECID
12.6"/ 18' DL
DECID
7.4"/ 12' DL
DECID
11.2"/ 13' DL
DECID
11.1"/ 16' DL
78
9
9789978
9
8
7898789778967895789478987898 7897789778977896
7896
78977
8
9
8
7896
78
9
6
789
578977896
7896
789810' WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK(PROPOSED)PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED)PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED)10' F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
ALLO
W
A
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
L
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
+
SUB
G
R
A
D
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
E
R
R-6 (
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
)10' EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK(PROPOSED)LOT
2
(
A
)
10,0
0
0
S
Q
F
T
+
/
-
0.22
9
6
A
C
R
E
S
+
/
-
10' R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(PRI
M
A
R
Y
)
5' RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
(
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
)
LINE
O
F
U
P
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
ABOV
E
LINE OF DECK ABOVELINE OF DECK ABOVEE
G
C-1
C-2
C-3
LW O
P
E
N
T
O
SUBG
R
A
D
E
L
V
L
.
LW O
P
E
N
T
O
SUBG
R
A
D
E
L
V
L
.
CONC
.
P
A
T
I
O
(
<
6
"
)
CON
C
.
P
A
T
I
O
(
<
6
"
)
CONC
.
S
L
A
B
(
<
6
"
)
CONC
.
S
L
A
B
(
<
6
"
)
CONC
.
A
P
R
O
N
(
<
6
"
)
CONC
.
P
A
T
I
O
(
<
6
"
)
TRELL
I
S
/
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
A
B
O
V
E
UPPE
R
L
E
V
E
L
R
O
O
F
A
B
O
V
E
UPPER LEVEL ROOF ABOVEFINIS
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
ARC
H
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
=
7
9
0
0
.
5
ROOF
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
ABOV
E
ROOF
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
ABOV
E
EXIS
T
I
N
G
C
H
I
C
K
E
N
COO
P
(
O
U
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
)
5'
3'-8"SHED - 5' FROM EAST SIDE PLOVERHANG - 3'-8" FROM EAST PLLINE
O
F
R
O
O
F
A
B
O
V
E
LINE
O
F
R
O
O
F
A
B
O
V
E
WOO
D
W
R
A
P
A
R
O
U
N
D
D
E
C
K
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
FEB 2022
949-1-"C"
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
SITE PLAN PROPOSED: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 1:10 / 1'-0"= 10'a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
80
MAIN
CHALET
"B""A"
ALLEY
WEST SMUGGLER
FENCE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
18,000 SF EXSITING
180 x 100
10' FRONT YARD
15' SIDE YARD WEST
15' SIDE YARD EAST
10' REAR HAB/ (PRIMARY)
5' REAR GARAGE
(SECONDARY)
10
15
10
5
15
PARKING / PULL OUT
EXPOSED SITE
NON-ENCLOSED AREAS /
CANOPY OVERHEAD
LEGEND
ENCLOSED STRUCTURE
EXISTING SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT AREA (SQ FT)
1,518.90 (SF)
EXISTING SITE COVERAGE DIAGRAM (18,000 SF LOT) : 1/16" = 1'-0"EXISTING SITE PLAN (SINGLE LOT 18,000 SF) : 1/16" = 1'-0"
GROSS LOT SIZE / NET LOT SIZE (SQ FT)
EXISTING SITE COVERAGE (R-6 MAX = 25%)8.44% (ALLOWABLE)
PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE (R-6 MAX = 37.33%)
2,532.02 (SF)PROPOSED 949 W SMUGGLER SITE COVERAGE (SQ FT)
GROSS LOT SIZE / NET LOT SIZE (SQ FT)
PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE DIAGRAM (10,000 SF LOT) : 1/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SLPIT LOTS - 10,000 SF LOT FOCUS) : 1/16" = 1'-0"
10,000 (SF) / 10,000 (SF)
EXISTING 949 W SMUGGLER SITE COVERAGE (SQ FT)
1,518.90 (SF)2,532.02 (SF)TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT AREA (SQ FT)
25.32% (ALLOWABLE)
18,000 (SF) / 18,000 (SF)
MAIN
CHALET
"B"
10,000 SF PROPOSED
100 x 100 8,000 SF PROPOSED
80 x 100
30' FRONT YARD
10' SIDE YARD WEST
5' SIDE YARD EAST
30
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
10 5
ALLEY
WEST SMUGGLER
FENCE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PARKING / PULL OUT
949 WEST SMUGGLER
18,000 sq ft
EXISTING CHALET
FOOTPRINT - 1,137.40 sq ft
SITE COVERAGE
1,518.90 sq ft / 18,000 sq ft =
8.44 % Site Coverage Exisiting
EXISTING CHICKEN COOP
FOOTPRINT - 127.75 sq ft
EXISTING OUTBUILDING
FOOTPRINT - 253.75 sq ft
949 WEST SMUGGLER
10,000 sq ft
SITE COVERAGE
2,532.02 sq ft / 10,000 sq ft =
25.32 % Site Coverage
Proposed (10,000 sq ft
interior lot)
PROPOSED CHALET
FOOTPRINT - 1,137.40 sq ft
PROPOSED CHICKEN COOP
FOOTPRINT - 127.75 sq ft
PROPOSED ALLEY SFR
FOOTPRINT - 1,266.87 sq ft
FEB 2022
ZN-003
SITE COVERAGE
DIAGRAMS &
NUMERIC
BREAKDOWNS
1/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
81
EXISTING CHALET BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA PLANNING DIAGRAM : 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR (Z-004)
EXISTING CHALET / EXT. COOP MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA PLANNING DIAGRAM : 1/8" = 1'-0"
416.0 GROSS SQ FT TOTAL SUBGRADE:
18.37% WALL EXPOSURE MECHANICAL SUBGRADE
EXCAVATION (3 OF 4 WALL HIDDEN TO EXTERIOR)
36.82 SQ FT FA COUNTABLE
KEY - SUBGRADE LVL. / EXISTING SUBGRADE WALL DIAGRAMS (CHALET) : 1/8" = 1'-0"
HABITABLE
GARAGE
PORCH/ DECK
EXTERIOR STORAGE
LEGEND
EXISTING MAIN / GROUND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - 949 W SMUGGLER (CHALET +EXT. COOP)
EXISTING/ PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS (CHALET & CHICKEN COOP)
EXISTING SUBGRADE / LOWER LVL. WALL AREA CALCULATIONS - 949 W SMUGGLER (CHALET + EXT. COOP)
Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft)Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)Reference
ZN-004, ZN-006
ZN-005, ZN-007
Basement Habitable (Lower Subgrade Level)416.0 66.46
Main Level Habitable Chalet (Ground Floor)1,118.0 1,118.0
Upper Level Habitable Chalet
ZN-004 - ZN-007
Porch/ Stair Access /Deck/ Roof Overhang Area
Total 2,779.5 Habitable / 0 Garage 2,015.94 (FA USED-HISTORIC)2,124.06 (FA UNUSED: PROPOSED ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM FA)
Total Allowable FA For Two Detached Dwellings on10,000 square foot lot PER R-6 COA LAND USE CODE = 4,140.0 FA
Main Level Habitable Chicken Coop 127.5 127.5
Exterior Storage Area - Mechanical Usage NA NA
0 (GROSS)
127.5 (FA)
0 (GROSS)
1,245.50 (FA)
701.4 (GROSS) / 281.2 EX
(15% of 4,140.0) = 621 SF allow
1,118.0 (GROSS)
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
1,118.0 703.98
0 FA Countable / 621.0 Allowable838.0 (Total) / 281.2 (Exempt)
1,245.5 (FA) CHALET + CHICKEN COOPTOTAL EXISTING GROUND FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - 949 W SMUGGLER (CHALET +EXT. COOP)
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GROUND FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)
2ND FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)
PORCH/ DECK AREA TOTAL (SQ FT)
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
416.0 / 66.46 (FA)
1,118.0 / 1,118.0 (FA)
746.4 GROSS / 281.2 EX
2,015.94 (FA)(2,015.94 FA < 4,140.0 FA)
127.5 / 127.5 (FA)
(4,140 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
1,118.0 / 703.98 (FA)
1118.0 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
1118.0 SF FA COUNTABLE (CHALET)L-A :M-A :
M-B :
M-C :281.2 SF EXT. ENTRY (PRIMARY) STEPS +
FRONT PORCH: STREET FACING /
(HISTORIC)
THEREFORE, 281.2 SF EXEMPT FROM FA
TOTAL DECK CALCULATION
M-D :DECK OVERHANG ABOVE
(OVERHANG EXCEEDS 48")
5.0 SF FA COUNTABLE
M-E :
KEY - EXISTING MAIN / GROUND LVL. (CHALET + CHICKEN COOP)
BASEMENT FLOOR WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ FT)EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT)
A 110.0 21.74
B 185.0 33.4
C 110.0 19.86
D 185.0 33.4
OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ FT)590.0
EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT)108.4
18.37%SUBGRADE 949 WALL EXPOSURE CALCULATION
18.37% (416.0 ACTUAL SF) = 66.46 SF FA COUNTABLE
EXISTING & PROPOSED BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - 949 CHALET + CHICKEN COOP
MECHANICAL / SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)416.0
(18.37% X 416.0)66.46949 SUBGRADE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
TOTAL BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLR AREA (SQ FT)
PORCH/ DECK AREA COUNTABLE (SQ FT)
GROUND FLOOR AREA TOTAL HAB. (SQ FT) - FA
GROUND PORCH/ DECK/OVERHANGS (GROSS SF)
GROUND FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.
GROUND FLOOR AREA - CH (GROSS SQ FT HAB)
GROUND PORCH/ DECK AREA (COUNTABLE FA)420.2 -CH / 5.0 -OH (425.2)
LEGEND (WALLS)
EXPOSED WALL
WALL BELOW GRADE
Entry Porch Area/ Stairs Exempt
425.2 -M / 131.6 -U = (556.8), therefore 0 FA7'-6"6'-134"14'-8"1'-414"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"24'-8"6'-134"14'-8"6'-134"24'-8"
110.0 sq ft / 21.74 sq ft ex
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
LINE OF GRADE : HIDDEN CRAWL SPACE
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
LINE OF GRADE :
EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
LINE OF GRADE : HIDDEN CRAWL SPACE
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
LINE OF GRADE : HIDDEN CRAWL SPACE
7'-6"1'-414"7'-6"1'-414"185.0 sq ft / 33.4 sq ft ex 110.0 sq ft / 19.86 sq ft ex 185.0 sq ft / 33.4 sq ft ex
CH-001
EXCAVTED SUBGRADE
FOUNDATION AREA /
MECHANICAL
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Gravel Foundation Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7860.0
9" x 12"
FP
CLEANOUT
18" x 18"
FP
CLEANOUT
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
416.0
24'-8"24'-8"14'-8"
14'-8"
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7860.0
123456
7
8
7.257.757.757.58.08.57.5
7.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
CH-100
CHALET ENTRY/
STAIR
CH-107
LIVING AREA
CH-106
DINING AREA
MASONRY
WOOD BURNING
FIREPLACE
CH-104
KITCHEN
PASS
THROUGH
CH-103
BATHROOM
CH-110
BEDROOM 2
CH-108
BEDROOM 1
CH-100
CHALET WRAPAROUND
DECK
1118.0
701.5
CH-109
CLOSET 1
CH-105
SUB ACCESS
CH-101
HALLWAY
8.0
4.5
7.5
CH-102
CLOSET
CH-111
CLOSET 2
CH-103
CLOSET
DW
REF RANGE/
OVEN6.06.0SINK
CC-100
OUTBUILDING
OPEN PLAN
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Plwd. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
127.5
ROOF OVERHANG
ABOVE
701.4 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
WRAP-AROUND MAIN LEVEL PORCH
(CHALET)
127.5 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
127.5 SF FA COUNTABLE (CHICKEN COOP)
NOTE :FOR 10,000 SF TWO DETACHED DWELLING R-6 LOT,
FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE = 4,140 SF
THERFORE, DECKS FA EXEMPT TO 15% OF 4,140 SF, WHICH
EQUALS 621 SF BEFORE COUNTABLE TOWARDS FA
MAIN LEVEL DECK / OVERHANG SF TOTAL:
701.4 (TOTAL) - 281.2 ( FRONT) + 5 (OVERHANG) = 425.2 SF
GROUND FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.
GROUND FLOOR AREA - CC (GROSS SQ FT HAB)GROUND FLOOR AREA - EX. COOP (SQ FT)
ROOF/ DECK OVERHANG AREA TOTAL (SF)131.6 GROSS
Chalet / Ext. Coop Hab
Existing Floor Area - Historic Chalet + Chicken Coop (Sq Ft)
556.8 SF Deck Area Used for Historic / 621.0 Allowable = 64.2 SF
Deck Exemption Area Remaining for PROPOSED until countable @ 1:1
(4,140 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
Floor Area Breakdown: 949 West Smuggler (Historical / Existing Conditions)
ZN-004
EXISTING FLOOR
DIAGRAMS &
NUMERIC
BREAKDOWNS
1/8" = 1'-0"
FEB 2022
AREAa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
82
HABITABLE
GARAGE
PORCH/ DECK
EXTERIOR STORAGE
LEGEND
EXISTING UPPER LVL. CHALET / FLOOR AREA PLANNING DIAGRAM : 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING ROOF AREA DIAGRAMS (CHALET + EXT. COOP) : 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - HISTORICAL CHALET
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
UPPER FLOOR AREA - VICTORIAN (SQ FT) - FA
45.0UPPER PORCH/ DECK AREA CHALET (GROSS SQ FT)
UPPER FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.
703.98 (FA)
53.47 (GROSS)53.47 Open Stair Exemption
1102.60 (GROSS)UPPER FLOOR AREA- CHALET (GROSS SQ FT)
KEY - EXISTING UPPER LEVEL - CHALET
ALL SF (FA) COUNTABLE ROOF AREAS/
OVERHANGS REPRESENTED ON UPPER
LEVEL PLANNING DIAGRAM FOR CHALET.
NO COUNTABLE FA REGARDING EXT.
CHICKEN COOP ROOF
U-A :NOTE :
KEY - EXISTING ROOF LVLS.
53.47 SQ FT EXEMPT AREA
FOR OPEN STAIR (CHALET)
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR DECK AREA TOTAL (SQ FT)
UPPER ROOF OVERHANGS > 48" (GROSS SQ FT)
703.98 (FA)TOTAL EXISTING UPPER FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
45.0 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA / 5.0 SF
AREA COUNTABLE PER 48" MAXIMUM
PROJECTION
86.6 SQ FT ROOF (OVERHANG)
4'-6" OVERHANG AROUND CHALET, 4'
OVERHANG ALLOWABLE FOR FA
EXEMPTION, THEREFORE - 6"
PERIMETER SURROUND COUNTABLE
TOWARDS FA TOTAL
U-B :
U-C :
U-D :
U-E :
(4,140.0 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
(4,140.0 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
425.2 -M / 304.35 -U (131.6) = 556.8 total < 621 allowable
86.6
45.0
OPEN TO BELOW
123456
7
8
7.257.757.757.58.08.57.5
7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5 CH-200
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-204
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-202
BEDROOM 3
CH-201
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-205
BEDROOM 3
DECK
360.55
53.47
BUILT-IN CLOSET
WALL
1118.0 SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
SLOPE
12
7 VIF
SLOPE
12
7 VIF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
1118.0 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
703.98 SF FA COUNTABLE (CHALET)
UPPER LEVEL
U-A
U-C
U-B
360.55 SQ FT EXEMPT AREA
FOR OPEN TWO STORY LIVING
AREA VOLUME
U-D
U-E
NOTE :FOR 10,000 SF TWO DETACHED DWELLING R-6 LOT,
FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE = 4,140 SF
THERFORE, DECKS FA EXEMPT TO 15% OF 4,140 SF, WHICH
EQUALS 621 SF BEFORE COUNTABLE TOWARDS FA
MAIN LEVEL DECK / OVERHANG SF TOTAL:
701.4 (TOTAL) - 281.2 ( FRONT EXEMPTION) + 5.0(OVERHANG)
= 425.2 SF
UPPER LEVEL DECK SF TOTAL:
45.0 (TOTAL) + 86.6 (OVERHANG) = 131.6 SF
TOTAL DECK FA USED (HISTORIC PORTION) = 556.8 SF
(621.0 SF DECK EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE/ 64.2 SF REMAINING)
Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft)Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)Reference
ZN-004, ZN-006
ZN-005, ZN-007
Basement Habitable (Lower Subgrade Level)416.0 66.46
Main Level Habitable Chalet (Ground Floor)1,118.0 1,118.0
Upper Level Habitable Chalet
ZN-004 - ZN-007
Porch/ Stair Access /Deck/ Roof Overhang Area
Total 2,779.5 Habitable / 0 Garage 2,015.94 (FA USED-HISTORIC)2,124.06 (FA UNUSED: PROPOSED ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM FA)
Floor Area Breakdown: 949 West Smuggler (Historical / Existing Conditions)Total Allowable FA For Two Detached Dwellings on10,000 square foot lot PER R-6 COA LAND USE CODE = 4,140.0 FA
Main Level Habitable Chicken Coop 127.5 127.5
Exterior Storage Area - Mechanical Usage NA NA
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
1,118.0 703.98
0 FA Countable / 621.0 Allowable838.0 (Total) / 281.2 (Exempt)
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - 949 W SMUGGLER (CHALET +EXT. COOP)
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GROUND FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)
2ND FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)
PORCH/ DECK AREA TOTAL (SQ FT)
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
416.0 / 66.46 (FA)
1,118.0 / 1,118.0 (FA)
746.4 GROSS / 281.2 EX
2,015.94 (FA)(2,015.94 FA < 4,140.0 FA)
127.5 / 127.5 (FA)
(4,140 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
1,118.0 / 703.98 (FA)
PORCH/ DECK AREA COUNTABLE (SQ FT)425.2 -M / 131.6 -U = (556.8), therefore 0 FA
GROUND FLOOR AREA - EX. COOP (SQ FT)
ROOF/ DECK OVERHANG AREA TOTAL (SF)131.6 GROSS
Existing Floor Area - Historic Chalet + Chicken Coop (Sq Ft)
556.8 SF Deck Area Used for Historic / 621.0 Allowable = 64.2 SF
Deck Exemption Area Remaining for PROPOSED until countable @ 1:1
(4,140 x .15%) = 621.0 allow
UPPER FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.360.55 (GROSS)360.55 Two Story Exemption
ZN-005
EXISTING FLOOR
DIAGRAMS &
NUMERIC
BREAKDOWNS
1/8" = 1'-0"
FEB 2022
AREAa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
83
EXPOSED WALL
WALL BELOW GRADE
LEGEND
HABITABLE
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE : BASEMENT FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM : 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FAR (Z-006)
LP-A :1,266.85 GROSS SQUARE FEET
TOTAL SUBGRADE
PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION:
5.01% SUBGRADE WALL
EXPOSURE, THEREFORE
63.47 SQ FT FA COUNTABLE
LP-A
11'10'58'-4"11'10'17'-4"11'10'33'-91
2"
18'-11
2"4'11'-8"11'10'4'-2"11'10'23'-81
2"11'10'22'-4"
9'-2"4'9'-2"
641.67 sq ft / 0 sq ft ex
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
190.67 sq ft / 0 sq ft ex 45.83 sq ft / 0 sq ft ex
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
371.71 sq ft / 44.0 sq ft ex
LW LW
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
LINE OF GRADE: EXTERIOR
UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE
CEILING HEIGHT
260.80 sq ft / 0 sq ft ex 245.67 sq ft / 44.0 sq ft ex
TOTAL PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GROUND MAIN FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
2ND FLOOR / UPPER LEVEL AREA (SQ FT)
PORCH/ DECK/ OVERHANGS AREA (SQ FT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GARAGE FLOOR AREA - ALLEY (SQ FT)
1,266.85 / 63.47 (FA)
669.78 / 669.78 (FA)
2,108.39 (FA) for Proposed Alley Residence Utilized
2,108.39 FA (AR) + 2,015.94 (HIS) = 4,124.33 SF FA TOTAL
288.86 / 19.43 (FA)
(4,140.0 x .15%) = 621.0 allowable
1,027.14 / 940.55 (FA)
453.98 total / 389.78 (FA)
TOTAL PROJECT FLOOR AREA IF APPROVED
GARAGE FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)300.76 / 25.38 (FA)
ZN-006
PROPOSED FLOOR
DIAGRAMS &
NUMERIC
BREAKDOWNS
1/8" = 1'-0"
FEB 2022
AREAa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
84
HABITABLE
GARAGE
PORCH/ DECK
EXTERIOR STORAGE
LEGEND
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE MAIN FLOOR AREA PLANNING DIAGRAM : 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE UPPER FLOOR AREA PLANNING DIAGRAM: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE UPPER FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE MAIN LEVEL / GROUND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
669.78 (FA)GROUND FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) - FA
64.2 (Exemption Remaining)GROUND PORCH/ DECK AREA (GROSS SQ FT)
GROUND FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.0
669.78 (GROSS)GROUND FLOOR AREA (GROSS SQ FT HAB)
GARAGE (PROPOSED) FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) - FA
GARAGE (PROPOSED)FLOOR AREA (GROSS SQ FT)288.86 (GROSS)
19.43 (FA)
Standard R-6 Zoning Allowance
All SF 1:1 Countable
621.0 Lot Total Allowable
669.78 GROSS SQ FT AREA
669.78 SF FA COUNTABLE
MAIN LVL. ALLEY RESIDENCE
UPPER FLOOR AREA - (SQ FT) - FA
UPPER PORCH/ DECK AREA (GROSS SQ FT)
940.55 (FA)
86.59 (GROSS)86.59 Open Stair Exemption
1,027.14 (GROSS)UPPER FLOOR AREA- FRONT (GROSS SQ FT HAB)
1st 250 Exempt / 2nd 250 - 50%
1,374.67 (FA)TOTAL PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
KEY - PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE MAIN LEVEL
MP-A :
KEY - PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE UPPER LEVELS
MP-B :
MP-D :20.0 SQ FT EXTERIOR OVERHANG
4PROJECTION - 48" BEYOND
EXTERIOR WALL CONDITION
(COUNTABLE TOWARDS FA)
288.86 SF GARAGE (DEDICATED TO
PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDNCE)
1st 250 SF EXEMPT
2nd 250 SF @ 1/2 = 38.86 SF
19.43 SF FA COUNTABLE
1,027.14 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
940.55 SF FA COUNTABLE
86.59 SQ FT EXEMPT AREA
FOR OPEN STAIR (ALLEY RESIDENCE)
322.48 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
LIVING / DINING DECK
UP-A :
UP-B :
UP-C :
UPPER FLOOR STAIR & MISC. EXEMPTIONS: INT.
GROUND OVERHANG AREAS (COUNTABLE FA)20.0 (Countable Towards FA)
TOTAL PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)714.59 (FA) / 20 SF towards 64.2 Deck Exemption
TOTAL PROPOSED ALLEY RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GROUND MAIN FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
2ND FLOOR/ UPPER LEVEL AREA (SQ FT)
PORCH/ DECK/ OVERHANGS AREA (SQ FT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)
GARAGE FLOOR AREA - ALLEY (SQ FT)
1,266.85 / 63.47 (FA)
669.78 / 669.78 (FA)
2,108.39 (FA) for Proposed Alley Residence Utilized
2,108.39 FA (AR) + 2,015.94 (HIS) = 4,124.33 SF FA TOTAL
288.86 / 19.43 (FA)
(4,140.0 x .15%) = 621.0 allowable
1,027.14 / 940.55 (FA)
453.98 total / 389.78 (FA)
TOTAL PROJECT FLOOR AREA IF APPROVED
ENTRY HALL (A)
M-100
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5
0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
02 MIN 0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
0KING
GARAGE DEPTH POTENTIAL TO
CREATE REAR WALL STORAGE
AREAS + WORKING SURFACES
(2' DEEP )
TRASH RECYCLE
"ALLEY" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
M-106
LINE OF UPPER LEVEL
ABOVE
M-107
"CHALET" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
TRASH RECYCLE
CLOSET AREAGUEST
MASTER
BEDOOM
M-103
GUEST MASTER
OFFICE/ FLEX
M-104 GUEST MASTER
BATHROOM
M-105
STAIRCASE
M-101
MUDROOM
M-102 LINE OF DECK ABOVELINE OF DECK ABOVE22 R @ 5-13/16" = 10'-7 3/4" (V.I.F.)DN
23 T @ 11" (2 LANDING @ 3'-6") V.I.F.24 R @ 6-3/4" = 13'-6" (V.I.F.)UP
21 T @ 11" (1 LANDING @ 4'-2") V.I.F.E
G
C-1 C-2 C-3
ELEV: 99'-9"
T.O. Plwd. Main Lvl.
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Conc. Garage
ELEV: 99'-5"
T.O. Plwd. Garage
ENTRY HALL (B)
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
STORAGE/
ENTRY
CLOSET /
MUD
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Conc. Garage
ELEV: 99'-5"
T.O. Plwd. Garage
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
CONC. SLAB (< 6")
CONC. SLAB (< 6")
CONC. APRON (< 6")
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
TRELLIS / OVERHANG ABOVE
KING
36" REF/FREEZE36" COOKTOPWITH HOOD ABOVE/OVEN BELOW36" SS DOUBLE
WASH BASIN
DW
48" GAS
FIREPLACE
12" VEGETABLE
SINK
U-207
EXTERIOR BUILT-IN
GRILL AMENITY WITH/
ACCESS TO/ FROM
KITCHEN
WRAPAROUND DECK
AREA ABOVE GARAGE
U-211
LIVING ROOM
U-205
U-204
DINING AREA
KITCHEN
U-203
KITCHEN
ISLAND
U-206
DN
CLOSET AREAMASTER DECK
AREA
U-210
POWDER
U-201
MASTER
BEDOOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
U-209
HALLWAY
U-202
STAIRCASE
U-200
36" BAR AREA
INTEGRATED INTO
FP FEATURE
ROOF OVERHANG 21 T @ 11" (1 LANDING @ 4'-2") V.I.F.22 R @ 5-13/16" = 10'-7 3/4" (V.I.F.)ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Level
ELEV:110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Lvl.
ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Deck
ELEV:110'- 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Deck
ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Deck
ELEV:110'- 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Deck
BUILT IN SHELVING
& STORAGE
INTEGRATED INTO FP
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
ROOF OVERHANG
2'-6" x 5'-6"
BUILT-IN TUB
30" HEIGHT
3' x 6'-3"
EUROGLASS SHOWER
TRELLIS / OVERHANG BELOW
MP-C
MP-D
MP-B :300.76 SF GARAGE (DEDICATED TO
EXISTING HISTORIC CHALET)
1st 250 SF EXEMPT
2nd 250 SF @ 1/2 = 50.76 SF
25.38 SF FA COUNTABLE
MP-B MP-A
GARAGE (CHALET) FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) - FA
GARAGE (CHALET) FLOOR AREA (GROSS SQ FT)300.76 (GROSS)
25.38 (FA)
Standard R-6 Zoning Allowance
1st 250 Exempt / 2nd 250 - 50%
621.0 Lot Total Allowable
MP-A
MP-BMP-C
MP-D
MP-F
MP-E
77.9 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
MASTER BEDROOM DECK
UP-D :
NOTE :FOR 10,000 SF TWO DETACHED DWELLING R-6 LOT,
FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE = 4,140 SF
THERFORE, DECKS FA EXEMPT TO 15% OF 4,140 SF, WHICH
EQUALS 621 SF BEFORE COUNTABLE TOWARDS FA
MAIN LEVEL DECK / OVERHANG SF TOTAL:
0 (TOTAL DECK) + 20.0 (48" + OVERHANG) = 20.0 SF
UPPER LEVEL DECK / OVERHANG SF TOTAL:
400.38 (TOTAL DECK) + 33.6 (48"+ OVERHANGS) = 433.98 SF
TOTAL DECK FA USED (HISTORIC PORTION) = 556.8 SF
(621.0 SF DECK EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE/ 64.2 SF REMAINING)
THEREFORE; 20.0 + 433.98 = 453.98 SF DECK AREA USED
TOWARDS ALLEY RESIDENCE / 453.98 (PR) - 64.2 (BALANCE)
DECK FLOOR AREA = 389.78 SF (COUNTABLE FA)
22.0 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
LIVING AREA - 48"+ ROOF OVERHANG
UP-E :
11.6 GROSS SQUARE FEET AREA
MST. BEDROOM- 48"+ ROOF OVERHANG
UP-F :
GARAGE FLOOR AREA - CHALET (SQ FT)300.76 / 25.38 (FA)
Floor Area Summary Proposed Gross (Sq Ft)Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)Reference
ZN-004, ZN-006
ZN-005, ZN-007
Basement Habitable (Lower Subgrade Level)1,266.85 63.47
Main Level Habitable (Ground Floor)669.78 669.78
Upper Level Habitable
ZN-004 - ZN-007
Porch/ Stair Access /Deck/ Roof Overhang Area
Total 2,963.74 Habitable / 589.62 Garage 2,108.39 (FA PROPOSED - ALLEY)4,124.33 SF FA TOTAL PROJECT PROPOSED / 4,140.0 ALLOWABLE
Floor Area Breakdown: 949 West Smuggler (Proposed Alley Residence)Total Allowable FA For Two Detached Dwellings on10,000 square foot lot PER R-6 COA LAND USE CODE = 4,140.0 FA
Garage (Alley Residence Dedicated)288.86 19.43 ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
ZN-005, ZN-007
1,027.14 940.55
64.2 FA Remaining / 621.0 Allowable453.98 (Total) / 389.78 (Countable)
Proposed Floor Area - Alley Residence (Sq Ft)
556.8 SF Deck Area Used for Historic / 621.0 Allowable = 64.2 SF
Deck Exemption Area Remaining for PROPOSED until countable @ 1:1
Proposed Total ( 453.98 - 64.2 Remaining FA) = 389.78 FA Countable
Garage (Historical Chalet Dedicated)300.76 25.38
Each dedicated Side per R-6: 1st 250 sf exempt / 2nd 250 sf @ 1/2
Each dedicated Side per R-6: 1st 250 sf exempt / 2nd 250 sf @ 1/2
400.38 (GROSS)621.0 Lot Total Allowable
33.6 (Countable Towards FA)621.0 Lot Total AllowableUPPER OVERHANG AREAS (COUNTABLE FA)
ZN-007
PROPOSED FLOOR
DIAGRAMS &
NUMERIC
BREAKDOWNS
1/8" = 1'-0"
FEB 2022
AREAa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
85
CH-001
EXCAVTED SUBGRADE
FOUNDATION AREA /
MECHANICAL
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Gravel Foundation Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7860.0
9" x 12"
FP
CLEANOUT
18" x 18"
FP
CLEANOUT
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
416.0
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7860.0
123456
7
8
7.257.757.757.58.08.57.5
7.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
CH-100
CHALET ENTRY/
STAIR
CH-107
LIVING AREA
CH-106
DINING AREA
MASONRY
WOOD BURNING
FIREPLACE
CH-104
KITCHEN
PASS
THROUGH
CH-103
BATHROOM
CH-110
BEDROOM 2
CH-108
BEDROOM 1
CH-100
CHALET WRAPAROUND
DECK
1118.0
701.5
CH-109
CLOSET 1
CH-105
SUB ACCESS
CH-101
HALLWAY
8.0
4.5
7.5
CH-102
CLOSET
CH-111
CLOSET 2
CH-103
CLOSET
DW
REF RANGE/
OVEN6.06.0SINK
(A)
LINE OF GRADE:
EXTERIOR
21.74 exposed
110.0 total wall7'-6"6'-134"UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
14'-8"1'-414"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"(B)33.4 exposed
185.0 total wall
(C)19.86 exposed
110.0 total wall
UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
24'-8"7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"14'-8"
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
7'-6"6'-134"1'-414"UNDERSIDE OF
STRUCTURE
24'-8"
LINE OF GRADE:
HIDDEN
CRAWLSPACE
(D)33.4 exposed
185.0 total wall
EXISTING:
CHALET FLOOR
PLANS
FEB 2022
949-2
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
EXISTING SUBGRADE FLOOR PLAN - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
3
TBD
EXISTING SUBGRADE WALL SURFACE DIAGRAMS - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
86
45.0
OPEN TO BELOW
123456
7
8
7.257.757.757.58.08.57.5
7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5
8 7.5 CH-200
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-204
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-202
BEDROOM 3
CH-201
UPPER LOFT/
STAIR
CH-205
BEDROOM 3
DECK
360.55
53.47
BUILT-IN CLOSET
WALL
1118.0
CC-100
OUTBUILDING
OPEN PLAN
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Plwd. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
127.5
ROOF OVERHANG
ABOVE
SLOPE
12
7 VIF
SLOPE
12
7 VIF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOFSLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
SLOPE13
7.5 VIF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
EXISTING WOOD
CEDAR SHINGLE
ROOF
EXISTING:
CHALET FLOOR
PLANS CONT.
/ CHICKEN COOP
FEB 2022
949-3
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
EXISTING ROOF PLAN - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
3
TBD
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - CHICKEN COOP: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
4
TBD
EXISTING ROOF PLAN - CHICKEN COOP: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
87
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
NORTH FACADE
T.O. F.F. Ext. Chalet Deck
ELEV - 99'-4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. F.F. Chalet Main Level
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Spring Point - 13/7.5 Gable
ELEV - 112'-1 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Masonry Chimney
ELEV - 121'-6 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Gable Roof Ridge
ELEV - 120'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Chalet F.F. Upper Level
ELEV - 108'-10 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Subgrade F.F. - Crawl/ Mech
ELEV - 91'-7 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Underside of Ridge -Gable
ELEV - 118'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Chalet Deck Rail
ELEV - 102'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. F.F. Ext. Chalet Deck
ELEV - 99'-4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. F.F. Chalet Main Level
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Spring Point - 13/7.5 Gable
ELEV - 112'-1 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Masonry Chimney
ELEV - 121'-6 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Gable Roof Ridge
ELEV - 120'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Chalet F.F. Upper Level
ELEV - 108'-10 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Subgrade F.F. - Crawl/ Mech
ELEV - 91'-7 1/4" (V.I.F.)
13
7.5 V.I.F.
T.O. Underside of Ridge -Gable
ELEV - 118'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Chalet Deck Rail
ELEV - 102'-10" (V.I.F.)
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
WEST FACADE
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
4.5
7.5
8.0
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
WEST FACADE
13
7.5 V.I.F.
T.O. F.F. Ext. Chalet Deck
ELEV - 99'-4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. F.F. Chalet Main Level
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Spring Point - 13/ 7.5 Gable
ELEV - 112'-1 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Masonry Chimney
ELEV - 121'-6 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Gable Roof Ridge
ELEV - 120'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Chalet F.F. Upper Level
ELEV - 108'-10 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Subgrade F.F. - Crawl/ Mech
ELEV - 91'-7 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Underside of Ridge -Gable
ELEV - 118'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Chalet Deck Rail
ELEV - 102'-10" (V.I.F.)
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
4.5
7.5
8.0
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
SOUTH FACADE
T.O. F.F. Ext. Chalet Deck
ELEV - 99'-4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. F.F. Chalet Main Level
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Spring Point - 13/ 7.5 Gable
ELEV - 112'-1 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Masonry Chimney
ELEV - 121'-6 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Gable Roof Ridge
ELEV - 120'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Chalet F.F. Upper Level
ELEV - 108'-10 3/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Subgrade F.F. - Crawl/ Mech
ELEV - 91'-7 1/4" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Underside of Ridge -Gable
ELEV - 118'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Ext. Chalet Deck Rail
ELEV - 102'-10" (V.I.F.)
8.0
7.5
4.5
12
7 V.I.F.
T.O. F.F. Chicken Coop
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Spring Point Chicken Coop
ELEV - 105'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Gable Ridge Chicken Coop
ELEV - 109'-1/4" (V.I.F.)
NOTE: NO FOUNDATION - OUTBUILDING
APPROX. 5" OFF GRADE W/ RUBBLE -ROCK
BUILT UP CONDITION
E W
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
T.O. F.F. Chicken Coop
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Spring Point Chicken Coop
ELEV - 105'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Gable Ridge Chicken Coop
ELEV - 109'-1/4" (V.I.F.)
NOTE: NO FOUNDATION - OUTBUILDING
APPROX. 5" OFF GRADE W/ RUBBLE -ROCK
BUILT UP CONDITION
N S
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
T.O. F.F. Chicken Coop
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Spring Point Chicken Coop
ELEV - 105'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Gable Ridge Chicken Coop
ELEV - 109'-1/4" (V.I.F.)
NOTE: NO FOUNDATION - OUTBUILDING
APPROX. 5" OFF GRADE W/ RUBBLE -ROCK
BUILT UP CONDITION
S N
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
12
7 V.I.F.
T.O. F.F. Chicken Coop
ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Spring Point Chicken Coop
ELEV - 105'-7" (V.I.F.)
T.O. 7/12 Gable Ridge Chicken Coop
ELEV - 109'-1/4" (V.I.F.)
NOTE: NO FOUNDATION - OUTBUILDING
APPROX. 5" OFF GRADE W/ RUBBLE -ROCK
BUILT UP CONDITION
W E
ARCH 100'-0" = 7899.5 GRADE ELEV
EXISTING:
CHALET
ELEVATIONS.
/ CHICKEN COOP
FEB 2022
949-4
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
EXISTING NORTH (949 WEST SMUGGLER) ELEVATION - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
3
TBD
EXISTING SOUTH (REAR YARD / ALLEY) ELEVATION - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
4
TBD
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION - CHALET: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
5
TBD
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION - CHICKEN COOP
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
6
TBD
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - CHICKEN COOP
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
5
TBD
EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION - CHICKEN COOP
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
5
TBD
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION - CHICKEN COOP
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
88
MEDIA ROOM /
RECREATION
L-002
CLOSET AREABEDROOM 1
OFFICE/ FLEX
BEDROOM 1
BATHROOML-009
L-010
STAIRCASE
L-001
BEDROOM /
FLEX ROOM 1
L-008
EGRESS WELL
QUEEN
WASH DRY
UP
18 T @ 12" (1 LANDING @ 3'-1") V.I.F.17 R @ 6-15/16" = 10'-9 1/4" (V.I.F.)CLOSET AREA
STORAGE
L-003
BEDROOM /
FLEX ROOM 2
L-005
SHELVING AREA
SHELVING / STORAGE0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
0BATHROOM 2
L-004
MECHANICAL
ROOM/ ELECTRIC
L-007
LAUNDRY
ROOM
L-006
EGRESS WELL
ELEV: 86'-6"
T.O. F.F. Lower Lvl.
ELEV: 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV: 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV: 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Conc. Lower Lvl.
KING
65'-0"
5'-0"60'-0"24'-0"9'-4"5'-4"9'-4"65'-0"
5'-0"25'-41
2"
34'-71
2"
17'-51
2"5'-4"11'-10"24'-0"5'-0"19'-0"ENTRY HALL (A)
M-100
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Main Level
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5
0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
02 MIN 0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
0KING
GARAGE DEPTH POTENTIAL TO
CREATE REAR WALL STORAGE
AREAS + WORKING SURFACES
(2' DEEP )
TRASH RECYCLE
"ALLEY" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
M-106
LINE OF UPPER LEVEL
ABOVE
M-107
"CHALET" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
TRASH RECYCLE
CLOSET AREAGUEST
MASTER
BEDOOM
M-103
GUEST MASTER
OFFICE/ FLEX
M-104 GUEST MASTER
BATHROOM
M-105
STAIRCASE
M-101
MUDROOM
M-102 LINE OF DECK ABOVELINE OF DECK ABOVE22 R @ 5-13/16" = 10'-7 3/4" (V.I.F.)DN
23 T @ 11" (2 LANDING @ 3'-6") V.I.F.24 R @ 6-3/4" = 13'-6" (V.I.F.)UP
21 T @ 11" (1 LANDING @ 4'-2") V.I.F.E
G
C-1 C-2 C-3
ELEV: 99'-9"
T.O. Plwd. Main Lvl.
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Conc. Garage
ELEV: 99'-5"
T.O. Plwd. Garage
ENTRY HALL (B)
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
STORAGE/
ENTRY
CLOSET /
MUD
ELEV: 100'-0"
T.O. Conc. Garage
ELEV: 99'-5"
T.O. Plwd. Garage
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
CONC. SLAB (< 6")
CONC. SLAB (< 6")
CONC. APRON (< 6")
CONC. PATIO (< 6")
TRELLIS / OVERHANG ABOVE24'-0"60'-0"5'-0"24'-0"19'-0"60'-0"
25'-41
2"
34'-71
2"
KING
36" REF/FREEZE36" COOKTOPWITH HOOD ABOVE/OVEN BELOW36" SS DOUBLE
WASH BASIN
DW
48" GAS
FIREPLACE
12" VEGETABLE
SINK
U-207
EXTERIOR BUILT-IN
GRILL AMENITY WITH/
ACCESS TO/ FROM
KITCHEN
WRAPAROUND DECK
AREA ABOVE GARAGE
U-211
LIVING ROOM
U-205
U-204
DINING AREA
KITCHEN
U-203
KITCHEN
ISLAND
U-206
DN
CLOSET AREAMASTER DECK
AREA
U-210
POWDER
U-201
MASTER
BEDOOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
U-209
HALLWAY
U-202
STAIRCASE
U-200
36" BAR AREA
INTEGRATED INTO
FP FEATURE
ROOF OVERHANG 21 T @ 11" (1 LANDING @ 4'-2") V.I.F.22 R @ 5-13/16" = 10'-7 3/4" (V.I.F.)ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Level
ELEV:110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Lvl.
ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Deck
ELEV:110'- 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Deck
ELEV: 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. F.F. Upper Deck
ELEV:110'- 3/4"
T.O. Plwd. Upper Deck
BUILT IN SHELVING
& STORAGE
INTEGRATED INTO FP
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
ROOF OVERHANG
2'-6" x 5'-6"
BUILT-IN TUB
30" HEIGHT
3' x 6'-3"
EUROGLASS SHOWER
TRELLIS / OVERHANG BELOW
64'-0"
9'-0"49'-0"6'-0"25'-6"5'-0"19'-0"1'-6"25'-6"5'-0"11'-7"1'-6"7'-5"64'-0"
9'-0"18'-41
2"
34'-71
2"0SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
00SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
00SLOPE
2 MIN
SLOPE
2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN00
0FORTY (40) PANEL
PHOTO VOLTATIC
ROOF MOUNTED PANEL
FIELD. PANELS APPROX.
4' x 3' WITH 15 DEGREE
SET ORIENTATION. FINAL
LAYOUT TBD.
ULTRA HIGH TEMP EPDM
ROOFING (NON-REFLECTIVE) w/
STONE BALLAST OVERLAY
LIVING DECK BELOW MASTER DECK BELOWFIREPLACE CHIMNEY FLUE
WITH OPEN AIRED METAL
SCREEN SURROUND
ELEV: 122'-10"
T.O. Exterior Roof
ELEV:122'-2 1/2"
T.O. Plwd. Ext. Roof
TRELLIS / OVERHANG BELOW24'-0"59'-0"24'-0"59'-0"
PROPOSED:
ALLEY RESIDENCE
FLOOR PLANS
FEB 2022
949-5
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
PROPOSED LOWER / SUBGRADE FLOOR PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
PROPOSED MAIN / ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
4
TBD
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
3
TBD
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
89
T.O. F.F. Main Lvl. / Conc. Garage
ELEV - 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Upper Lvl. Alley House
ELEV - 110'-7 3/4"
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
NORTH FACADE
T.O. Deck Wall Alley House
T.O. Flat Roof Exterior
T.O. Chimney Flue
ELEV - 113'-10 3/4"
ELEV - 120'-7 3/4"
ELEV - 122'-10" (V.I.F.)
ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Plate Living Area
T.O. Plate Main Lvl.
ELEV - 109'-0"949 W SMUGGLEREAST SIDE YARD - PROPERTY LINEEAST SIDE YARD - 5' SETBACKWEST SIDE YARD - 10' SETBACK949 W SMUGGLERWEST SIDE YARD -PROPERTY LINE15' MAXIMUM DEPTH LIMIT : R-6
T.O. Plate Lower Level
ELEV - 98'-2 1/4"
T.O. Underside Ceiling Lower Lvl.
ELEV - 96'-5 1/4"
T.O. F.F. / Conc. Lower Level
ELEV - 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV - 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Roof Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 122'-2 1/2"
CHALET LOCATION ALONG
WEST SMUGGLER STREET
PV PV PV PV
E
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 GRADE ELEV
2
3
8
9
5
1
3
3
2
1 1
224
4
6
3
6
E l e v :: N o r t h
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
NORTH FACADE
949 W SMUGGLEREAST SIDE YARD - PROPERTY LINEEAST SIDE YARD - 10' SETBACKWEST SIDE YARD - 10' SETBACK949 W SMUGGLERWEST SIDE YARD - PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED NEIGHBORING WEST SIDEYARD - 15' SETBACK12
7 V.I.F.
E W
T.O. Main Lvl. F.F. / Conc. Garage
ELEV - 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Upper Lvl. Alley House
ELEV - 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. Deck Wall Alley House
T.O. Flat Roof Exterior
T.O. Chimney Flue
ELEV - 113'-10 3/4"
ELEV - 120'-7 3/4"
ELEV - 122'-10" (V.I.F.)
ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Plate Living Area
T.O. Plate Main Lvl.
ELEV - 109'-0"
T.O. Plate Lower Level
ELEV - 98'-2 1/4"
T.O. Underside Ceiling Lower Lvl.
ELEV - 96'-5 1/4"
T.O. F.F. / Conc. Lower Level
ELEV - 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV - 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Roof Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 122'-2 1/2"
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 GRADE ELEV
E l e v :: N o r t h
LEGEND:
WINDOW TAG
WINDOW TAG
MATERIAL LIST:
MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG:
LEGEND
NTRUE
NORTH
16.0 o
SAFETY GLAZING
ALL GLASS SHALL BE
TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED
EMERGENCY
ESCAPE
ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS
WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40"
A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
(SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION
DWGS).
1.PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR
SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN :
WEILAND LIFT AND SLIDE ALUMINUM
FRAME SYSTEM WINDOWS & DOORS.
GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON
INSULATED GLASS GLAZING.
ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60
PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH
ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH
ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH.
ALL NEW WINDOWS + DOORS WILL
HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC
STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE
U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY.
ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED
SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N.
2.8" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PARKLEX
PRODEMA "RUSTIK -NATURSIDING-W"
RAIN-SCREEN SIDING APPLICATION
OVER FURRING STRIPS @ 16" O.C.
PARKLEX PRODEMA EXTERIOR
EXPOSED MOUNTING SYSTEM
ADVISED. GENERAL NOTE: SOFFIT
AREAS PRPOSED AS PARKLEX
PRODEMA "GREY AYOUS /
NATURSOFFIT-W"
3.BRIDGERSTEEL VERTICALLY APPLIED
3/4" MODERN CORRUGATED SIDING IN
BLACK PAINT LOCK FINISH.
ALTERNATE: NAKOMOTO FORESTRY
"SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH.
SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12
MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP
UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED.
4.DEKTON EXTERIOR FACADE SURFACE
PANELING OR METAL COLD ROLLED
STEEL PANEL SYSTEM AT MIN. 20
GAUGE OR PER RECOMMENDATION
OF MANUFACTURER TO FACILITATE
NO OIL CANNING OF SURFACE.
PANELS TO FOLD ALL EDGES TO
DEPTH MIN. OF 1". BLUE STEEL FINISH
OR EQUIVALENT TO BE DETERMINED.
5.FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD -
METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT
LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH
MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED
ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS -
DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY
TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH.
6.POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND
PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED
EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH.
COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT
GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED
FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM.
POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE
FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD
CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND
FORM FINISH.
7.FLASHING AND TRELLIS AREAS TO BE
BRIDGERSTEEL PAINT LOCK METAL
FINISH. 29 GAUGE MINIMUM - BLACK
OR GUNMETAL GREY PER DIRECTION
OF SIDING TBD / APPROVED.
8.AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH
METAL RAILING WITH ALUMINUM
CABLE RAIL HORIZONTAL CROSS
MEMBERS - 4" MAX. SPACING PER IRC
CODE.
9.SOLAR PANELS PER MANUFACTURER
TBD. TILT NOT TO EXCEED 45
DEGREE INSTALLATION AND
ORIENTATION TBD. REPRESENTATION
FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES / FUTURE
INTENT OF APPROVAL.
10.FOUR PANEL FROSTED GLAZED
OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR SYSTEMS
- FABRICATOR: OVERHEAD GARAGE
DOOR COMPANY.
GENERAL NOTE: IF DEEMED NECESSARY,
ALL CHALET WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED /
REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC
APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN
RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR
PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED
FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR
CONSIDERATIONS IF NECESSARY AT A
FUTURE TIME.
GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING
SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL
CHALET & CHICKEN COOP TO BE
MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE
ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY
PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH
EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.
GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA
AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH
EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS
NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR /
REPLACEMENT BE DEEMED NECESSARY.KEY PLAN
NOTES:
1.FOR DOOR AND WINDOW
SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES
1.TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE
ELEVATION
HPC PROVISIONS:
RECESSED WALL LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
E l e v :: A
1
1
1
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
1.GENERAL NOTE: IT IS TO BE
UNDERSTOOD ALL MATERIALS &
SPECIFICATIONS AS DESCRIBED ARE
SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY
AND COST CONSIDERATIONS AT THE
TIME OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. IF
FOR REASONS OUT OF OUR CONTROL
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, MEANS OR
METHODS NEED BE CONSIDERED,
THE HPC STAFF & MONITOR IS TO BE
NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY FOR
SOLUTION DIALOGUE & APPROVAL AT
SAID TIME
A
110
C-2
PROPOSED:
ALLEY RESIDENCE
ELEVATIONS +
SITE CONTEXT
FEB 2022
949-6
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
PROPOSED NORTH (949 WEST SMUGGLER) ELEVATION - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
PROPOSED NORTH (949 WEST SMUGGLER) ELEVATION - ALLEY RESIDENCE (W/ SITE CONTEXT): 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
90
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
WEST FACADE
NORTH FRONT YARD (SMUGGLER) - PROPERTY LINENORTH FRONT YARD (SMUGGLER) - 10' FRONT YARD SETBACKSOUTH REAR YARD (ALLEY) -PROPERTY LINESOUTH REAR YARD (ALLEY) - 5' GARAGE SETBACKPVPV
T.O. Main Lvl. F.F. / Conc. Garage
ELEV - 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Upper Lvl. Alley House
ELEV - 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. Deck Wall Alley House
T.O. Flat Roof Exterior
T.O. Chimney Flue
ELEV - 113'-10 3/4"
ELEV - 120'-7 3/4"
ELEV - 122'-10" (V.I.F.)
ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Plate Living Area
T.O. Plate Main Lvl.
ELEV - 109'-0"
T.O. Plate Lower Level
ELEV - 98'-2 1/4"
T.O. Underside Ceiling Lower Lvl.
ELEV - 96'-5 1/4"
T.O. F.F. / Conc. Lower Level
ELEV - 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV - 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Roof Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 122'-2 1/2"
ELEC
GAS
25'-4"
4'-10"19'-0"1'-6"
30'-10"16'-4"
72'-6"
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 GRADE ELEV
6
3
2
2
2
3
4
9
1
1
1
8
7
6
5
3
E l e v :: E a s t
SOUTH REAR YARD (ALLEY) -PROPERTY LINESOUTH REAR YARD (ALLEY) - 5' GARAGE SETBACK25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
EAST FACADE
NORTH FRONT YARD (SMUGGLER) - 10' FRONT YARD SETBACKNORTH FRONT YARD (SMUGGLER) - PROPERTY LINECHICKEN COOP
PROPOSED LOCATE
EAST SIDE YARDSOUTH REAR YARD (ALLEY) - 10' HABITABLE SETBACKT.O. F.F. Main Lvl. / Conc. Gar
ELEV - 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Upper Lvl. Alley House
ELEV - 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. Deck Wall Alley House
T.O. Flat Roof Exterior
T.O. Chimney Flue
ELEV - 113'-10 3/4"
ELEV - 120'-7 3/4"
ELEV - 122'-10" (V.I.F.)
ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Plate Living Area
T.O. Plate Main Lvl.
ELEV - 109'-0"
T.O. Plate Lower Level
ELEV - 98'-2 1/4"
T.O. Ceiling Lower Lvl.
ELEV - 96'-5 1/4"
T.O. F.F. / Conc. Lower Level
ELEV - 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV - 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Roof Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 122'-2 1/2"
PV PV
25'-4"
4'-10"19'-0"1'-6"
30'-10"16'-4"
72'-6"
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 GRADE ELEV
3
4
11
11
7
5
2
2
2
4
8
3
9
6
6
E l e v :: W e s t
LEGEND:
WINDOW TAG
WINDOW TAG
MATERIAL LIST:
MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG:
LEGEND
NTRUE
NORTH
16.0 o
SAFETY GLAZING
ALL GLASS SHALL BE
TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED
EMERGENCY
ESCAPE
ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS
WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40"
A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
(SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION
DWGS).
1.PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR
SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN :
WEILAND LIFT AND SLIDE ALUMINUM
FRAME SYSTEM WINDOWS & DOORS.
GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON
INSULATED GLASS GLAZING.
ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60
PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH
ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH
ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH.
ALL NEW WINDOWS + DOORS WILL
HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC
STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE
U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY.
ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED
SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N.
2.8" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PARKLEX
PRODEMA "RUSTIK -NATURSIDING-W"
RAIN-SCREEN SIDING APPLICATION
OVER FURRING STRIPS @ 16" O.C.
PARKLEX PRODEMA EXTERIOR
EXPOSED MOUNTING SYSTEM
ADVISED. GENERAL NOTE: SOFFIT
AREAS PRPOSED AS PARKLEX
PRODEMA "GREY AYOUS /
NATURSOFFIT-W"
3.BRIDGERSTEEL VERTICALLY APPLIED
3/4" MODERN CORRUGATED SIDING IN
BLACK PAINT LOCK FINISH.
ALTERNATE: NAKOMOTO FORESTRY
"SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH.
SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12
MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP
UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED.
4.DEKTON EXTERIOR FACADE SURFACE
PANELING OR METAL COLD ROLLED
STEEL PANEL SYSTEM AT MIN. 20
GAUGE OR PER RECOMMENDATION
OF MANUFACTURER TO FACILITATE
NO OIL CANNING OF SURFACE.
PANELS TO FOLD ALL EDGES TO
DEPTH MIN. OF 1". BLUE STEEL FINISH
OR EQUIVALENT TO BE DETERMINED.
5.FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD -
METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT
LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH
MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED
ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS -
DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY
TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH.
6.POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND
PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED
EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH.
COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT
GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED
FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM.
POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE
FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD
CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND
FORM FINISH.
7.FLASHING AND TRELLIS AREAS TO BE
BRIDGERSTEEL PAINT LOCK METAL
FINISH. 29 GAUGE MINIMUM - BLACK
OR GUNMETAL GREY PER DIRECTION
OF SIDING TBD / APPROVED.
8.AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH
METAL RAILING WITH ALUMINUM
CABLE RAIL HORIZONTAL CROSS
MEMBERS - 4" MAX. SPACING PER IRC
CODE.
9.SOLAR PANELS PER MANUFACTURER
TBD. TILT NOT TO EXCEED 45
DEGREE INSTALLATION AND
ORIENTATION TBD. REPRESENTATION
FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES / FUTURE
INTENT OF APPROVAL.
10.FOUR PANEL FROSTED GLAZED
OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR SYSTEMS
- FABRICATOR: OVERHEAD GARAGE
DOOR COMPANY.
GENERAL NOTE: IF DEEMED NECESSARY,
ALL CHALET WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED /
REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC
APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN
RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR
PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED
FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR
CONSIDERATIONS IF NECESSARY AT A
FUTURE TIME.
GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING
SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL
CHALET & CHICKEN COOP TO BE
MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE
ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY
PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH
EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.
GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA
AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH
EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS
NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR /
REPLACEMENT BE DEEMED NECESSARY.KEY PLAN
NOTES:
1.FOR DOOR AND WINDOW
SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES
1.TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE
ELEVATION
HPC PROVISIONS:
RECESSED WALL LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
E l e v :: A
1
1
1
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
1.GENERAL NOTE: IT IS TO BE
UNDERSTOOD ALL MATERIALS &
SPECIFICATIONS AS DESCRIBED ARE
SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY
AND COST CONSIDERATIONS AT THE
TIME OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. IF
FOR REASONS OUT OF OUR CONTROL
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, MEANS OR
METHODS NEED BE CONSIDERED,
THE HPC STAFF & MONITOR IS TO BE
NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY FOR
SOLUTION DIALOGUE & APPROVAL AT
SAID TIME
A
110
C-2
PROPOSED:
ALLEY RESIDENCE
ELEVATIONS +
SITE CONTEXT
FEB 2022
949-7
"949-HOUSE"
1
TBD
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
2
TBD
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - ALLEY RESIDENCE (W/ SITE CONTEXT): 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
91
949 W SMUGGLEREAST SIDE YARD - PROPERTY LINEEAST SIDE YARD - 10' SETBACKWEST SIDE YARD - 10' SETBACK949 W SMUGGLERWEST SIDE YARD - PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED NEIGHBORING WEST SIDEYARD - 10' SETBACK25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
SOUTH FACADE
15' MAXIMUM DEPTH LIMIT : R-6
25' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT : R-6
NORTH FACADE
E
G
12
7 V.I.F.
W E
C-1 C-2 C-3
PVPVPV
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 GRADE ELEV
T.O. F.F. Main Lvl. / Conc. Gar
ELEV - 100'-0"
T.O. F.F. Upper Lvl. Alley House
ELEV - 110'-7 3/4"
T.O. Deck Wall Alley House
T.O. Flat roof Exterior
T.O. Chimney Flue
ELEV - 113'-10 3/4"
ELEV - 120'-7 3/4"
ELEV - 122'-10" (V.I.F.)
ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.)
T.O. Plate Living Area
T.O. Plate Main Lvl.
ELEV - 109'-0"
T.O. Plate Lower Level
ELEV - 98'-2 1/4"
T.O. Ceiling Lower Lvl.
ELEV - 96'-5 1/4"
T.O. F.F. / Conc. Lower Level
ELEV - 86'-5 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 110'-4 3/4"
T.O. Conc. Lightwell
ELEV - 86'-2 1/4"
T.O. Plwd Roof Upper Lvl.
ELEV - 122'-2 1/2"
ARCH 100'-0" = 7900.5 ELEV
6
3
3
4
9
3
3
2
1010
2
1 1
1
11
8 8
77
6
6
2
2
2
5
3
E l e v :: S o u t h
LEGEND:
WINDOW TAG
WINDOW TAG
MATERIAL LIST:
MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG:
LEGEND
NTRUE
NORTH
16.0 o
SAFETY GLAZING
ALL GLASS SHALL BE
TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED
EMERGENCY
ESCAPE
ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS
WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40"
A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
(SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION
DWGS).
1.PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR
SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN :
WEILAND LIFT AND SLIDE ALUMINUM
FRAME SYSTEM WINDOWS & DOORS.
GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON
INSULATED GLASS GLAZING.
ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60
PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH
ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH
ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH.
ALL NEW WINDOWS + DOORS WILL
HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC
STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE
U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY.
ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED
SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N.
2.8" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PARKLEX
PRODEMA "RUSTIK -NATURSIDING-W"
RAIN-SCREEN SIDING APPLICATION
OVER FURRING STRIPS @ 16" O.C.
PARKLEX PRODEMA EXTERIOR
EXPOSED MOUNTING SYSTEM
ADVISED. GENERAL NOTE: SOFFIT
AREAS PRPOSED AS PARKLEX
PRODEMA "GREY AYOUS /
NATURSOFFIT-W"
3.BRIDGERSTEEL VERTICALLY APPLIED
3/4" MODERN CORRUGATED SIDING IN
BLACK PAINT LOCK FINISH.
ALTERNATE: NAKOMOTO FORESTRY
"SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH.
SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12
MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP
UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED.
4.DEKTON EXTERIOR FACADE SURFACE
PANELING OR METAL COLD ROLLED
STEEL PANEL SYSTEM AT MIN. 20
GAUGE OR PER RECOMMENDATION
OF MANUFACTURER TO FACILITATE
NO OIL CANNING OF SURFACE.
PANELS TO FOLD ALL EDGES TO
DEPTH MIN. OF 1". BLUE STEEL FINISH
OR EQUIVALENT TO BE DETERMINED.
5.FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD -
METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT
LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH
MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED
ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS -
DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY
TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH.
6.POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND
PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED
EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH.
COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT
GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED
FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM.
POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE
FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD
CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND
FORM FINISH.
7.FLASHING AND TRELLIS AREAS TO BE
BRIDGERSTEEL PAINT LOCK METAL
FINISH. 29 GAUGE MINIMUM - BLACK
OR GUNMETAL GREY PER DIRECTION
OF SIDING TBD / APPROVED.
8.AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH
METAL RAILING WITH ALUMINUM
CABLE RAIL HORIZONTAL CROSS
MEMBERS - 4" MAX. SPACING PER IRC
CODE.
9.SOLAR PANELS PER MANUFACTURER
TBD. TILT NOT TO EXCEED 45
DEGREE INSTALLATION AND
ORIENTATION TBD. REPRESENTATION
FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES / FUTURE
INTENT OF APPROVAL.
10.FOUR PANEL FROSTED GLAZED
OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR SYSTEMS
- FABRICATOR: OVERHEAD GARAGE
DOOR COMPANY.
GENERAL NOTE: IF DEEMED NECESSARY,
ALL CHALET WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED /
REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC
APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN
RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR
PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED
FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR
CONSIDERATIONS IF NECESSARY AT A
FUTURE TIME.
GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING
SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL
CHALET & CHICKEN COOP TO BE
MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE
ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY
PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH
EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.
GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA
AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH
EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS
NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR /
REPLACEMENT BE DEEMED NECESSARY.KEY PLAN
NOTES:
1.FOR DOOR AND WINDOW
SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES
1.TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE
ELEVATION
HPC PROVISIONS:
RECESSED WALL LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
E l e v :: A
1
1
1
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
1.GENERAL NOTE: IT IS TO BE
UNDERSTOOD ALL MATERIALS &
SPECIFICATIONS AS DESCRIBED ARE
SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY
AND COST CONSIDERATIONS AT THE
TIME OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. IF
FOR REASONS OUT OF OUR CONTROL
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, MEANS OR
METHODS NEED BE CONSIDERED,
THE HPC STAFF & MONITOR IS TO BE
NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY FOR
SOLUTION DIALOGUE & APPROVAL AT
SAID TIME
A
110
C-2
PROPOSED:
ALLEY RESIDENCE
ELEVATIONS +
SITE CONTEXT
FEB 2022
949-8
"949-HOUSE"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
1
TBD
PROPOSED SOUTH (REAR YARD / ALLEY) ELEVATION - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
2
TBD
PROPOSED MATERIALS KEY - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : NO SCALE
92
ENTRY HALL (A)
M-100
"ALLEY" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
M-106
LINE OF UPPER LEVEL
ABOVE
M-107
"CHALET" GARAGE
(1 STALL)
GUEST
MASTER
BEDOOM
M-103
GUEST MASTER
OFFICE/ FLEX
M-104 GUEST MASTER
BATHROOM
M-105
STAIRCASE
M-101
MUDROOM
M-102
LINE OF DECK ABOVEDNUP
E
G
C-1 C-2 C-3
ENTRY HALL (B)
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
LW OPEN TO
SUBGRADE LVL.
TRELLIS / OVERHANG ABOVE DECK OVERHANG ABOVETRELLIS / OVERHANG ABOVELINE OF DECK ABOVE1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1
2
2
1
2
3 RECESSED WALL LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
RECESSED SOFFIT / UNDERSIDE OF ROOF
OVERHANG LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE -
DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
U-207
WRAPAROUND DECK
AREA ABOVE GARAGE
U-211
LIVING ROOM
U-205
U-204
DINING AREA
KITCHEN
U-203
KITCHEN
ISLAND
U-206
DN
MASTER DECK
AREA
U-210
POWDER
U-201
MASTER
BEDOOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
U-209
HALLWAY
U-202
STAIRCASE
U-200
ROOF OVERHANG
ROOF OVERHANG
TRELLIS / OVERHANG BELOW ROOF OVERHANG1
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3 RECESSED WALL LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
RECESSED SOFFIT / UNDERSIDE OF ROOF
OVERHANG LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE -
DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING / FIXTURE
LOCATE - DOWN DIRECTIONAL ONLY
PROPOSED:
ALLEY RESIDENCE
EXTERIOR
LIGHTING PLAN
FEB 2022
949-9
"949-HOUSE"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
1
TBD
PROPOSED SUBGRADE + MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
2
TBD
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
3
TBD
PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES - ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"
93
PROPOSED:
MODELING SITE
CONCEPT
FEB 2022
949-10
"949-HOUSE"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
1
TBD
PROPOSED MODELING SITE CONCEPTS (C-5) CHALET + ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : NOT APPLICABLE
94
PROPOSED:
MODELING SITE
CONCEPT
FEB 2022
949-11
"949-HOUSE"a r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1ADDRESS2013 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDate:Rev.
Construction
issue date:
Drawing Title:
Sheet #:
1JOB NAMEXXXXX
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONw w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )ISSUANCE
SEAL
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
119 - BRANDT
01DEC-2015 PITKIN AE / SP FINAL
c STUDIO B ARCHITECTS, INC 2015BRANDT RESIDENCE119 South Little Texas Lane, Woody Creek CO 81656LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Lift Studio LLC
Landscape Architecture
PO Box 2748
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.404.5610
www.liftstudiolandscape.net
MEP ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
G.F. Woods Construction
430 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
T: 970.544.1833
www.gfwoods.com
2015 STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. STUDIO B ARCHITECTS P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDa r c h i t e c t u r e + i n t e r i o r s5 0 1 r i o g r a n d e p l a c e s u i t e 1 0 4 a s p e n, c o 8 1 6 1 1w w w . s t u d i o b a r c h i t e c t s . n e t 9 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 4 2 8 ( t )STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Resource Engineering Group Inc.
502 Whiterock Avenue, Suite 102
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T: 970.349.1216
www.reginc.com
G.F.WOODS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIL ENGINEER
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.8676
www.hceng.com
ISSUANCE
FOR CITY OF ASPEN USE
DRAWING NO:
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT #
SCALE
DATE
949 SMUG
01 HPC- ASPEN MODERN c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2022949 WEST SMUGGLER "CHALET RESIDENCE" 949 West Smuggler :: West End, City of Aspen, COOwner:
Mr. Chris Vandemoer, Manager
949 West Smuggler
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT DESIGNER /
CITY OF ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE
1 Friday Design
PO BOX 7928
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T: 970.309.0695
www.1friday.com
Contact: Derek Skalko, Principal
2022 1 FRIDAY DESIGN/ DEREK SKALKO LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. 1 FRIDAY DESIGN LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDISSUANCE DATE:
LAND SURVEY ENGINEER
Sopris Engineering Inc.
502 Main Street, Suite A-3
Carbondale, CO 81623
T: 970.704.0311
www.soprisengineering.com
NEGOTIATION
LAND PLANNING
Haas Land Planning LLC
240 East Main Street, Suite 220
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.7819
E: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Contact: Mitch Haas, Principal
CIVIL ENGINEER
Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
T: 970.945.5252
www.bu-inc.com
COA - 949 W SMUGGLER
1
TBD
PROPOSED MODELING SITE CONCEPTS (C-5) CHALET + ALLEY RESIDENCE: 949 SMUGGLER
SCALE : NOT APPLICABLE
95
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: September 10, 2020 (updated December 8, 2021)
PROPERTY: 949 W. Smuggler
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Vandemoer, cvandemoer@outlook.com
DESCRIPTION: 949 W. Smuggler, Lot 2 of the Vandemoer Hill Lot Split, was recently created
through a subdivision that divided the original larger parcel into two. Lot 2 contains a home built in
1946 and is therefore eligible for voluntary historic designation through the City’s AspenModern
program. This designation process allows the property owner to negotiate site specific benefits to
be awarded by City Council in response to the owner’s commitment to historic preservation.
The property owner plans to divide Lot 2, with the historic resource and a new detached dwelling
unit on one parcel, and a right to develop a new single family home on the other parcel.
Benefit requests must be specified in the application. The first review step will be a hearing with
HPC, who will provide a recommendation to City Council on the appropriateness of landmark
designation, land use requests and the benefits package. Council will make the final determination.
The Municipal Code provides that the process should be accomplished within 90 days, unless the
City and applicant agree to a longer timeframe. The applicant may withdraw from the process at any
time until a designation ordinance is passed. Final review will be required by HPC but will occur after
the 90 day designation period.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code:
Historic Preservation Land Use Application Land Use Code
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.415.025.C Identification of Historic Properties
26.415.030 Designation of historic properties
26.415.070 Development involving designated historic properties
26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties
26.415.110 Benefits
26.470 Growth Management
26.480 Subdivision
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for recommendations
Council for decisions
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and Council
96
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning,
Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or
considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting
or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/
refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due at Conceptual and
Final submittal. Voluntary historic designation is exempt from land use fees,
however the development aspect of the application is billable
Total Deposit: $1,950.00
To apply, first submit one printed copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application.
An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance
company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and
vegetation and the high-water line and 100 year flood plain (flood hazard area) showing
the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
HOA Compliance form.
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. To create labels go to:
https://maps.pitkincounty.com/gvh/?viewer=portal
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development
complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.
A map indicating the boundaries of the historic designation.
Historic property description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic
materials that document its physical characteristics.
Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner request be
awarded at the time of designation, and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and
Intent of the historic preservation program.
A proposed site plan.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including
their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all
elevations.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the
designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to
accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.
97
For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs.
Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
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 factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested
right.
98
Page 4-1
Since the AspenModern program is a negotiated approval process through which
preservation benefits and incentives beyond those identified in the Code are available to
an applicant, the applicable sections and provisions of the Code take on a flexibility that
does not exist with other types of applications. Direct compliance with the normally or
otherwise applicable review criteria of the Code is not necessarily required in the context
of an AM negotiation. Nevertheless, the normally applicable Code Sections are addressed
below. Proposed incentives/benefits are indicated in purple font.
A.DESIGNATION OF ASPENMODERN PROPERTIES, SECTIONS 26.415.025 AND 0.30
With respect to Code Section 26.415.025, the 949 West Smuggler Street property is
identified on the AspenModern map, referenced in the adopted Chalet Style Buildings
context paper, and has been included in City of Aspen surveys since at least 2000. In
addition, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsored a booklet on
AspenModern properties that features the 949 West Smuggler Street chalet, as shown
below.
The designation of AspenModern properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures (the Inventory) is governed by Section 26.415.030(c) of the Code. To be
eligible for designation, an individual building, site, structure, or object, or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures, or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
Furthermore, to be worthy of preservation incentives and to evaluate the equitability of such
incentives, an AspenModern property must be rated on a “good, better or best” scale regarding
its contribution to and significance in Aspen’s 20th century history. Section 26.415.030(C)(1)
of the Code states that,
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local,
state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern
or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
EXHIBIT 4
99
Page 4-2
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or
national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and
documented in an adopted context paper;
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsmen, or design philosophy that is deemed
important and the specific physical design, designed, or philosophy is documented in an
adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions or persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture,
landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential
demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of
place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used
by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criteria.
949 West Smuggler Street represents the post-war ski industry and resort economy
development of Aspen, and the chalet buildings were directly related to this as a way of
mimicking the styles commonly associated with established European ski and tourism
destinations. The 949 West Smuggler Street property embodies the chalet style aesthetic that
symbolizes the local, state, regional and national level importance that was placed on
rejuvenating picturesque mountain towns by replacing the long-lost silver mining era with
a tourism-based economy that could compete with Europe’s traditional ski resorts.
Modern architecture made its first appearance in Aspen after World War II. The period of
historic significance for modernist buildings in Aspen is between 1945 and approximately
1975. According to the City’s published Aspen Modern National Trust for Historic
Preservation booklet, “The Swiss-style is a favorite, with a range of homes tucked into
neighborhoods like little Alpine cabins. Yet, this traditional look (such as the 1946 single-family chalet
at 949 West Smuggler Street, possibly Aspen’s oldest example of this style) mixes easily with the more
contemporary versions, referred to locally as ‘Modern Chalets’.”
Furthermore, per the City of Aspen’s website (http://www.aspenmod.com/places/949-w-
smuggler/), the home at 949 West Smuggler Street “is a highly decorative, classic example of the
Chalet style, and was likely the first example built in town, just as the first chairlift was opening on
Aspen Mountain. The house appears to be as originally designed. Built for a family from the Denver
area, it is an example of an early ski vacation home in Aspen.” The home is considered
representative of the period of ski industry development in Aspen and, having never
changed hands, remains under the ownership of the Vandemoer family, its original
developers.
Completely intact and unaltered (even its interiors), with an historic integrity score of 19
points (out of a possible 19 points), the home has often been referred to by City historic
preservation staff and commissioners as the single “most important property” on the AM
list of potentially historic structures. The chalet house and outbuilding are irreplaceable,
“best” rated resources that have remained under the ownership of the original family who
built them, and their historic integrity assessment achieves a perfect score. Preservation of
this disappearing type of construction and important style is imperative to Aspen’s post War
100
Page 4-3
heritage, as noted in the City’s chalet style context paper. This application offers the chance
to have this one-of-a-kind, important historic treasure forever preserved and protected
against intentional loss, inappropriate alteration, or redevelopment.
B. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL & FINAL)
Any development involving historic properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Site and Structures requires the approval of a development order and a
certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will
be issued by the City.
No additions or alterations are proposed to a historic resource other than the on-site
relocation of the small chicken coop outbuilding. Only a new, completely detached structure
is proposed, and said structure is sufficiently in character with and sympathetic to the
historic structure without mimicry. The historic buildings are retained on the property, and
they will maintain visual prominence from West Smuggler and North 8th Streets. The
proposed detached structure runs entirely on the alley side of the property, separated from
the historic chalet by a distance approximating the ridge height of the resource.
Given the lack of change proposed on or for the historic chalet structure and as a negotiated
AspenModern incentive, this application seeks combined Conceptual and Final Major
Development Review approvals. Furthermore, in the context of the negotiation, the
proposed designs are supplied as being consistent with more than enough of the potentially
applicable HPC Design Guidelines to warrant the requested approvals regardless of whether
there may be individual Guidelines that are not met. To the extent that the proposal may be
interpreted as inconsistent with any of the Guidelines, waiver of the “requirement” to be
found consistent with such Guideline is necessary as part of the AspenModern negotiated
approval.
Regarding the Streetscape Guidelines:
• The buildings reinforce the traditional grid pattern of the neighborhood.
• The open spaces around and in front of the chalet are preserved and the visual
porosity of the site is maintained.
• No changes to the streets or alleys are proposed and there are no ditches on the
property.
• The 8th Street driveway access will be removed and only alley access will remain;
however, it is proposed that the parking in the West Smuggler Street right-of-way be
maintained as it has been since the chalet was originally built in 1946.
• The historic hierarchy of spaces is unchanged in the proposal; the simple walkways
and the same fencing that have existed since the 1940s will be maintained and these
succeed in distinguishing between public, semi-public, and private spaces.
• A preliminary stormwater plan is provided with this application, and a more detailed
plan will be provided at building permit application.
• No built-in furnishings or features are proposed.
• The impressively large trees flanking the chalet are being preserved, and the only
anticipated tree removals involve insignificant and/or poor-condition trees along the
alley.
• No new landscaping is proposed as a way of honoring the existing, simple but mature
landscape around the chalet, maintaining the existing degree of porosity.
101
Page 4-4
• No landscape lighting exists, and none is proposed.
• There are no retaining walls existing or proposed on the site, and existing grades will
be maintained through and after the development of the new, detached residence
along the alley.
The Restoration Guidelines of Chapters 2-7 are not applicable. The chalet structure is intact,
will not be altered, and requires no restoration. The building materials, windows, doors,
porch and decks, architectural details, and roofs will be unaffected. The same is true of the
chicken coop outbuilding that will merely be relocated from its obscure location along the
alley to a more prominent spot where it will better compliment the historic significance of
the chalet.
Moving on to the Chapter 11 Guidelines normally applicable to the new detached residence,
the following applies:
• The new building is oriented parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and
to relate to the chalet.
• The idea is for the chalet to remain the “front” building, with its primary entrance defined
by a simple walkway and a front porch. To maintain this prominence, the new structure
will have a secondary feeling, exemplified by its less-defined entrance and primary
access. Although the structures are amply detached, this property is intended to function
as one.
• The new building relates to the size of the historic chalet. As proposed, the new alley
residence will be set some 68-feet back from the front property line on a lot that is only
100’ deep. With its 5-foot rear yard setback, this means the new residence is only a modest
27-feet deep at its largest point from front to back. For sake of comparison, consider that
the chalet structure, including roof overhangs, is 35’-8” deep from front to back. In
addition, the historic chalet structure and the new alley residence will be a very generous
23’-10” apart (wall-to-wall) in a zone district that requires only 5-feet between detached
structures. These ample distances, combined with the preservation of the extremely large
evergreen trees, ensure that the proposed alley residence’s 25-foot maximum height
(including rooftop solar panels) will achieve a sympathetic and subservient relationship
with the historic assets.
The compact design of the new residence is simply in form, scale, and massing.
Combined with the separation distances described above, the simple and clean form of
the proposed design serves to ensure that the new structure will not visually compete
with or in any way overwhelm the historic resources. It also ensures that the old and new
will be clearly and easily differentiated such that nobody will confuse the two. See images
pasted below.
102
Page 4-5
• The layout of the proposal has been very carefully considered to guarantee design of
the new residence is sympathetic and subservient to the historic resource while
maintaining the prominence of the chalet and associated trees from West Smuggler
and 8th Streets. The chalet’s iconic north and east facades, including the second-floor
deck facing 8th Street, will forever remain highly visible and unobstructed, especially
given the proposed building envelope/setbacks on the Vacant Lot.
C. DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Section 26.415.080 of the Code provides the standards for the review of any request to
demolish a structure within a designated historic property. Of course, the subject
property is not yet designated historic and any of its structures can still be demolished
by right. The applicant intends to maintain the primary chalet structure as well as the
associated “chicken coop” outbuilding after its relocation (addressed below). However,
the 20.3’ x 12.5’, one-story shed that currently sits at the southeast corner of the property
will be demolished.
Per Section 26.415.080(a)(4), demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance;
103
Page 4-6
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all the following criteria would normally need to
be met, although not necessarily in the case of an AspenModern negotiated designation:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in
which it is located;
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
The shed structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location on-site,
but if, prior to its demolition, someone would like to move it to another appropriate
location in Aspen, the Applicant is willing to allow it to be taken. Moreover, there is no
known documentation to demonstrate that this outbuilding has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. It is felt that the structure does not
contribute to the historic significance of the parcel, and it resides on the proposed, non-
historic vacant lot. The loss of the shed will not adversely affect the perfect integrity
scoring of this property. There are no adjacent designated properties, and demolition of
the shed will be inconsequential to the historic preservation effort proposed herein or to
the needs of the area.
D. RELOCATION OF HISTORIC CHICKEN COOP (OUTBUILDING)
Code Section 26.415.090 explains its intent as being the preservation of designated historic
properties in their original locations, as much of their significance is embodied in their
setting and physical relationship to their surroundings. However, it is also recognized
that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an
alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that
make it significant.
In the current case, the primary historic resource of the chalet residence will not be
relocated or altered in any fashion. Instead, only the small “chicken coop” outbuilding
currently located along the alley is proposed for on-site relocation. The applicable review
criteria for this proposal are found in Section 26.415.090(c) and HPC Design Guidelines
9.1 through 9.8, as addressed below.
(c) Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or
object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
(1) It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
(2) It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it
is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
(3) The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
(4) The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or
104
Page 4-7
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
(1) It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation;
(2) An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
(3) An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
As stated above, only the small “chicken coop” outbuilding is proposed for on-site
relocation. The outbuilding is original to the site but its small stature and its location
along the alley and within/under vegetation is such that it is barely noticeable.
This outbuilding measures just 11.3’ x 11.3’, is less than a full story in height, and sits on
a rock foundation. It will be stabilized, lifted, and moved some 50 or so feet to the
northeast, where it will reside adjacent to and east of the rear half of the chalet, partially
beneath the branches of the large conifer that marks the back corner of the resource. It
will be sensitively placed back on a new slab that will help to better support the structure
while avoiding impacts to the tree’s root system. This small structure is capable of being
lifted and its new base will provide structural stability ensuring its future. Other than this
relocation, the structure will not be altered. The new location assures not only increased
stability but also a greater degree of prominence and association with the historic chalet
structure.
HPC Design Guideline 9.1 is not applicable since the proposal does not involve the
development of a basement beneath the relocated outbuilding. Regarding Guidelines 9.2
through 9.7, this on-site relocation is for only a small outbuilding -- not relocation of the
primary resource – that is not within a historic district. The accompanying plans show
the existing and proposed locations for the structure. Its existing location is not much
contributing to the historic significance of the property since it is hardly even noticeable,
and the proposed relocation will enhance the relationship between the primary and
accessory structures. The outbuilding’s orientation will be maintained (i.e., the door
facing north), as will its historic elevation above grade. Its new foundation will appear
similar in design and materials to the historic “foundation;” simply laying small rocks
around its base will accomplish this. Similarly, its original exterior will be unaltered and
require no reconstruction. There will be no lightwells as the structure will not have any
subgrade area. The relocation will be accomplished by experienced and qualified
contractors. Guideline 9.8 is inapplicable since the proposed relocation is on-site.
E. SECTION 26.415.110 - BENEFITS
Section 26.415.110 of the Code explains that the City is committed to providing support
to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve, and enhance their historic
properties. Recognition that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic
premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated
105
Page 4-8
properties, and the same recognition goes even further in underlying the AspenModern
program through which the City negotiates the granting of benefits and incentives
beyond those specified in the Code to convince an owner to willingly landmark their
property.
The Applicant is not requesting a historic landmark lot split but is instead utilizing the
AspenModern negotiation to request a subdivision and associated GMQS exemption that
would result in one additional unit of density (these are separately addressed below). Of
the “benefits” provided for in Section 26.415.110 of the Code, the Applicant is requesting
only minor setback variations, a slight on-site parking reduction, and the issuance of a
transferable development right (TDR). The Applicant is not requesting a Floor Area
bonus, any conditional uses, or any funds or fee waivers.
In relevant part, the HPC is empowered to grant variations to allow:
(a) development within the side, rear and front setbacks;
(b) development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings; and
(c) up to 5% additional site coverage.
The proposed development complies with the R-6 zone district requirements for front
setbacks, minimum distance between detached buildings on a lot, and site coverage
limitations. That said, to the extent that any such requirements are later determined to be
unmet, it is proposed that the provided site plan be established as approved under the
terms of the AspenModern designation.
Setbacks.
In granting a variation, the HPC must determine that the variation “Is similar to the pattern,
features and character of the historic property…and/or Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact
to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property…”
The only Chalet Lot variations requested from the zoning involve (1) the relocated
chicken coop having a five-foot east side yard setback where ten-feet would otherwise be
required; (2) a five-foot rear yard setback variation to allow a lightwell that exceeds
minimum size; and (3) five-foot rear setback for spaces that will not be used solely as
garage, including both the new residence’s below grade mechanical and laundry rooms
under the garage (within the same foundation) and a deck area on top of the garage. The
zoning allows a 5-foot rear yard setback for that portion of the principal structure used
solely as a garage but otherwise requires a 10-foot rear yard setback; the applicant merely
seeks to utilize the spaces above and below those first five feet of garage. All above-grade
massing and scale conditions for the proposed alley residence comply with R-6
dimensional requirements.
As proposed, the new alley residence will be set some 68-feet back from the front property
line on a lot that is only 100’ deep. With its 5-foot rear yard setback, this means the new
residence is only a modest 27-feet deep at its largest point from front to back. For sake of
comparison, consider that the chalet structure, including roof overhangs, is 35’-8” deep
from front to back. In addition, the historic chalet structure and the new alley residence
106
Page 4-9
will be a very generous 23’-10” apart (wall-to-wall) in a zone district that requires only 5-
feet between detached structures. These ample distances, combined with the preservation
of the extremely large evergreen trees, ensure that the proposed alley residence’s 25-foot
maximum height (including rooftop solar panels) will achieve a sympathetic and
subservient relationship with the historic assets.
The compact design of the new residence is simply in form, scale, and massing.
Combined with the separation distances described above, the simple and clean form of
the proposed design serves to ensure that the new structure will not visually compete
with or in any way overwhelm the historic resources. It also ensures that the old and new
will be clearly and easily differentiated such that nobody will confuse the two.
On the Vacant Lot, it is proposed that the standard 10-foot front setback be increased
three-fold to 30-feet for above-grade improvements to assure maximum visibility of the
historic structures from West Smuggler Street and its North 8th Street intersection
(utilities and subgrade improvements would continue to be subject to the standard 10-
foot front yard setback requirement). To accommodate this, it is also proposed that the
east side yard setback for this 8,000 square foot lot be 5-feet, as required (adjacent to the
nearly 30-feet of unoccupied right-of-way between the property line and the N. 8th Street
roadway), and that the combined side yard setback requirement be waived or established
at 15-feet (a 10-foot variation from the 25-foot requirement). The proposed side yard
setbacks and the 5-foot/10-foot rear yard setback are consistent with the underlying R-6
zoning. If preferable to the City, the Applicant is amenable to establishing these setbacks
as a formal “building envelope” to be delineated on the Final Subdivision Plat.
The proposal is wholly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the
requested variations are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for guaranteeing
the perpetual preservation of a substantial community benefit and valuable community
asset by landmark designating Aspen oldest remaining example of a chalet residence and
associated outbuilding. The layout of the proposal has been very carefully considered to
guarantee the design of the new residence is sympathetic and subservient to the historic
resource while maintaining the prominence of the chalet and associated trees from West
Smuggler and 8th Streets. The chalet’s iconic north and east facades, including the second-
floor deck facing 8th Street, will forever remain highly visible and unobstructed,
especially given the proposed building envelope/setbacks on the Vacant Lot.
On-Site Parking.
Per Code Section 26.415.110(d), on-site parking reductions are permitted for designated
historic properties unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning due to the existence of a historic resource. When the parking waiver
will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural
character of the designated property, the HPC may also waive any otherwise required
cash-in-lieu of on-site parking for residential development.
Since the Chalet Lot will contain two detached single-family residences, the Code would
require four on-site parking spaces, or two per dwelling. The Applicant is requesting a
parking waiver of two spaces to allow one on-site parking space per dwelling. The
107
Page 4-10
proposed plans include two one-car garages within the new detached structure. One of
these spaces is to be dedicated to the chalet structure and the other is for the new
residence. The two garages are separated by an interior wall and only one of the two
spaces is accessible from within the attached residence. In addition, the Applicant seeks
approval to maintain the existing fence and parking pull-out area within the West
Smuggler Street right-of-way, as these have existed since the 1940s. Relocating the circa
1940s fence to match the West Smuggler Street property line is not feasible or desirable
as it would necessitate impacts to the historically significant trees. This pull-out area
within the West Smuggler Street right-of-way provides an additional 3-4 off-street
parking spaces.
Placing two additional parking spaces on-site would require the removal of additional
trees and greater impact on/crowding of the historic resources. A waiver of the
requirement for two additional on-site spaces allows the two historic assets to stand-
alone, without additions or alterations, surrounded by the massive trees that have always
added to the character of the property and an appropriate, ample amount of open
ground. As such, the waiver will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
significance or architectural character of the designated property; therefore, the fee in-
lieu should be waived as well.
Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
Section 26.415.110(k) provides that owners of properties listed on the Inventory may
sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be
developed on a different property within the City. The proposed Vacant Lot, being 8,000
square feet in the R-6 zone district, would normally allow 3,520 square feet of Floor Area
for a single-family residence. However, in another proactive effort to ensure sensitivity
to the important historic resources on the adjacent Chalet Lot, the Applicant is
volunteering that the Vacant Lot be limited to just 3,240 square feet of floor area, or the
same floor area allowed for a lot of only 6,000 square feet. With this 280 square foot
reduction, the Applicant is requesting one (1) 250 square foot historic TDR that can be
sold for use on a different, eligible receiver site within the City.
All other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zoning, as may be amended, would
continue to govern development on the Vacant Lot. Such development will also remain
subject to all other applicable codes, including but not necessarily limited to the
Residential Design Standards.
F. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, CHAPTER 26.410
As codified at Section 26.410.010(a),
The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection
between residences and street; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and
mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not
prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its
owner, contribute positively to the streetscape.
108
Page 4-11
The Code further provides that the Residential Design Standards (RDS) are intended to
achieve an environment where homes have a connection to the street, respond to
neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. The proposal preserves the
historic chalet that has engaged the street for some 75 years and provides articulation by
breaking up available bulk and mass into three small-to-modest, detached structures. It
also not only preserves historic neighborhood scale and character, but its buildings are
critical in defining the neighborhood’s historic character and scale. Obtaining HPC
approval of the proposed development inherently guarantees achieving of the objectives
and intent of the RDS.
As such, to the extent that the proposed development and design of the new structure on
the Chalet Lot fails to comply with any of the applicable RDS, it is proposed that such
standard be waived under the umbrella of the negotiated AspenModern approval. The
future development of the Vacant Lot, on the other hand, will be subject to consistency
with any then applicable RDS.
G. GROWTH MANAGEMENT, CHAPTER 26.470
While this AM negotiation application seeks Major Subdivision approval and the
granting of a residential development allotment for the Vacant Lot, it is requested that
both resulting lots be permitted to mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with and
pursuant to the Codes in effect for the development of preexisting parcels or lots created
through a Lot Split process, as such code provisions may exist at the time of building
permit applications.
Development of a second residential dwelling on the proposed 10,000 square foot Chalet
Lot, as allowed by the R-6 zoning dimensional requirements, is exempt from growth
management pursuant to Code Section 26.470.090(a) and will provide affordable housing
mitigation accordingly. As requested, the Vacant Lot will allow the future development
of a single-family home that is similarly exempt from growth management pursuant to
Section 24.470.090(a). The existing lot was created by a Lot Split, and the new lots will
have been subdivided and found to comply with the provisions of Subsection 26.480.020
(addressed later herein). As such, both resulting lots will mitigate for affordable housing
in accordance with and pursuant to the Codes in effect at the time of building permit
applications and no related fee waivers are requested.
It is the Applicant’s intention to keep the Chalet Lot, including its two historic structures
and the new residence they will build thereon. It is unlikely but possible that the new
residence at the rear of the Chalet Lot could be developed in advance of the Vacant Lot
being sold to a third party. The developing of this new residence at the rear of the Chalet
Lot will trigger a requirement for payment of an affordable housing mitigation fee.
The Vandemoer family does not permanently reside within Aspen. Nevertheless, in
recognition of the family having owned the subject property for more than 75 years, it is
requested that, in the event the new residence on the Chalet Lot is to be developed in
advance of the Vacant Lot having been sold, payment of the required affordable housing
mitigation fee associated with the new residence on the Chalet Lot be allowed to be
109
Page 4-12
deferred until at least one month following the Vacant Lot being sold to an unassociated
third party. If the Vacant Lot is sold prior to building permit for the new alley residence
on the Chalet Lot, then full payment of the applicable mitigation fee will be made at the
time of its permit issuance.
H. SUBDIVISION, CHAPTER 26.480
The purpose of Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, of the Aspen Land Use Code is to: (a) assist
in the orderly and efficient development of the City; (b) ensure the proper distribution of
development; (c) encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing
standards for the design of a subdivision; (d) safeguard the interests of the public and the
subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; (e) provide procedures
so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or
scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluffs,
hillsides or similar geologic features or edges of rivers and other bodies of water; and (f)
promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of
Aspen.
The subject property was recently created through a 2020 Minor Subdivision for a Lot
Split that divided the original larger, merged parcel into two. The property is a
rectangular-shaped 18,000 square foot lot (180’ x 100’) in the R-6 Zone District. It is legally
described as Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split according to the final plat thereof recorded
November 6, 2020, in Plat Book 129 at Page 11, and it includes Lots D-I of Block 3, City
and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 5). Lot 1 is a vacant parcel under separate ownership
and is not part of this application.
Excerpt Screenshot from Final Plat of the Vandemoer Hill Lot Split (Subject Property Outlined in Red):
110
Page 4-13
The current configuration of the subject property is the result of Ordinance No. 2 (Series
of 2020) (hereinafter the “Ordinance”) and the associated Final Plat. The Ordinance did
not historically designate the property or put any significant restrictions on it. Instead,
the Ordinance provides that any future development on Lot 2 is merely subject to the
requirements of the R-6 zone district in place at such time as a development or
redevelopment application is submitted (which time is now). However, the Ordinance
provides that Lot 2 “shall not be further subdivided through the Minor Subdivision – Lot Split
process.” As such, this application does not seek a Minor Subdivision or Lot Split but
instead requests Major Subdivision approval through the AM process to divide Lot 2 into
Parcels A and B. Nonetheless, it is requested that both resulting lots be permitted to
mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with and pursuant to the Codes in effect
for the development of preexisting parcels or lots created through a Lot Split process, as
such code provisions may exist at the time of building permit applications.
More specifically, the applicant intends to subdivide the property into two lots, as
follows:
(A) Parcel A (also referred to herein as the “Chalet Lot” or “Historic Lot”) to be a 10,000
square foot, historically designated lot (100’ x 100’) and contain the historic chalet
and relocated chicken coop (Outbuilding “B”), as well as a new detached single-
family residence along the alley frontage; and
(B) Parcel B (also referred to herein as the “Vacant Lot”) to be a vacant 8,000 square
foot lot (80’ x 100’) that will be given a residential growth management allotment
but will not be designated or otherwise subject to HPC purview for future
development of a single-family home. The existing storage building (Outbuilding
“A”) will be demolished.
The reduced-size diagrams provided below depict the proposed layout of the lots and
structures as well as the proposed setback requirements.
111
Page 4-14
Because this application does not involve a request for condominiumization, timesharing, a
boundary adjustment, a lot split, or a historic landmark lot split, and because of the terms
of the Ordinance, the review is Major Subdivision. Accordingly, the Applicant has provided
information below relevant to and addressing the requirements in Code Sections 26.480.040,
General Subdivision Review Standards, and 26.480.070, Major Subdivision.
Sec. 26.480.040, General Subdivision Review Standards.
All subdivisions are required to meet the following general standards and limitations in
addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision. The applicable
standards are provided below in indented and italicized text, and each is immediately
followed by the Applicant’s response demonstrating compliance or consistency
therewith, as applicable.
112
Page 4-15
(a) Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not
eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property.
All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to
public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates
across access points and driveways are prohibited.
The proposal allows for guaranteed perpetual and unobstructed legal vehicular access to
the alley at the rear of the property as well as both North Eighth Street and West Smuggler
Street. All other properties utilizing these public rights-of-way will maintain
unobstructed access as well. There are and will not be any streets within the subdivision.
No security or privacy gates across access points or driveways are proposed.
(b) Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to
the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto,
as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to
accommodate significant features of the site may be approved.
The proposed lot line runs in a straight line from the alley to West Smuggler Street, As
such, it conforms to and aligns with the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite.
(c) Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved
pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district
unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered
concurrently with subdivision review.
The proposed lots will contain 10,000 and 8,000 square feet where the underlying R-6
zoning stipulates a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. The lots will also have a 100-
and 80-foot lot widths where the required minimum is 60-feet. As such, the result will be
two fully conforming lots of record. A rezoning is not required or requested, and both
lots will remain zoned R-6.
(d) Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or
increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or
other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel
may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision,
the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to
application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain
assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the
subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or
other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound or
secured with a financial surety.
113
Page 4-16
The structures to be maintained are in conformance with the requirements of the
underlying R-6 zoning, as such requirements are being varied through the AM process.
The proposed single-family residential uses and densities are consistent with the R-6
zoning as well. The shed structure located along the southeast property lines where the
alley meets N. 8th Street, is proposed for demolition. Thus, the proposed subdivision, with
concurrent approval of the proposed setback provisions, will not result in any
nonconformities.
Sec. 26.480.070, Major Subdivisions.
Code Section 26.480.070 provides that major subdivisions shall be approved, approved
with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from
the Historic Preservation Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section
26.480.030, Procedures for Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040,
General Subdivision Review Standards (addressed above), and the standards and
limitations applicable to a land subdivision, as addressed below.
(a) Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating
individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied
according to the following standards:
(1) The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040—
General Subdivision Review Standards.
The proposed division of land for purposes of creating individual lots is considered a
major subdivision. Compliance with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 has been
demonstrated above.
(2) The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes
the use of the limited amount of land available for development.
The existing 18,000 square foot lot is not fully built out in terms of allowable floor area or
density. The underlying R-6 zoning carries a minimum gross lot size of 6,000 square feet.
Therefore, it is theoretically possible to subdivide the property into three conforming lots.
However, such subdivision into three 6,000 square foot lots would not be possible
without moving or demolishing the historic chalet that currently sits on three original
townsite lots. Further, given the requirement for the subdivision to align with the original
townsite plat, it would also be necessary to remove several of the exceptional trees from
the property to make room for development of the three lots that would result. These are
not acceptable or appropriate outcomes.
It would be possible to subdivide the 18,000 square feet of land into two lots of 9,000
square feet each, which would enable development of four single-family dwellings
instead of the three proposed. While such a subdivision would optimize density, it is felt
that it would also inappropriately crowd and overwhelm the historic community assets
and the large trees. As such, it is believed that the proposed subdivision enables an
appropriately efficient pattern of development that sensitively optimizes the use of the
limited amount of land available.
114
Page 4-17
(3) The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation,
and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
The proposed subdivision would guarantee the perpetual preservation of two vital
historic structures. It has also been carefully planned to maximize preservation of the
important mature vegetation on the property. These features to be preserved have
historic, cultural, visual, and ecological importance, all of which greatly and indisputably
contributes to the identity of the town. There are no known geologic features on the
property.
(4) The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock
slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas,
slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%), and any other natural or man-made hazard
or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected
areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques
acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29—
Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be
accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through
a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490—Approval Documents.
The subject property is not known to be subject to or in any way affected by flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rockslides,
mining activity, avalanche or snowslides, slopes greater than 30% or any other hazard or
condition that could harm the health, safety or welfare of the community or any
inhabitants of the property itself. The only “unsuitable” land for development on the
property is the areas beneath the large conifer trees and these areas are being sufficiently
avoided to ensure no harm to these resource trees.
(5) There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation
techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards
and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer
may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be
defined and documented within a Development Agreement.
All identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques for development of the
proposed subdivision was considered with the Vandemoer Hill Lot Split. All new
development will require the same types of engineering studies and design
considerations that are typical throughout the West End area. A new home was recently
developed immediately across North Eighth Street and the subject property is not
significantly different from an engineering or URMP perspective. All new development
will comply with adopted engineering standards.
(6) The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary
to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
115
Page 4-18
It is not anticipated that the proposed subdivision would generate impacts that would
necessitate significant upgrades to public infrastructure and facilities. However, should
any such improvements prove necessary, the developer will bear all associated costs.
(7) The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470—Growth Management Quota System,
including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and
replacement development as applicable.
As part of the AM negotiated benefits, it is requested that the Vacant Lot be granted a
residential development allotment. Further, while this AM negotiation application seeks
major subdivision approval, it is requested that both resulting lots be permitted to
mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with and pursuant to the Codes in effect
for the development of preexisting parcels or lots created through a Lot Split process, as
such code provisions may exist at the time of building permit applications. In effect, the
Vacant Lot will allow the future development of a single-family home that is similarly
exempt from growth management pursuant to Section 24.470.090(a). As such, the
necessary administrative growth management exemptions have been requested
concurrent with this subdivision and AM approval.
(8) The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter
26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance
pursuant to said Chapter.
The subject property does not include adequate area for the dedication of land. As such,
fees in lieu of school land dedication will be paid in association with development of the
resulting Vacant Lot. Such fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance for
the new home on the Vacant Lot.
(9) A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490—Approval Documents.
A proposed Final Subdivision Plat of The Vandemoer Lot 2 Subdivision is provided
herewith for review, as part of the attached proposed plans package. The Final
Subdivision Plat will be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,
pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents.
(10) A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490—Approval Documents.
Should this application be approved, a Development Agreement memorializing the
terms of the approval will be provided to the City for review and recording in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval
Documents. As is customary, it is requested that a draft Development Agreement be
required to be submitted to the City for review within 180-days of this application’s final
approval.
116
Page 4-19
I. MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-6) ZONING, SECTION 26.710.040
The proposal provides areas for long-term residential purposes and customary accessory
uses. Recreational and institutional uses are found in proximity to the property and its
existing and intended detached residential dwellings. The property is within the original
Aspen Townsite and will contain an appropriately dense settlement of detached
residences within walking distance of both the center of the City and locally and
regionally serving transit stops. Therefore, the proposal is completely consistent with the
codified Purpose of the underlying R-6 zone district.
The proposed detached residential dwellings are a permitted use, and no conditional uses
are being considered. The proposed lots comply with the 6,000 square foot minimum
gross lot area and the 60-foot minimum lot width requirements. The proposed residential
densities on each of the lots are consistent with the minimum net lot area per dwelling
unit requirements of the R-6 zone.
The Chalet Lot (proposed Parcel A) and its proposed development is consistent in
virtually all respects with the underlying R-6 zone district dimensional requirements,
including its limitations on floor area. The Applicant is not requesting a Floor Area Bonus
from the HPC. Minimum front yard setback requirements are and will continue to be
exceeded.
The Chalet Lot will have two detached residential dwellings and, since these will be
separated by more than ten (10) feet, they are not subject to a combined side yard setback
requirement. The Chalet Lot will comply with the 10-foot minimum west side yard
setback requirement, but an east side yard setback variation is requested from the HPC
to allow the small chicken coop outbuilding to be relocated such that it would have a 5-
foot east side yard setback.
The R-6 zoning allows a 5-foot rear yard setback for accessory buildings and for the
portion of a principal building used solely as a garage; this application requests that the
HPC grant a rear yard setback variation to allow the principal residence to benefit from
the same 5-foot rear yard setback requirement and to have a lightwell of more than
minimum size in the rear yard setback.
The existing and proposed structures on the Chalet Lot comply with the 25-foot
maximum height, and all structures will have more than 5-feet of separation between
them. The 10,000 square foot Chalet Lot will have a maximum site coverage requirement
of 36.66%, or 3,666 square feet. The proposed site plan and its 25.32% site coverage
complies with this limitation.
As indicated and calculated on the attached plans, the existing chalet residence includes
1,888.44 square feet of Floor Area (including subgrade and decks), and the chicken coop
(Outbuilding “B”) to be maintained has a Floor Area of 127.5 square feet. The current
Land Use Code and R-6 zoning allow the proposed 10,000 square foot Chalet Lot two
detached residential dwellings with a combined Floor Area of 4,140 square feet. After
deducting the Floor Area of the two historic structures to be maintained, there is 2,124.06
square feet of Floor Area available for use in the new residence (4140 – [1888.44 + 127.5]).
117
Page 4-20
Calculated pursuant to current Code, the proposed additional residence has a measured
Floor Area of 2,108.39 square feet. As such, the total proposed Floor Area to be located
on the Chalet Lot is 4,124.33 square feet, or 15.67 square feet less than the 4,140 square
feet of Floor Area the R-6 zoning allows.
On the Vacant Lot (proposed Parcel B), it is proposed that the standard 10-foot front
setback be increased three-fold to 30-feet for above-grade improvements to assure
maximum visibility of the historic structures from West Smuggler Street and its North 8th
Street intersection (utilities and subgrade improvements would continue to be subject to
the standard 10-foot front yard setback requirement). To accommodate this, it is also
proposed that the east side yard setback for this 8,000 square foot lot be 5-feet, as required
(adjacent to the nearly 30-feet of unoccupied right-of-way between the property line and
the N. 8th Street roadway), and that the combined side yard setback requirement be
waived or established at 15-feet (a 10-foot variation from the 25-foot requirement). The
proposed side yard setbacks and the 5-foot/10-foot rear yard setback are consistent with
the underlying R-6 zoning. If preferable to the City, the Applicant is amenable to
establishing these setbacks as a formal “building envelope” to be delineated on the Final
Subdivision Plat.
The proposed Vacant Lot, being 8,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district, would normally
allow 3,520 square feet of Floor Area for a single-family residence. However, in another
proactive effort to ensure sensitivity to the important historic resources on the Chalet Lot,
the Applicant is volunteering that the Vacant Lot be limited to just 3,240 square feet of
floor area, or the same floor area allowed for a lot of only 6,000 square feet. With this 280
square foot reduction, the Applicant is requesting one (1) 250 square foot historic TDR
that can be sold for use on a different, eligible receiver site within the City. All other
dimensional requirements of the R-6 zoning, as may be amended, would continue to
govern development on the Vacant Lot. Such development will also remain subject to all
other applicable codes, including but not necessarily limited to the Residential Design
Standards.
Also, please refer to the Dimensional Requirements Forms included with Exhibit 1.
J. COMBINED REVIEWS, SECTION 26.304.060(B)(1)
Section 26.304.060(b)(1) of the Code provides that,
The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one
(1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified
whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the
applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication
and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public
noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained
and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as
otherwise required by this Title is achieved.
An AspenModern proposal such as that provided in this application inherently requires
a comprehensive, combined review where all requests are considered concurrently.
118
Page 4-21
Combining the various reviews that are requested will eliminate or reduce duplication
while ensuring the economy of time, expense and clarity required under Code Section
26.415.025(c)(1), Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. Duly public noticed public hearings will
continue to take place before the HPC as well as the Aspen City Council, and a thorough
and full review of the application and proposed development will be achieved.
As part of this Combined Review and AM negotiation, the Applicant seeks to obtain both
Conceptual and Final Major Development approval from the HPC. A thorough and full
review of the application and proposed development will be achieved since the historic
assets are not being added to or otherwise altered. The architectural detailing of the
proposed new residence along the alley are sufficiently represented to enable Final
Review to occur concurrently with the Conceptual Review, and the Vacant Lot will not
be subject to HPC purview. Nothing worthwhile would be gained by separating the
Conceptual and Final Reviews into two applications and two processes but doing so
would cause duplication and unnecessary increases in time and expense for the
Applicant, who has willfully entered a 90-Day AspenModern Negotiation.
K. EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS, SECTION 26.308.010(C)
Once the negotiated approvals are granted, the historic designation will take immediate
and perpetual effect. However, the Applicant does not have the financial wherewithal to
immediately develop the new residence at the rear of the Chalet Lot and seeks a
comfortable time cushion to be able to realize this plan.
Consequently, the Applicant requests a 10-year period of vested property rights with the
approvals granted pursuant to this AM application. With this, it is recognized that fees
due for mitigation requirements would be based on the Codes in affect at the time the fee
is incurred (i.e., at the time of building permit application), that the vested rights would
not protect against newly adopted or amended rules of general applicability (i.e., fire,
energy, electrical codes, etc.), and that any duly adopted short-term rental restrictions
would apply to the resulting properties.
Per Section 26.308.010(c) of the Code, the City Council may approve an extension of
vested rights. In reviewing such a request, the City Council shall consider, but not be
limited to, the following criteria (each is cited below in indented and italicized text and
immediately followed by the Applicant’s response):
a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the
date of application for extension or reinstatement;
This standard is not applicable given that the request is for an extended period of initial
vested rights, not a reinstatement or extension. Nevertheless, as stated above, the City
will immediately have its part of the deal (the historic designation) guaranteed in
perpetuity.
b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any
other permits, including a building permit and the expenditures made by the applicant
in pursuing the project;
119
Page 4-22
This standard is also not applicable given that the request is for an extended period of
initial vested rights, not a reinstatement or extension. Regardless, the Applicant has
voluntarily incurred and covered all costs associated with preparing this application
(including but not limited to legal, planning, surveyor, engineering and architectural
fees). There have also been substantial “soft costs” incurred and risked by the Applicant
in making this AM negotiation possible, including but not limited to the extended period
of incurring taxes and the carry/opportunity costs of having kept and not sold the
property.
c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of the
project approval such as impact fees or land dedications;
The guaranteed and perpetual nature and substantial benefits that will be received by the
City because of the project approval have been addressed at length throughout the
foregoing. The City has demonstrated a very high level of decades-long interest in
historically designating the subject property. Only now, with this Applicant as the sole
remaining owner of the property, does the City finally find itself in a position where there
is an earnest opportunity to achieve the public goals of historic preservation at 949 West
Smuggler Street. Although entitled to make such requests, the Applicant is not requesting
any fee waivers beyond those normally allowed for historic properties (i.e., a residential
parking waiver without a fee in-lieu).
d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the
extension or reinstatement request.
The Applicant does not have the financial wherewithal to immediately develop the new
residence at the rear of the Chalet Lot and seeks a comfortable time cushion to be able to
realize this plan. The Applicant will also need to sell the Vacant Lot and needs adequate
time to get this done before the remaining vested rights period is too short or hurried. In
short, the Applicant does not want to be hurried to act upon the approval while the
historic designation granted in exchange is guaranteed in perpetuity.
The Applicant is not requesting an equal exchange in the form of perpetual vested rights,
although one might argue that such would be warranted. Instead, the Applicant is
requesting just ten years of vested rights to act upon the approvals but with the public-
benefitting caveats that:
(1) The historic preservation needs of the City will be immediately and perpetually
satisfied;
(2) The affordable housing mitigation required will remain subject to whatever is
current at the time of building permit application (i.e., not vesting against changes
to affordable housing mitigation requirements);
(3) The vested rights will not protect against newly adopted or amended rules of
general applicability (i.e., fire, energy, electrical codes, etc.); and
(4) Any duly adopted short-term rental restrictions will apply to the resulting
properties.
These recognized and understood caveats ensure that important City needs will continue
to be served.
120
121
122
123
124
Exhibit A
Legal Description of subject property (un-subdivided)
PARCEL 1
LOTS A. B. C, D, E. F, G. H AND (,.BLOCK 3, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PARCEL 2
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND EASEMENTS
CONTAINED IN THE DEED HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, CONVEYED TO H.R. VANDEMOER BY VIRGINIA
S. CHAMBERLAIN BY DEED DATED APRIL 20.1.959, DULY RECORDED JUNE 2,1959 AS RECEPTION NO.
100073 IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE—= OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
RECORDED OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
SAID PARCEL OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS (FROM RECEPTION
NO, 34 j :
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10. SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST, 6TH P.M.,
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO.96608 IN BOOK 170 AT PAGE = OF THE RECORDS FOR PITKIN
COUNTY LYING NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 3 OF THE CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PROJECTED WESTERLY TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN.SAID DOCUMENT NO. gem OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED BY MICHAEL MAROLT TO H.R. VANDEMOER AND ARTHUR PFISTER BY QUIT CLAIM DEED
DATED JULY 1a,1%9.
INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES TO USE THE ROADWAY AS NOW CONSTRUCTED AND IN USE
FROM SMUGGLER STREET ACROSS SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO THAT PORTION OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. WO LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ALLEY IN
SAID BLOCK 3 PROJECTED WESTERLY, IT BEING THE INTENTION OF THE GRANTOR TO RELEASE AND
QUIT -CLAIM FOREVER HER INTEREST IN SAID EASEMENT USED FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO
SMUGGLER STREET.
LESS AND EXCEPT ALL OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 2,
1959 IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE M, AS RECEPTION NO. 108072.
COUNTY OF PITKIN.
STATE OF COLORADO.
Page 5 of 5
125
126
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920.5090
www.aspen.gov
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR LAND
USE/BUILDING PERMITS DURING THE EFFECTIVE TERM OF
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2021
Property Address:
Parcel ID Number:
Property Owner:
Representative/email:
Scope o f Work (Provide narrative here and a separate pdf which is a succinct and
clear set of supporting documents, to be attached to this form as Exhibit A, such as
Letters of Completeness, Resolutions, Development Orders, Land Use Case
numbers, Building Permit numbers etc. If the representation being made is that the
work does not involve dimensional changes prohibited by the moratorium provide
existing and proposed calculations, f loor Plans and and elevations to be attached:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Due to the circumstances noted below, the above referenced project as defined by
the Scope o f Work is exempt from the application of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021,
and is authorized to pursue a land use review and/or building permit review during
the effective term o f Ordinance #27, Series of 2021, an ordinance which generally
places a moratorium on residential development. This authorization does not
guarantee issuance o f a building permit or approval of any land use application. The
applicant must submit complete information and pursue all authorized approvals in a
timely fashion, adhering to all deadlines for submission, terms of Vested Rights,
response times required to maintain an active building permit, and all other Land Use
Code and Building Code requirements in effect as of December 8, 2021. Any
amendments and or additional approvals not addressed or identified in the
application, may be subject to Ordinance #27, Series of 2021.
The project described above is permitted to proceed with land use review because
(check all that apply):
127
□A land use application for a Development Order or Notice of Approval was
submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final passage of
the ordinance on December 8, 2021, and was subsequently deemed to be
c omplete by the Community Development Department Director.
□The land use application is seeking a Development Order or Notice of Approval
for a project consisting of 100% Af fordable Housing as that term is defined at
§26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, or as may be deemed necessary for
the issuance of C ertificates of Affordable Housing for a 100% Affordable Housing
project, or as determined by the Community Development Director .
□The land use application involves Voluntar y AspenModern designation
processes that meet the requirements of Section 26.415.025.C and
26.415.030.
□The land use application or administrative request may be necessary to issue
exempt building per mits as described below , and as determined by the
Comm unity Development Director .
The project described above is perm itted to submit for building permit review
bec ause (check all that apply ):
□A building permit application was submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final passage of the ordinance on December 8, 2021, and
was subsequently deemed to be c omplete by the Chief Building Official.
□It is a building permit for a project that will not increase the gross square
footage of development, Net leasable area, or Net livable area of any building
and does not m eet the definition of demolition.
□It is a building permit for a project that will not increase the Height of any
building. This includes additions to or replacement of mechanical equipment or
energy eff iciency systems pursuant to height exemptions as set f orth at
§26.575.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, or as determined by the Community
Development Director.
□It is a building permit for commercial and lodge development as stand-alone
uses on a parcel or property .
□The project has received or is eligible to receive a Development Order or
Notice of Approval on the effective date of this ordinance.
□It is a building perm it for 100% affordable housing projects as that term is
defined at §26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
□It is a building permit for demolition or repair of non-habitable str uctures.
Issued on ___________________, 20___, this certif icate is valid through the
effective date of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021, or any Ordinance which supersedes
a provision of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021 in a manner which is relevant to the
Scope of Work. A copy of this certificate is required when applying for any land use
review or building permit. This Notice is not a Development Or der or Administrative
Determination that is subject to appeal.
___________________________________
Phillip Supino
Com munity Development Director
Disclaimer: This exemption is given based on the information provided by the applicant. If changes are
made, o r the scope, after a more detailed review, is found to be subject to Ordinance 27, 2021, the exemption may be revoked.
Exhibit A: Floor plans and elevations representing scope of work
Planning Director, for
128
Land Title Guarantee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:Q62013800 Date: 12/10/2021
Property Address:949 W SMUGGLER ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title
Team
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Seller/Owner
VANDEMOER FAMILY INC,
Delivered via: Delivered by Realtor
MITCH
Attention: MITCH
mitch@hlpaspen.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
VANDEMOER FAMILY, INC
Attention: CHRIS VANDEMOER
PO BOX 668
STERLING, CO 80751
(970) 580-5801 (Work)
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
129
Copyright 2006-2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing
as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the
American Land Title Association.
Property Address:
949 W SMUGGLER ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Effective Date:
12/03/2021 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commitment
Proposed Insured:
A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED
$0.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
VANDEMOER FAMILY INC., A COLORADO S-CORP
5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOT 2,
VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 16,
2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:Q62013800
130
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62013800
All of the following Requirements must be met:
This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company
may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or
both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
1.EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
2.LAND TITLE WILL REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF THE RETT BEING SATISFIED ON DEED RECORDED
DECEMBER 3, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 671156.
3.DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF
VANDEMOER FAMILY INC., A COLORADO S-CORP AS A CORPORATION. THE STATEMENT OF
AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF
THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE
INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-
172, CRS.
NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER.
4.GOOD AND SUFFICIENT DEED FROM VANDEMOER FAMILY INC., A COLORADO S-CORP TO A BUYER TO
BE DETERMINED CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS
NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF
ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE
AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO.
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO.
131
This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any
document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction,
or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed
insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN
RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 292, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE
SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY
VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS.
9.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN
RECORDED AUGUST 08, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 468, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE
SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY
VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ORDINANCE BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL,
NO. 02, SERIES OF 2020 RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 666991.
11.EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE PLAT
OF VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT RECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.
12.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED
NOVEMBER 16, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 670573.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62013800
132
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the
clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least
one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that,
the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or
filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title
Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal
documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy
when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of
Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in
which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides
written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real
property).
(B)
The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of
County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
(C)
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
(A)
No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land
described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
(B)
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and
material-men's liens.
(C)
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D)
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within
six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include:
disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the
contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company,
and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the
Company.
(E)
133
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface
estate, in Schedule B-2.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may
include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance
company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for
the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award
payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of
Regulatory Agencies.
Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing
protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-11(4)(a)(1), Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other
documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for
any document.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(A)
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
(B)
134
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance
Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state
privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence
is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized
access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from
our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the
course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to
provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We
may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for
example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your
Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is
needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy
policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
135
Commitment For Title Insurance
Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE
POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING
ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. .
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is
effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the
specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met
within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates
and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or
other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The
Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a)
“Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any
property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues,
alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(b)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c)
“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company
pursuant to this Commitment.
(d)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e)
“Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this
Commitment.
(f)
“Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters
relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(g)
“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h)
the Notice;(a)
the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b)
the Commitment Conditions;(c)
Schedule A;(d)
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e)
Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f)
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g)
The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the
Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed
Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(a)
The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the
matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(b)
The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the
Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured.
(c)
The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment
Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(d)
The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
136
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the
Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma
policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown
in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II
—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements
have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(f)
In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g)
Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a)
Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b)
Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral,
express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment.
(c)
The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the
terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(d)
Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e)
When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f)
137
138
139
140
141
142
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The
information maintained by the County may not be complete as to
mineral estate ownership and that information should be
determined by separate legal and property analysis.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273512212003 on 02/07/2022
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
143
WERNER DANA HERSCHMANN REV TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89146
3065 S JONES BLVD
LOT 1 VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1470
FRANCIS STREET TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
901 W FRANCIS ST
GOLDRICH MELINDA REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
825 W NORTH ST
CURTON CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
939 W FRANCIS ST
CURLEE CYNTHIA A FAM TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 692
COLOSAL CORP
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
817 WEST NORTH STREET LLC
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78401
518 PEOPLES ST
MASS ANN M
ASPEN, CO 81611
225 N MILL ST #116
NALADHU LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
901 W FRANCIS ST
WALDECK TOM & VIVIAN G
ASPEN, CO 81611
915 W NORTH ST
CAROLYN PARRY CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
505 S SNEAKY LN
AEB REALTY
GREENWICH, CT 06830
239 GREENWICH AVE
NEWMAN JOEL
GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160
355 OCEAN BLVD
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SHARP DESIGNS INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
936 W FRANCIS
SCHUHMACHER JOHN W TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
505 N 8TH ST
RATNER DENNIS F TRUST
VIENNA, VA 22182
1577 SPRING HILL RD # 500
FRANCIS STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
HARRIS JOAN W REV TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60611
209 E LAKE SHORE DR
POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78218
11 LYNN BATTS LN #100
BRIEN ALICE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 10521
STARODOJ BETSY H & THOMAS S II
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2298
DRAMATIC VIEW HOLDINGS LLC
DENVER, CO 80201
PO BOX 3053
JAMIE ALEXANDER LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10021
720 PARK AVE #4A
ASPEN FOREST 8TH STREET LLC
LAS VEGAS, NV 89135
113999 SUMMIT CLUB DR
BAIRD STEPHEN W & SUSAN MERRITT
CHICAGO, IL 60603
120 S LASALLE ST # 2000
CAMP ROBERT C REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 692
WERNER MICHAEL B REV TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89146
3065 S JONES BLVD
810 WEST SMUGGLER STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
101 S MILL ST #200
144
SAXON FAMILY DELTA TRUST
TULSA, OK 74136
6677 S EVANSTON CIR
SAXON BRUCE CHARLES
TULSA, OK 74136
6677 S EVANSTON CIR
FOREST LOOKOUT II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SCHWAB LOUISE H NON-EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
10940 WILSHIRE BLVD #2250
NEWMAN JOEL
GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160
355 OCEAN BLVD
TREEHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASEPN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
822 W SMUGGLER ST
BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2902
KEILIN KIM MILLER TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 10064
SCHWAB ROBERT H SURVIVORS TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
10940 WILSHIRE BLVD #2250
NEWMAN FAMILY TRUST
GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160
355 OCEAN BLVD
POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78218
11 LYNN BATTS LN #100
FOREST SERVICE ASPEN HEADQUARTERS
ASPEN, CO 81611
806 HALLAM ST
RUBEY ROBERT
DENVER, CO 80209
3465 BELCARO DR
TALENFELD ELIZABETH G
ASPEN, CO 81611
915 W FRANCIS ST
HARRIS JOAN W REMAINDER TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60611
209 E LAKE SHORE DR
5 STRING LLC
GATLINBURG, TN 37738
PO BOX 1709
SCHUHMACHER MARIANNE H TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
505 N 8TH ST
SOPRIS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS CORP
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
MCTAMANEY ROBERT A III TRUST
ASPEN, CO 816113104
908 W FRANCIS ST
145
146
Page 1 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: May 11, 2022
RE: 949 W. Smuggler– AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits,
Conceptual and Final Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, TDR,
Subdivision, Growth Management- PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM
APRIL 27TH SITE VISIT
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Vandemoer Family, Inc., Chris
Vandemoer
REPRESENTATIVE:
Haas Land Planning
1 Friday Design
LOCATION:
Street Address:
949 W. Smuggler Street
Legal Description:
Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill Lot Split,
City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-122-12-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Single-family home,
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE:
Subdivision; Parcel A Two
detached homes, Parcel B
Single-family home
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
SUMMARY:
The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern historic
designation of a 1946 Chalet style home, and requests Major
Development, Relocation, Demolition, Variations, TDR,
Subdivision, Growth Management and other preservation
benefits be approved for a project which involves preserving
the resource in place and the development of two new
adjacent homes in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends HPC grant Major Development,
Relocation, Demolition and Variations as requested and
recommends Council uphold Notice of Call Up required by
those processes, and grant approval of Designation and
benefits, Transferable Development Rights, Subdivision, and
Growth Management.
Site Locator Map – 949 W. Smuggler
949
147
Page 2 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
949 W. Smuggler is an 18,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone district. The site contains
a 1946 Chalet home, which is essentially unaltered, and two related outbuildings, built by the
family who has owned the property for 75 years. The site has no landmark protection in place
and has long been identified as a priority for preservation through AspenModern.
This application was permitted to be submitted during the current residential development
moratorium because the Council ordinance specifically exempted voluntary AspenModern
designations from being held up. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is providing
decisions on the review processes which are fully assigned to the board, and making a
recommendation to Council on those processes which must be approved by Ordinance. This
application has been designed to request HPC Conceptual and Final review at one stage.
Following HPC, the review will proceed to Council with no further HPC discussion other than
project monitoring.
Submittal of an AspenModern application triggers a 90 day negotiation period, during which the
applicant and City attempt to find agreement and passage of a designation ordinance within three
months. The negotiation may be extended, but expedited review is intended. For HPC’s
information, the final reading of the Council ordinance has been delayed to July 11th due to full
Council agendas. The applicant has agreed to that timeframe.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A through J for more detail.
Staff supports the voluntary designation of this property as one of the best and most intact
examples of a Chalet in Aspen. This is likely among the first buildings constructed here after
World War II and is therefore particularly illustrative of the early spirit of the ski resort. Staff finds
the benefits requested for designation to be reasonable in consideration of the community gain
from preservation of this important piece of Aspen history.
Staff finds the project approach to model the ideal preservation outcome. The Chalet is preserved
with no addition, and new construction is detached and located at the rear and side of it. Staff
has no concerns with the alley house design. In order to ensure that the future development of
the corner lot supports preservation and public visibility of the Chalet, a site visit was held on April
27th and the primary focus of this meeting should be setting parameters for a successful outcome
on that lot.
Staff’s recommended conditions of approval are below and provided in the attached draft
resolution.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements
that may affect permit review. Comments from Engineering and Zoning are attached. Parks has
supported the proposal as defined so far. Housing is supportive of a request for deferral of
148
Page 3 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
affordable housing mitigation if a specific circumstance discussed in the Growth Management
exhibit would occur. The applicant is working to follow-up on the comments and no significant
impacts to the proposal are expected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission grant Major Development (Conceptual
and Final), Relocation of the chicken coop, Demolition of the garage, and Variations as requested
and that the board recommend Council uphold Notice of Call Up and grant approval of Designation
and benefits, Transferable Development Rights, Subdivision, and Growth Management with the
following conditions:
1. Designation will affect the entire property; Parcels A and B.
2. A full waiver of compliance with the Residential Design Standards is recommended for the
new home on the Chalet lot as a negotiated benefit. This house is not designed to relate
to Smuggler Street and staff finds that it’s character as an alley/back-drop structure is
appropriate.
3. Staff recommends the applicant comply with slope reduction on the Chalet lot rather than
asking for a preservation benefit on this topic.
4. HPC finds that the fence near the entry to the Chalet home is original and historically
significant and should remain in place, and should be granted a permanent encroachment
license to sit in the public right-of-way.
5. The applicant is asked to continue their excellent regular maintenance of the Chalet and to
take note of the impacts of the adjacent tree roots and branches continually moving
towards the historic structure.
6. For relocation of the chicken coop, a letter from an engineer or housemover demonstrating
the structure is capable of withstanding the relocation, a plan for the safe relocation of the
building, and a financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required prior to
building permit submission.
7. Setback variations are approved on the Chalet lot for the “chicken-coop” and the proposed
new home along the alley. The chicken-coop is permitted a 5 foot east setback where it
should have 10 feet. The new house along the alley is permitted a 5 foot rear setback rather
than the 10 feet required for proposed below grade space, a second floor deck, and a
lightwell.
8. A combined sideyard of 15 feet is permitted on the corner lot where 25 feet is required. A
30’ front yard setback is required, only above grade. These requirements may be adjusted
by an affirmative vote of HPC at the time that redevelopment is proposed.
9. HPC recommends one TDR be approved for the corner lot and that the applicant thereafter
forgo 30 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area and restrict the lot to the development
of a single- family home of 3,240 square feet. A duplex or other residential structure is only
permitted if this condition is amended by City Council.
10. Staff recommends the applicant drop the request for deferral of affordable housing
mitigation as a preservation benefit.
149
Page 4 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
11. Staff recommends the negotiation of affordable housing mitigation requirements be left to
Council to resolve in their negotiation with the applicant.
12. It is acknowledged that as part of the applicant’s proposed negotiation with the City, they
have offered the City an exclusive 30 day timeframe after adoption of the Council ordinance
to attempt to secure a public purchase of the corner lot from the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D – Demolition Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit E – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit F – Parking Variation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit G –TDR Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit H – Subdivision Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit I – Growth Management Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit J – Referral Comments
Exhibit K – Application
150
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit B
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic
property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have
been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
This applicant has requested that Conceptual and Final design review be combined. No
alterations are planned for the Chalet and no significant landscape changes are envisioned at
this time. The only new construction that has been prepared for review is the new home
proposed to the south of the Chalet, along the alley.
Following are the relevant design guidelines.
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the
neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development
is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves
no useful open space visible from the street.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk
to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry
on residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most
landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces
rather than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
151
Page 2 of 8
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be
better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must
include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed
design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building
permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from
the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the
site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into
the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should
have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case
by case basis.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly
landmark trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal
of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in
coordination with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original
plant materials.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which
is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in
Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species
of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in
height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a
limited patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the
building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as
not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics
from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are
encouraged.
152
Page 3 of 8
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views
of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources.
Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views
and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen
Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety
considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on
a case-by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the
building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
153
Page 4 of 8
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be
moved, removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be
preserved.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the
landscape and its built features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement,
height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape
features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be
preserved.
• When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features.
These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details.
• If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of
the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the
period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation.
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure.
• Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• The position and orientation of the structure
• should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation
option.
• Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture.
This pattern should be maintained.
154
Page 5 of 8
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures
than those in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that
buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street
are characteristics that should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a
building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the
construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too
impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best
preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original
exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback
variations where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees.
Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so
that it becomes obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if
needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is
inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone
foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically
is out of character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using
stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be
similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure
preservation of the design intent.
155
Page 6 of 8
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who
specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in
successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by
the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to
protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from
damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings.
Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until
restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by
case basis and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the
traditional grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of
their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a
recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic
buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A
project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements.
Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and
a contemporary design response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish
to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a
traditional sense of human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size
and shape to those of the historic resource.
156
Page 7 of 8
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and
trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening
with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low
profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a
discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic
building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending
with their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall,
in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Staff Finding: The basic concept of this project, preserving the Chalet with no addition or
alterations, and placing all new construction in detached units is ideal in terms of the preservation
guidelines.
Staff finds the new structure to be appropriate. The building area is limited in footprint and well
distanced from the historic resource. The flat roof is sympathetic by keeping the height of the
structure as low as possible. The materiality, fenestration and detailing of the new unit make
gentle references to the Chalet, but are clearly distinct and provide a simple backdrop to that
highly decorative home. Staff does not propose any areas for restudy.
At the previous meeting, staff expressed some concerns with the design of parking in the public
right of way in the foreground of the Chalet, and the possibility of constructing a sidewalk in front
of the historic house. The sidewalk is not required by Engineering after all. The board indicated
that the parking area is not impactful enough to the historic resource to require their further input.
At that meeting the applicant expressed concerns about the applicability of floor area reductions
for an embankment on the west side of the Chalet lot. Applying this standard deduction has a
minimal (approximately 40 square foot) impact on the Chalet lot. Staff recommends the applicant
comply rather than asking for a preservation benefit on this topic.
The new home is subject to compliance with the Residential Design Standards, but it does not
comply in several ways. It is simply not designed to be a building strongly related to the street.
It does not break down its massing in the ways the standards require because the project has
already separated the allowed development into two halves, smaller than most structures in the
157
Page 8 of 8
neighborhood. It is approached from the alley, to leave the setting of the Chalet intact. Below
are some of the standards that are not met. Staff recommends a full waiver of RDS be accepted
for the new unit as part of the AspenModern negotiation.
Articulation of Building Mass
Build to lines
One story element
Entry connection
158
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Relocation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties.
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any
one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the
historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
159
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding: There are two structures on this property that exemplify Chalet style architecture:
the main house and an outbuilding identified as the “chicken coop.” Currently located south of the
main home, the applicant proposes to move the contributing outbuilding towards the northeast.
No change in location is proposed for the main home. The proposed location for the outbuilding
maintains the contextual relationship between the two structures while providing adequate room
for the new home proposed along the alley.
Staff finds the proposed relocation does not diminish the historic integrity of the resource and
supports the relocation of the outbuilding. A letter from an engineer or housemover demonstrating
the structure is capable of withstanding the relocation, a plan for the safe relocation of the building,
and a financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required prior to building permit
submission.
Staff finds the relocation criteria are met.
26.415.090.C - Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that
it meets any one of the following:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or N/A
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or N/A
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or N/A
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;CONDITION
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
CONDITION
MET
MET
Review Criteria for 949 W. Smuggler
Summary of Review Criteria for Relocation Request
160
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit D
Demolition Criteria
Staff Findings
Section 26.415.080 – Demolition of Designated Historic Properties:
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
4) The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by
the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine
if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if
it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner;
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure;
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen;
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located:
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties; and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
161
Page 2 of 2
Staff Findings: A total of three structures are located on this lot. The applicant proposes to
preserve the main house and the small outbuilding, known as the chicken coop, but demolish the
one-story shed structure on the southeast corner of the property. This one-story shed structure
has a simple gable roof form with minimal architectural detailing.
Staff finds that the structure makes a limited contribution to the historic significance of the
development on the site. The applicant does not offer its preservation, even in a different position
on the site. The demolition of this structure is deemed inconsequential to the preservation needs
of the area.
Staff finds the criteria are met to demolish the shed structure as proposed.
26.415.080 - Demolition. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural
resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of
properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or
properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with
the standards set forth in this Section. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the
owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;N/A
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;.N/A
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or N/A
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is
located:
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic
District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.MET
MET
MET
Review Criteria for 949 W. Smuggler
The applicant proposes to demolish a non-contributing detached shed structure.
Summary of Review Criteria for Demolition Request
MET
162
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit E
Setback Variations Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.C: Variations:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Finding: The application accommodates the Chalet in its original location and protects the
significant trees in front of it. No variations are needed to accomplish this, however it affects
where other development can occur on the site, and influences the need for setback variations.
Setback variations are requested on the Chalet lot for the “chicken-coop” and the proposed new
home along the alley. The chicken-coop has a 5 foot east setback where it should have 10. The
163
Page 2 of 2
new house along the alley provides a 5 foot rear setback rather than the 10’ required for some of
the proposed below grade space, a second floor deck, and a lightwell. Staff supports this request.
On the corner lot, the applicant’s proposal is for a reduction in the combined side yard setback
and a larger than standard front yard setback to protect some of the view of the historic house
from 8th Street. A combined sideyard of 15 feet is proposed where 25 feet is required.
Staff finds that in general, these setback reductions are in character with the neighborhood and
are for the express purpose of distancing the new structures from the resource.
HPC conducted a site visit on April 27th to view the conditions. At the May 11th meeting, the board
should discuss their observations as a group. The applicant has indicated a willingness to
designate the corner lot historic and allow HPC design review. The board could rely on that
process to properly place development on the corner lot, or could accept the applicant’s setback
proposals and allow these boundaries to be modified if appropriate during future review.
If a 30’ front setback were provided at least
above grade, based on the site visit the view of
the Chalet directly from 8th street would be
approximately as shown at right. Staff
recommends HPC take action to ensure a
significant amount of this view is protected.
As a further consideration, during Council
discussion, the possibility of requesting the
City be granted a “right of first refusal” to
purchase the corner lot at market rate for
affordable housing will be raised. HPC should
indicate whether that idea affects setback
considerations.
Staff recommends HPC discussion guide an appropriate finding on the criteria for setback
variations on the corner lot.
164
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit F
Parking Variations Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110. D. Parking. On-site parking reductions are permitted for designated historic
properties unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the underlying zoning due
to the existence of a historic resource. In these circumstances, alternative mitigation in the form
of cash-in-lieu, pursuant to Chapter 26.515, may be accepted by HPC for commercial
development. HPC may waive cash-in-lieu for residential development.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of
payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate
an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
Staff finding: There is currently no on-site parking for this property. The owner has parked in
the City right-of-way along Smuggler Street. As an AspenModern benefit, they would like to
continue to utilize that area, although the Engineering Department has indicated that the parking
configuration will have to be parallel rather than head-in for safety.
The Chalet does not require any parking to be provided. The new home along the alley requires
two spaces. The applicant plans to create two garaged spots along the alley and assign one to
each home. Because they are meeting the requirement for two spots on site, and the City does
not monitor how the on-site parking spaces are used, their representation is noted, but a parking
variation is not technically required.
Staff finds that no parking variation is needed.
165
Engineering1 - 949 W Smuggler - LPA-22-029
Page: 29
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
HPC should make a
determination on the historical
importance of the fence.
Following Engineering
Standards at the time of
development the existing fence
must be relocated within the
property line and out or the City
ROW.
APPLICATION PACKAGE (FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf (14)
Page: 29
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
To divide the lot into parcels the
existing water service line needs
to be rerouted. Or an easement
provided.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
As part of this development and
plat a new easement needs to
be put in place for the proposed
transformer. Dimensions of the
easement shall be 3' beyond the
vault. Call out three phase or
single phase. Pedestals cannot
be placed within the 3' clearance
distances.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
The existing water service line
would need to be abandoned
and removed or an easement
put in place prior to dividing the
lot into Parcel A and B.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Applicant will need to coordinate
with City electric to understand
the full extents of the addition of
the proposed transformer to the
system. For HPC review and
determining mass and scale
showing an appropriate
easement is sufficient.
x x x x
xx x x x
S74° 14' 02"E 180.00'
25.5"x40'
8"x16'
FLAGSTONE WALK
GRAVEL
(HATCHED)
7898
7897
75.00' WEST
SMUGGLER R.O.W.
20.65' BUILDING TIE
EL:7897.65EL:7897.94
25.2"x32'
HPC should make a determination on the historical
importance of the fence. Following Engineering
Standards at the time of development the existing
fence must be relocated within the property line and
out or the City ROW.
XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL
x x x x x
2 - VANDEMOER HILL LOT
SPLIT
18,000 SQ. FT. +/-
0.4132 ACRES +/-
To divide the lot
into parcels the
existing water
service line needs
to be rerouted. Or
an easement
provided.XXXXSS SS SS SS SSGGGGG
E
G
AR.G
AR.4
EEEEEEEEEE
TCTCTCTCTCTCTCTC
CT
E
NEW ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
& PEDESTALS
REROUTE GAS
AR.H
AR.3 SLSLSLXXXSS SS SS
7899As part of this development and
plat a new easement needs to
be put in place for the proposed
transformer. Dimensions of the
easement shall be 3' beyond
the vault. Call out three phase
or single phase. Pedestals
cannot be placed within the 3'
clearance distances.
W W W W W W W W W W7898PROPOSED PROPERTY LINEEX. WATER SERVICE
BUILDING SETBACKThe existing water service line
would need to be abandoned
and removed or an easement
put in place prior to dividing the
lot into Parcel A and B.XXSS SS SS GAR.G
EEEEETCTCTCCT
E
NEW ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
& PEDESTALS
RERO
AR.H
XXXXSS SS SS SS
7899Applicant will need to
coordinate with City electric to
understand the full extents of
the addition of the proposed
transformer to the system. For
HPC review and determining
mass and scale showing an
appropriate easement is
sufficient.
166
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
A sidewalk with a 5' landscape
buffer is required in this location.
If the lot is divided into parcel A
and B the sidewalk adjacent to
each property will be required at
time of development. Please
show a sidewalk for HPC review.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
The parking/pull out area must
meet COA Engineering
standards for width. See street
cross section in appendix C of
the Design Standards. Head in
parking is not permitted.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Show that the 5' easement on
Parcel B provides adequate
space to accommodate a water
service line. The easement width
may beed to be expanded.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
A drainage conveyance swale
will be required within the ROW
at building permit to show how
drainage is handled offsite
adjacent to the property.
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Could the Chalet and Alley
residence be subdivided in the
future? If so each structure is
required to have their own water
service line. Show service lines
and appropriate easements.
X X XXX X X X X7897
PROPERTY LINE
TOFF/METER
ANOUT
A sidewalk with a 5' landscape
buffer is required in this location. If
the lot is divided into parcel A and
B the sidewalk adjacent to each
property will be required at time of
development. Please show a
sidewalk for HPC review.
X X X
XX X X X X X X X X X789678977898
W. Smuggler Street
The parking/pull out area must meet COA Engineering standards for
width. See street cross section in appendix C of the Design
Standards. Head in parking is not permitted. XXXXXWS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
Show that the 5' easement on Parcel B provides adequate space
to accommodate a water service line. The easement width may
beed to be expanded.
X X X X X X X X X X
X78967897
muggler Street
A drainage conveyance swale will be required within the ROW
at building permit to show how drainage is handled offsite
adjacent to the property.BUILDING SETBACKPROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
4''Ø4''Ø4''ØPIPE THE EX. ROOF
DRAINS, TYP.
Ex. Chalet
Could the Chalet
and Alley
residence be
subdivided in the
future? If so each
structure is
required to have
their own water
service line. Show
service lines and
appropriate
easements.
167
Page: 31
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
This is a long run for a water
service line. There is a water
main in Smuggler St. What is the
motivation for tapping a new line
off 8th St? The water service
locations should be ironed out
prior to any new plat recordation
in case additional easements are
required.
Page: 61
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Page: 62
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Page: 62
File Name: APPLICATION PACKAGE
(FINAL)-AspenModern949 W Smuggler.pdf
Author: haileyg
Parking spaces along Smuggler
St will be signed residential 2
hour parking
G G G G G G G G
T T T T T T T T XXXXXXXXWS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
78
9
9
NE
BACK
NEW WATER SERVICE
IN EASEMENT
APPROX. LOCATION
OF EX. SEWER MAIN
avel Alley This is a long run for a water
service line. There is a water
main in Smuggler St. What is
the motivation for tapping a new
line off 8th St? The water
service locations should be
ironed out prior to any new plat
recordation in case additional
easements are required.
Page 4-10
Per Code Section 26.415.110(d), on-site parking reductions are permitted for designated
historic properties unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning due to the existence of a historic resource. When the parking waiver
will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural
character of the designated property, the HPC may also waive any otherwise required
cash-in-lieu of on-site parking for residential development.
Since the Chalet Lot will contain two detached single-family residences, the Code would
require four on-site parking spaces, or two per dwelling. The Applicant is requesting a
parking waiver of two spaces to allow one on-site parking space per dwelling. The
proposed plans include two one-car garages within the new detached structure. One of
these spaces is to be dedicated to the chalet structure and the other is for the new
residence. The two garages are separated by an interior wall and only one of the two
spaces is accessible from within the attached residence. In addition, the Applicant seeks
approval to maintain the existing fence and parking pull-out area within the West
Smuggler Street right-of-way, as these have existed since the 1940s. Relocating the circa
1940s fence to match the West Smuggler Street property line is not feasible or desirable
as it would necessitate impacts to the historically significant trees. This pull-out area
within the West Smuggler Street right-of-way provides an additional 3-4 off-street
parking spaces.
Placing two additional parking spaces on-site would require the removal of additional
trees and greater impact on/crowding of the historic resources. A waiver of the
requirement for two additional on-site spaces allows the two historic assets to stand-
alone, without additions or alterations, surrounded by the massive trees that have always
added to the character of the property and an appropriate, ample amount of open
ground. As such, the waiver will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
significance or architectural character of the designated property; therefore, the fee in-
lieu should be waived as well.
Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
Section 26.415.110(k) provides that owners of properties listed on the Inventory may
sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be
developed on a different property within the City. The proposed Vacant Lot, being 8,000
square feet in the R-6 zone district, would normally allow 3,520 square feet of Floor Area
for a single-family residence. However, in another proactive effort to ensure sensitivity
f-way provides an additional 3-4 off-street
site would require the removal of additional
of the historic resources. A waiver of the
aces allows the two historic assets to stand-
ounded by the massive trees that have always
Parking spaces along Smuggler
St will be signed residential 2
hour parking
168
169
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXETC XETC XETC XETC XETC XETCXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWL XWL XWL XWLXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXUTXELXETCGXETCGXETCGXETCGxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "LS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEWATER SERVICE LINEWATER MAINS74° 14' 02"E 180.00'N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 180.00'FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPROJECT BENCHMARK ELEVATION = 7897.8'FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE0.2' BELOW GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADE4.3"x7'4.4"x7'5.9"x8'4.7"x7'4.3"x7'4.1"x7'4.1"x7'4.5"x7'25.5"x40'8"x16'7.7"x14'2-4.1"x10'3-4.4"x10'11.0"x13'18.6"x30'16.7"x30'21.5"x30'23.6"x20'15.8"x22'9"x13'14.9"x22'7.4"x12'12.6"x18'11.1"x16'12.6"x16'11.2"x13'N15° 45' 58"E (BASIS OF SITE BEARING) 100.00'TWO STORY HOUSEWOOD FRAME HOUSESPLIT RAIL FENCE (TYPICAL)WOOD SHED20.3'12.5'
12.5'20.3'11.3'11.3'11.3'11.3'WOODSTRUCTURE43.3'26.3'43.3'26.3'CONCRETEPADFLAGSTONE WALKWOOD DECKUPPER LEVEL WOOD DECKGRAVEL(HATCHED)ASPHALTSURFACE789878997895 7899 78987895 789878977
8
9
6
78967897789878997900790179007899 7900LOT 2 - VANDEMOER HILL LOTSPLIT18,000 SQ. FT. +/-0.4132 ACRES +/-LOT 1 - VANDEMOER HILL LOTSPLIT949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLCPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO.273512212002GRAVEL(HATCHED)19.44' ALLEY R.O.W.5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 67057275.00' WESTSMUGGLER R.O.W.75.37' N. 8TH STREET
R.O.W.
5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 670572 20.65' BUILDING TIE22.39' BUILDING TIESE FIELD TOPOGRAPHYCITY OF ASPEN LIDAR 1 FOOT CONTOURSFINISHED FLOORELEVATION 7901.0'EL:7897.65EL:7895.68EL:7895.09EL:7896.29EL:7897.94EL:7897.68EL:7896.2830.2"x27.6'28.1"x32'22.4"x34'25.2"x32'FOUND NO. 5 .REBARAND CAP STAMPED"PLS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOT 2,VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOFRECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADONOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/7/2021 - G:\2020\30137 VANDEMOER HILL LOT 2\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30137.02 ISP.dwgVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actualfield locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actualfield conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utilitycompanies for field location of utilities prior to construction.IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATI, MARK S. BECKLER, HEREBY CERTIFY TO ISABEL A. VANDEMOER, PHOEBE E.VANDEMOER, AND LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, THAT THIS IS AN“IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT” AS DEFINED BY C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9), ANDTHAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENTLOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES, WATER FEATURESAND/OR BODIES OF WATER , VISIBLE ROADS, UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLSSITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALLBOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCEOR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAYOF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OFRECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DESCRIBED IN LAND TITLEGUARANTEE COMPANY TITLE INSURANCE ORDER NO. Q62012373, OROTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT.THE ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1/15,000.________________________________MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WITH TOPOGRAPHY OFLOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLITA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1SOURCE DOCUMENTS:·PLAT-VANDEMOER HILL LOTS SPLIT (BOOK 129-PAGE 11, RECEPTION NUMBER 670572)ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.NOTES1)DATE OF FIELD WORK: DECEMBER, 2001-JUNE, 2001; SEPTEMBER 2019, SEPTEMBER 2020,AND SEPTEMBER, 2021.2)DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER, 2001--JUNE, 2001; UPDATED SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER2019, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 2020, AND OCTOBER, 2021.3)BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S74°14'15"E BETWEEN THE 1988 CITY OF ASPEN-GPSCONTROL POINTS GPS-20 AND GPS-9(R), AT THE STREET INTERSECTIONS OF 7TH\FRANCISAND 6TH\FRANCIS, WHICH ESTABLISHED A SITE BEARING OF N 15°45'58" E BETWEEN THENORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, BEING FOUNDMONUMENTS AS SHOWN.4)BASIS OF SURVEY: THE VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11,RECEPTION NO. 670572 OF PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS.5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDINGEASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED UPON THE TITLECOMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER No. Q62012373EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.6)BASIS OF ELEVATION: BASIS OF ELEVATION - 2009 CITY OF ASPEN GPS MARCIN CONTROLMAP DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7911.98 (NAVD 1988) ON THE NGSSTATION "Q-159". THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK ELEVATION OF 7897.8' ON THETOP OF A #5 REBAR WITH CAP L.S. 28643 MONUMENTING THE NORTH WEST PROPERTYCORNER OF LOT 22, AS SHOWN HEREON. FIELD WORK SUPPLEMENTED WITH 1 FOOT CITYOF ASPEN LIDAR DATA TRANSLATE TO MARCIN COORDINATE SYSTEM.7)CONTOUR INTERVAL ONE (1) FOOT.8)PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, CO 816119)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBER 27351221200310)PER CITY OF ASPEN MUDFLOW FIGURE 7.1 C -CASTLE CREEK/RED BUTTE MUDFLOW ZONES,REVISED 11/2014, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT IN A MUD FLOW ZONE.11)PER FIRM MAP 08097C0354E, EFFECTIVE DATE 08/15/2019, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLSUNDER SHADED ZONE "X", (AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD, USUALLY DEPICTED ONFIRMS AS ABOVE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL. ZONE X IS THE AREA DETERMINED TO BEOUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD AND PROTECTED BY LEVEE FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD.) SITE(BASIS OF BEARING)S74°14'15"EGPS-9(R)GPS-20(TIE ONLY) S51° 36' 05"E 413.09'(TIE ONLY) S40° 02' 59"E 460.91'TREE LEGENDCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING ELECTRIC METEREXISTING CATV PEDESTALEXISTING LEGENDEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900EXISTING WOOD RAIL FENCExxEXISTING WATER SERVICE/MAINXWLXWLEXISTING GASXETCXETCEXISTING TELEPHONEXGASXGASXGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING CABLEEXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLEXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVXETCGXETCGEXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0101020104054.5" X 7' = 4.5" TRUNK DIAMETER WITH 7' DRIPLINEPURPOSE STATEMENTTHE PURPOSE OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WITH TOPOGRAPHY IS TO SHOW THE EXISTING PROPERTYBOUNDARIES, SITE CONDITIONS, ENCUMBRANCES, AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.10-05-21170
LOT 1 - VANEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLCPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO. 273512212002FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "LS 28643"FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPOINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL BPOINT OF COMMENCEMENT PARCEL AFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE0.2' BELOW GRADEFOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADEPARCEL A10,000 SQ. FT.0.2296 ACRES +/-PARCEL B8000 SQ. FT.0.1837 ACRES +/-75.00' W. SMUGGLER STREET R.O.W.19.44' ALLEY R.O.W.75.37' N. 8TH STREET R.O.W.POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ASET NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADESET NO. 5 REBAR &1.25" ORANGE PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PROP COR 28634"FLUSH WITH GRADE5.00' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTREC. NO. 670572N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'S74° 14' 02"E 100.00'N15° 45' 58"E 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 100.00'N74° 14' 02"W 80.00'S15° 45' 58"W (BASIS OF SITE BEARING) 100.00'S74° 14' 02"E 80.00'LOT 1 - HOWER EXEMPTIONAEB REALTYPITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID. NO. 273512365001LOT 2- HOWER EXEMPTIONSAXON DELTA TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512365002BLOCK 3 - LOTS P, Q, R, & SMCTAMANEY, ROBERT A III TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512365001BLOCK 2 - LOTS Q, R, & SSCHUHMACHER, JOHN W. TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512211002LOT 2 - VANDEMOER LOT SPLITRATNER, DENNIS F. TRUSTPITKIN COUNTY PARCELID. NO. 273512282004NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/9/2021 - 31037.02 - G:\2020\30137 VANDEMOER HILL LOT 2\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30137.02 AMENDED PLAT_LOT 2 SPLIT.dwgVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actualfield locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actualfield conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utilitycompanies for field location of utilities prior to construction.FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THEVANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISIONA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1PURPOSE STATEMENTTHE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT (RECORDED IN BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11, AS RECEPTION NO. 670572), INTOTWO NEW PARCELS TO HEREAFTER BE KNOWN AS PARCELS A AND B OF THE VANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISION.1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0202040208010PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BEFORE LOT SPLITLOT 2,VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOFRECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADOCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CERTIFICATETHIS LOT SPLIT PLAT OF THE VANDEMOER HILL PARCEL A & B WAS REVIEWEDAND APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OFASPEN THIS DAY OF , 202___. TO THE EXTENT THATANYTHING IN THIS PLAT IS INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH ANY CITY OFASPEN DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONOF APPLICABLE LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OTHER APPLICABLE LANDUSE REGULATIONS OR BUILDING CODES, SUCH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ORDERSOR APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE SHALL CONTROL.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY ENGINEER’S REVIEWTHIS PLAT WAS REVIEWED FOR THE DEPICTION OF THE ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS THIS DAY OF ,202__.CITY ENGINEERTITLE CERTIFICATETHE UNDERSIGNED, A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY WHICH ISREGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE OWNERS OFTHE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR OF LEINS,TAXES, AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT FOR THE MATTERS OF RECORD LISTED ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT ISSUEDBY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY UNDER FILE NO. Q62012373 EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021. ALTHOUGHWE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ARE TRUE, THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLENOR AN OPINION OF TITLE NOR A GUARANTEE OF TITLE, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT LAND TITLEGUARANTEE COMPANY NEITHER ASSUMES NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONWHATSOEVER.BY:TITLE:STATE OF COLORADO )) SSCOUNTY OF PITKIN )THE TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 202__, BY AS THE TITLE OFFICER OFLAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEALASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVALTHIS FINAL PLAT OF THE VANDEMOER HILL PARCELS A & B WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYTHE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ON THE DAY OF _______________, 202__, BYORDINANCE NO. _____, SERIES 202__, RECORDED ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK ANDRECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY IN BOOK , PAGE AS RECEPTION NO. .MAYOR, CITY OF ASPENDATEATTEST:CITY CLERKCERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIPKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE UNDERSIGNED BEING THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 2020 IN PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11.DOES HEREBY PLAT THIS REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF THE FINAL PLAT OF: VANDEMOER HILL PARCELS A & B, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKINCOUNTY, COLORADO; DIVIDE THE REAL PROPERTY INTO PARCELS A AND B AS SHOWN HEREON; AND DEDICATES EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS SHOWNHEREON FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. ______________ OF THE PITKINCOUNTY RECORDS.EXECUTED THIS _____ DAY OF _________ , 2022.VANDEMOER FAMILY INCA COLORADO INCORPORATIONBY:___________________PRINT NAME: CRAIG VANDEMOERTITLE:MANAGERSTATE OF __________))SSCOUNTY OF ________)THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE METHIS ____ DAY OF ____________, 202__, BY CRAIG VANDEMOER ASMANAGERS OF VANDEMOER FAMILY INC.MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ___________.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL______________________NOTARY PUBLICSOURCE DOCUMENTS:·PLAT-VANDEMOER HILL LOTS SPLIT (BOOK 129-PAGE 11, RECEPTION NUMBER 670572)·THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER G.E.BUCHANAN DATED DECEMBER 15 1959ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.NOTES1)DATE OF FIELD WORK: DECEMBER, 2001-JUNE, 2001; SEPTEMBER 2019, SEPTEMBER 2020,AND SEPTEMBER, 2021.2)DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER, 2001--JUNE, 2001; UPDATED SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER2019, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 2020, AND OCTOBER AND DECEMBER, 2021.3)BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S74°14'15"E BETWEEN THE 1988 CITY OF ASPEN-GPSCONTROL POINTS GPS-20 AND GPS-9(R), AT THE STREET INTERSECTIONS OF 7TH\FRANCISAND 6TH\FRANCIS, WHICH ESTABLISHED A SITE BEARING OF N 15°45'58" E BETWEEN THENORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, BEING FOUNDMONUMENTS AS SHOWN.4)BASIS OF SURVEY: THE VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, PLAT BOOK 129 AT PAGE 11,RECEPTION NO. 670572 OF PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS.5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDINGEASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED UPON THE TITLECOMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER No. Q62012373EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.6)PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, CO 816117)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBER 273512212003SITE(BASIS OF BEARING)S74°14'15"EGPS-9(R)GPS-20(TIE ONLY) S51° 36' 05"E 413.09'(TIE ONLY) S40° 02' 59"E 460.91'DRAFTSURVEYOR CERTIFICATEI, MARK S. BECKLER, DO HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE STATE OF COLORADO,THAT THIS PLAT IS A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE PLAT OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF VANDEMOER LOT 2 SUBDIVISION ASLAID OUT, PLATTED, DEDICATED AND SHOWN HEREON, THAT SUCH PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A LAND SURVEY PLAT ASSET FORTH IN C.R.S. SECTION 38-51-106, WAS MADE FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF SAID PROPERTY BY ME AND UNDER MYSUPERVISION AND CORRECTLY SHOWS THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS, EASEMENTS AND STREETS OF SAIDSUBDIVISION AS THE SAME ARE STAKED UP THE GROUND IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REGULATIONS COVERING THE SUBDIVISIONOF LAND. RECORDED EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND RESTRICTIONS ARE SHOWN HEREON AND ARE THE SAME AS THOSE SETFORTH IN THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES COMMITMENT NUMBER 0706274-C2, EFFECTIVEDATE JUNE 5TH, 2020 AND COMMITMENT ORDER NUMBER. Q62012373 EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 3, 2021.IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS ____ DAY OF _________, 2021._____________________________MARK S. BECKLER, L.S. #28643LOT 1 AMENDED - RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION
COLOSAL CORPERATION
PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 273512428001
171
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGTEWSO
EEEEETTTTTGGGGGX X XXX X X X X X X X X
XX X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCWSWSWS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
kWhGM
E
G
C-1 C-2 C-3
AR.4
AR.11
AR.A
AR.A
AR.G
AR.G
AR.4
AR.11
7900789
9
78
9
878977
8
9
678957896789778987897
7900
7
8
9
9789878997898789778957896
7901DD8''Ø 8''Ø 8''ØD AREA INLETWQCV DRYWELL
(SEE DETAIL)PROPERTY LINEEASEMENTBUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKPROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
EASEMENT
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E E E
E
EE
TCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTC TC TC TC TC TC
TC
C
T
E
GRATE ON ENTRY
DRYWELL
NEW ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
& PEDESTALS
REROUTE GAS
AR.3
AR.10
AR.B
AR.B
AR.H
AR.H
AR.3
AR.10
4'
'Ø
PIPE THE NEW ROOF
DRAINS, TYP.4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø4''Ø 4''Ø
4''ØPIPE THE EX. ROOF
DRAINS, TYP.4''ØSLSLSLNEW WATER SERVICE
IN EASEMENT
APPROX. LOCATION
OF EX. SEWER MAIN
W. Smuggler Street
N. 8th StreetEx. Chalet
Proposed Alley
Residence
Relocated
Chicken Coop
WSWSWSOEX. WATER SERVICE
Gravel Alley PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKXXXXSS SS SS SS SS
7899NORTH
RevisionDate
923 Cooper Avenue
Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
tele: 970.945.5252
fax: 970.384.2833
Engineer or Surveyor Seal
Sheet
Client Information:
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME:
Designer:
Drafter:
Date:N:\PROJECTS\2021\21066-949 W Smuggler\dwg\21066-V-Topo.dwg 12/10/2021 3:35 PM9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
12/10/21
djw
djw
21066-v-topo.dwg
21066
Aspen, Coloroado 81611
949 W. Smuggler Street
Chris Vandemoer
Aspen, Colorado1.HPC Review / Preliminary PlanGrading, Drainage & Underground Piping Plan949 W. Smuggler StreetC.1
00 10'20'
Scale: 1" = 10'
Scale: N.T.S.
Downspout Connection & Area Drain2
TYPICAL
SITE DRAIN TYPICAL
ROOF DRAIN BUILDING30" MIN.TEE TEE REDUCER
(WHERE
APPLICABLE)
90° BEND
HEAT TAPE INSTALLED
PER NOTES
4"Ø RISER
TEE/BENDS WITH GLUED
JOINTS OR WATERTIGHT
ADAPTERS
6"Ø RISER, TYP.
DOWNSPOUT FITTING OR IF DOWNSPOUT IS TOO
LARGE, USE A 12" SQUARE NYLOPLAST INLINE
DRAIN GRATE W/ A HOLE CUT IN GRATE TO
MATCH THE DOWNSPOUT AND SLEEVE THE
DOWNSPOUT/CHAIN AT LEAST 6" INTO THE PIPE.
12"Ø NYLOPLAST AREA DRAIN WITH DOME
GRATE, 6"Ø PVC RISER OR BEND, TYP.
INSTALL HEAT TAPE THROUGH THE PIPE AND
CONNECT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE
GRATE,TYP. INSTALL TEMPORARY FILTER
FABRIC OR SEDIMENT BASKET UNDER THE
GRATE.
CAULK/SEAL
WHERE DOWNSPOUTS ARE NOT IN
IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY, INSTALL HEAT
TAPE THROUGH AN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT.
6"Ø OR 8"Ø STORM
SEWER (PER PLAN)
NOTES:
1.ALL DOWNSPOUTS AND DECK DRAINS SHALL BE
CONNECTED TO ADS N-12-WT CPP (WATERTIGHT),
SCH.40 PVC OR SDR35 PVC. FLEXIBLE CORRUGATED
PLASTIC IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
2.ADDITIONAL FITTINGS AND BENDS MAY BE REQUIRED
TO DEFLECT OVER OR AROUND LANDSCAPE WALLS.
3.HEAT TAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL
DOWNSPOUTS/STORM SEWER PIPES AND
CONNECTED TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL INLET GRATES.RAIN CHAINOR DOWNSPOUT24" (MIN.)
NOTES:
1.PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL MEET ASTM C-478 AND BE H-20 LOAD RATED.
2.THE EDGE OF THE DRYWELL (AT FILTER FABRIC) SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST
10-FEET AWAY FROM ANY FOUNDATION WALL.
3.BACKFILL EXCAVATION AROUND THE STRUCTURE WITH COMPACTED 3/4" CRUSHED
WASHED SCREENED STONE TO THE TOP OF THE DRYWELL AND WITH STRUCTURAL
CLASS 2 ABC TO 12" BELOW FINISH GRADE.COMPACT BACKFILL TO 95% STANDARD
PROCTOR.
4.PERFORATED SECTION TO BE INSTALLED 4 FT. MINIMUM INTO PERVIOUS ALLUVIUM.
ENGINEER TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER OR BEDROCK IS
ENCOUNTERED.
5.INLET AND OUTLET PIPES SHOULD ENTER DRYWELL AWAY FROM THE DRYWELL STEPS.
12"
Scale: N.T.S.
WQCV Drywell with Skimmer Pipe113'PRECAST CONCRETE
SECTION(S)
4'Ø
10' MIN.
PLACE MIRAFI FILTERWEAVE 500 (OR
EQUAL) FILTER FABRIC AROUND, UNDER
AND OVER CRUSHED STONE
SKIMMER PIPE
(SEE DETAIL)
PRECAST PERFORATED RISER SECTION
W/ 1"Ø PERCOLATION HOLES
8" THICK PRECAST CONCRETE LID
SECTION WITH RUST RESISTANT ACCESS
HATCH WITH LIFTING HANDLES.DRYWELL (7')INFLOW STORM/
UNDERDRAIN PIPE
SYSTEM
2' PRECAST
CONE SECTION
3/4" CRUSHED WASHED SCREENED
STONE AROUND THE PERIMETER
AND 1' BELOW THE DRYWELL
UNDISTURBED SOIL
10"Ø SCH.40 PVC TO OTHER
DRYWELL BARREL,
12" ABOVE GRAVEL BASE
10''ØD D
26'-6"8'-10"24"
TYP.
INTERCONNECT DRYWELL BARRELS
WITH 10"Ø SCH.40 PVC
INFLOW
PLAN VIEW
48"
STANDARD 4'Ø
DRYWELL
FILTER FABRIC
24"Ø DUCTILE IRON FRAME AND SOLID LID (H-20),
SHIM TO MATCH THE SURFACE GRADE
RIM: PER PLAN @ CENTER OF MANHOLE
12"
WQCV DRYWELL:
ATTACH THE HEAT TAPE
AND ABSORPTION
PILLOW TO THE TOP
LADDER RUNG, TYP.
SKIMMER PIPE24"8"Ø STEEL RISER WITH
FLANGE END
6"
DRILL (4) 1/2"Ø
WEEP HOLES AT
THE BASE
WRAP THE BASE
WITH A ROCK
SOCK
1/2"Ø AIR RELEASE
HOLEBMP BIO-SKIRT BIO20.
SECURE ABOVE THE
FLANGE WITH STAINLESS
STEEL WIRE. REPLACE
THE SKIRT ANNUALLY)
ACCESS LID
SECTION VIEW
FILTER
FABRIC, PIN
INTO
GRAVELS
10''ØD
REVIEW
CTCURTS
NO NOIFTON R
O
EXISTING/PROPOSED ASPHALT
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS WALK/PATIO
(CONCRETE OR PAVERS)
PROPOSED GRASS/LAWN
GENERAL DIRECTION OF FLOW
T CE EXISTING/PROPOSED UTILITY
PEDESTALS & METERS
T CE GM EM
7965
LEGEND
7965
4''Ø 4''Ø
X X X
C/O
8''Ø 8''Ø
W SO
WM
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING/PROPOSED WATER SERVICE/SHUTOFF/METER
EXISTING/PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE/CLEANOUT
EXISTING/PROPOSED GAS
PROPOSED FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM (BY OTHERS)
HEAT TAPE
PROPOSED 4"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)
PROPOSED 8"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)
WS WS WSWS
SL SL SLSL
GG
PROPOSED 6"Ø PVC STORM PIPE (WATERTIGHT)6''Ø 6''Ø
EXISTING/PROPOSED SEWERSSSS
EXISTING/PROPOSED WATER MAINWW
S
WV
EXISTING/PROPOSED ELECTRICEE
EXISTING/PROPOSED TELEPHONETT
PROPOSED 4"Ø PERF. UNDERDRAIN PIPE
NOTE: THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE PLOTTED IN COLOR. FAILURE TO DO SO
MAY RESULT IN MISSING DATA AND INFORMATION CRITICAL TO THE PROJECT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE>>>>
172
Page 4-10
with or in any way overwhelm the historic resources. It also ensures that the old and new
will be clearly and easily differentiated such that nobody will confuse the two.
On the Vacant Lot, it is proposed that the standard 10-foot front setback be increased
three-fold to 30-feet for above-grade improvements to assure maximum visibility of the
historic structures from West Smuggler Street and its North 8th Street intersection
(utilities and subgrade improvements would continue to be subject to the standard 10-
foot front yard setback requirement). To accommodate this, it is also proposed that the
east side yard setback for this 8,000 square foot lot be 5-feet, as required (adjacent to the
nearly 30-feet of unoccupied right-of-way between the property line and the N. 8th Street
roadway), and that the combined side yard setback requirement be waived or established
at 15-feet (a 10-foot variation from the 25-foot requirement). The proposed side yard
setbacks and the 5-foot/10-foot rear yard setback are consistent with the underlying R-6
zoning. If preferable to the City, the Applicant is amenable to establishing these setbacks
as a formal “building envelope” to be delineated on the Final Subdivision Plat.
The proposal is wholly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the
requested variations are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for guaranteeing
the perpetual preservation of a substantial community benefit and valuable community
asset by landmark designating Aspen oldest remaining example of a chalet residence and
associated outbuilding. The layout of the proposal has been very carefully considered to
guarantee the design of the new residence is sympathetic and subservient to the historic
resource while maintaining the prominence of the chalet and associated trees from West
Smuggler and 8th Streets. The chalet’s iconic north and east facades, including the second-
floor deck facing 8th Street, will forever remain highly visible and unobstructed,
especially given the proposed building envelope/setbacks on the Vacant Lot.
On-Site Parking.
Per Code Section 26.415.110(d), on-site parking reductions are permitted for designated
historic properties unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning due to the existence of a historic resource. When the parking waiver
will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural
character of the designated property, the HPC may also waive any otherwise required
cash-in-lieu of on-site parking for residential development.
Since the Chalet Lot will contain two detached single-family residences, the Code would
require four on-site parking spaces, or two per dwelling. The Applicant is requesting a
parking waiver of two spaces to allow one on-site parking space per dwelling. The
proposed plans include two one-car garages within the new detached structure. One of
these spaces is to be dedicated to the chalet structure and the other is for the new
residence. The two garages are separated by an interior wall and only one of the two
spaces is accessible from within the attached residence. In addition, the Applicant seeks
approval to maintain the existing fence and parking pull-out area within the West
Smuggler Street right-of-way, as these have existed since the 1940s. Relocating the circa
1940s fence to match the West Smuggler Street property line is not feasible or desirable
as it would necessitate impacts to the historically significant trees. This pull-out area
173
Page 4-11
within the West Smuggler Street right-of-way provides an additional 3-4 off-street
parking spaces.
Placing two additional parking spaces on-site would require the removal of additional
trees and greater impact on/crowding of the historic resources. A waiver of the
requirement for two additional on-site spaces allows the two historic assets to stand-
alone, without additions or alterations, surrounded by the massive trees that have always
added to the character of the property and an appropriate, ample amount of open
ground. As such, the waiver will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
significance or architectural character of the designated property; therefore, the fee in-
lieu should be waived as well.
Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
Section 26.415.110(k) provides that owners of properties listed on the Inventory may
sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be
developed on a different property within the City. The proposed Vacant Lot, being 8,000
square feet in the R-6 zone district, would normally allow 3,520 square feet of Floor Area
for a single-family residence. However, in another proactive effort to ensure sensitivity
to the important historic resources on the adjacent Chalet Lot, the Applicant is
volunteering that the Vacant Lot be limited to just 3,240 square feet of floor area, or the
same floor area allowed for a lot of only 6,000 square feet. With this 280 square foot
reduction, the Applicant is requesting one (1) 250 square foot historic TDR that can be
sold for use on a different, eligible receiver site within the City.
All other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zoning, as may be amended, would
continue to govern development on the Vacant Lot. Such development will also remain
subject to all other applicable codes, including but not necessarily limited to the
Residential Design Standards.
F. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, CHAPTER 26.410
As codified at Section 26.410.010(a),
The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection
between residences and street; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and
mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not
prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its
owner, contribute positively to the streetscape.
The Code further provides that the Residential Design Standards (RDS) are intended to
achieve an environment where homes have a connection to the street, respond to
neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. The proposal preserves the
historic chalet that has engaged the street for some 75 years and provides articulation by
breaking up available bulk and mass into three small-to-modest, detached structures. It
also not only preserves historic neighborhood scale and character, but its buildings are
critical in defining the neighborhood’s historic character and scale. Obtaining HPC
approval of the proposed development inherently guarantees achieving of the objectives
and intent of the RDS.
174
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Simon, Planning Director
FROM: Sophie Varga, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: 03/31/2022
RE: 949 W Smuggler Referral Comments
Floor Area Calculations:
Decks: per a conversation with Derek Skalko, we will work through deck
calculations before final review. Subgrade Exposure on Historic Resource: The
math for calculated subgrade floor area is inaccurate and will be fixed before
final review.
Application Sheets: “Existing Floor Area” (pgs. 36-37), “Proposed Floor Area” (pgs.
38-39). Code Section: 26.575.020(d)
Parking Requirements:
Note: two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit, for a total of four
parking spaces. The parking spaces in the Right of Way cannot be used to fulfill
this requirement.
Application Sheets: Dimensional Requirements Form (pg. 20), “Proposed Site
Plan” (pg. 34), “Proposed: Alley Residence Floor Plans” (pg. 43). Code Sections:
Table 26.515-1, 26.515.070.
Setback Variations:
Note: Since the two detached residential dwelling units have a setback of more
than 10 feet between them, the 10,000 SF Lot is not subject to combined side
yard setbacks. Please add the 10’ setback to the site plan. If the applicant does
not want a setback of 10’ between the two residential units, please request a
variation to the combined side yard setbacks.
Application Sheet: “Proposed Site Plan” (pg. 34). Code Section: 26.710.040(5)
Survey: Please have the surveyor add a slope table. The table should list the area
of the parcel with a 0-20% slope, 20-30% slope, and 30% slope (as applicable). If
any portion of the parcel has a slope of more than 20%, it will impact allowable
floor area calculations.
Application Sheet: Survey (pg. 29). Code Section: 26.575.020(c).
This memorandum summarizes major items. A variety of other requirements will
be necessary for building permit submittal and zoning review.
175
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022
NEW BUSINESS:
949 W. Smuggler – AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual and Final Major
Development, Relocation, Demolition, TDR, Subdivision, Growth Management – PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC & Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design
Collaborative
Mr. Haas introduced himself and Mr. Skalko and mentioned that Chris Vandemoer, their client was
listening in. He then showed a vicinity map highlighting the site at 949 W. Smuggler St. and mentioned
that they were applying for AspenModern landmark designation. He then described the negotiated
approval process of the AspenModern program through which preservation benefits and incentives
beyond those identified in the code are available and applicable sections in the code take on a flexibility
that does not normally exist. Mr. Haas then thanked Ms. Simon for her hard work and inspiration and
for her thorough but fair review of their proposal.
Mr. Haas went on to describe the history of the Vandemoer family on the property. He then described
the reasoning for and details of the eventual Vandemoer lot split which was finalized in 2020. The
project that is being discussed is located on the 18,000 square foot “lot 2”. In order to afford to keep this
legacy property in the family and to preserve the historic significance of the home, Mr. Vandemoer is
seeking the AspenModern designation. Mr. Haas mentioned that if this application is not successful, Mr.
Vandemoer would have to sell the property to the highest bidder, who would most likely not keep the
historic structures.
Mr. Haas then went over the existing conditions of the property. It is an 18,000 square foot lot which
includes a chalet style structure that sits on the western side with a four-side wrap around porch. The
structure is flanked by two huge evergreen trees on each front corner and one at the back corner. There
is also a wooden structure at the back of the property, referred to in the application as the “chicken
coop” which was built at the same time as the house. Mr. Haas then showed a few historic pictures of
the house as well as a current picture, noting that nothing has changed since it was built in the 1940s.
He also went over the historical significance of the property and house. He then went into describing the
proposed site plan, which includes subdividing the property into two lots, Lot 2(a) and Lot 2(b). Parcel A
will be a 10,000 square foot lot (100x100) and will include the historic chalet, the relocated “chicken
coop” and a new detached single-family residence to be built along the alley front. Parcel B will be a
vacant 8,000 square foot lot which will be given a residential growth management allotment but will not
be designated or be subject to HPC purview for future development. He mentioned that there are no
proposed changes to the historic chalet on parcel A. Per the AspenModern negotiations and incentives,
they are asking to combine conceptual and final reviews with HPC. The applicant seeks to maintain the
existing historic fence in its existing location as shown in the existing conditions and also maintain the
existing parking pull out on W. Smuggler St. The standard 10 foot set back on the north side of Parcel B
is proposed to increase to a 30-foot setback for any above grade development in order to assure
maximum visibility of the historic structure on Parcel A from W. Smuggler and 8th street. They are
proposing a combined side yard setback of 15 feet instead of the required 25 feet of combined setbacks
on Lot 2(b) which will need an HPC variation. If preferable to the City they would memorialize these
setbacks as a building envelope on the final plat. They are also proposing to drop the normally allowed
3,520 square feet of floor area for an 8,000-foot lot to 3,240 square feet which is what is allowed on a
176
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022
6,000-foot lot. Because of this reduction they are asking for a 250 square foot TDR be issued to the
applicant.
Mr. Haas then addressed the Chalet lot (Lot 2(a)) and that they are not requesting any Floor Area Bonus
FAB) from HPC. He stated that for this 10,000-foot lot a total of 4140 square feet is allowed, but that
the combined square footage of the historic structures and the new building would be less than that. He
mentioned that the proposed new location of the “chicken coop” would require a 5-foot side yard
setback variation and that they are also requesting a 5-foot rear yard setback variation on the new
building to allow for the light well and room for a laundry space and mechanicals. He then mentioned
that language in the original Vandemoer lot split mentioned no further lot splits can occur on the
divided lots, they are calling this a major subdivision, but that is really in name only. He said that they
are requesting that the applicant be able to sell the vacant lot before paying the cash-in-leu for
affordable housing mitigation on the new building.
Mr. Skalko started by showing the proposed elevations of the new building noting that the new building
basically hides behind the historic asset when looking from W. Smuggler. This was achieved by pushing
the distance between old and new structures to the greatest extent possible (approx. 26 feet). He then
showed a 3D rendering of the property (Lot 2a) to get a better look at the mass and scale of the
structures.
In closing Mr. Haas said that the applicant desires to see the historic chalet and outbuilding preserved in
perpetuity via historic landmark designation under AspenModern in exchange for the associated
benefits within the code for designated landmarks.
Mr. Halferty asked about what appears to be a water line going through the vacant lot. Mr. Haas pointed
out this line on the utility plat and said that is a home service line that runs from 8th St. to the chalet and
mentioned that it will need to be removed at some point.
Mr. Halferty asked that the variations for the “chicken coop” be gone over again, which Mr. Haas did.
Mr. Halferty wanted to clarify if the proposal meant that HPC wouldn’t have purview of any design
review on Lot 2b. Mr. Haas said that is what is proposed in order for the applicant to sell the lot and
maximize the value.
Mr. Fornell asked if the “chicken coop” was heated living space and part of the FAR calculation. Mr. Haas
said they are counting it as part of the FAR calculation because it is enclosed but it is not heated nor is it
habitable under building code. Mr. Fornell wanted to extend his gratitude to the applicant, Chris, and his
family for their stewardship of the property over the many years. He then mentioned that the request
for a deferral of affordable housing mitigation is a loophole in the requirements that is designed for
people who live and work at a job in Aspen. He asked for more of an explanation of the request. Mr.
Haas said they have only conditionally requested a deferral. That condition is only in the unlikely event
that the applicant decides to build the new structure before the lot has sold. Mr. Fornell wanted to state
for the record that a deferral should be reserved for those who qualify under the guidelines. Mr. Haas
mentioned that the housing office has supported the deferral request.
Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Skalko could go over the proposed materials for the new building. Mr. Skalko
proceeded to go over the various proposed material options on different parts of the building.
177
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022
Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by going over the history of the Preservation program and the voluntary
AspenModern program. She also went over the timing of this application and the scheduling of HPC
meetings set for it. Also noted were various incentives that have been part of different AspenModern
applications in the past. She then reviewed some of staff’s thoughts that are laid out in the memo,
regarding the historic resource and the new building, noting that as far as design review staff is not
raising any objections. Staff also finds the relocation of the “chicken coop” an acceptable way to keep it
part of the property and maintain its relationship. She then went over a few points for HPC discussion.
One related to the parking in front of the Chalet on City property in the Right of Way that has always
been there. Normally Engineering would say that needs to go in order to reclaim the public space. In
trying to accommodate the owner, no one finds this a necessity as it has been a traditional element.
Engineering did ask for the parking to become parallel. She wanted HPC to discuss this and make sure
that the view of the house is not impacted by the number of cars parking there. The next item she
wanted discussion on was the adjacent lot. Staff greatly appreciates the deep setback on the front and is
in support of widening the building envelope to balance things out. She asked the commissioners to
discuss possibly increasing the front setback for above grade development in order to maximize the view
of the chalet from 8th St. She also asked for discussion of the fact that the application asks that the lot
not be designated which is a concern because of the benefits being requested. She did not think we can
forgo designating the lot because of the TDR being requested. A discussion was also requested about
the growth management calculations for the lot since it was technically a second lot split of the
property. Ms. Simon wanted to make clear that there is an exception being asked for to mitigate for this
as if it were an existing lot and while it is not a deal breaker, a balance is wanted to be found. She
pointed out that the City is asking for a first right of refusal to purchase the lot at a market rate to
potentially build affordable housing.
Mr. Halferty asked if the right of first refusal would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Simon said because it
would be at market rate it would not be. Ms. Johnson mentioned that since HPC members wouldn’t be
directly benefited financially it would not be a conflict.
Ms. Thompson asked if they had ever approved a limitation of height on a part of a lot. Ms. Simon said
not for AspenModern, but that this is a negotiation.
Ms. Thompson said she was surprised that Engineering would allow parking in the right of way and
asked if it would be reasonable to limit that to a specific number of spots. Ms. Simon said that there are
other parking spaces in the right of way around town and that this parking would be signed for use by
the general public.
Mr. Fornell gave his support to the project and was looking forward to seeing it again at the next
meeting, but that something had come up that he had to attend to and would be leaving the meeting.
Mr. Fornell then left the meeting.
Mr. Moyer asked if the City were to buy the lot if they would be treated like any other developer or
person. Ms. Simon confirmed that yes, they would and that HPC could decide that if the City ended up
buying the lot that it would come under HPC design review.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
178
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Ms. Thompson asked how Ms. Pitchford was doing. Ms. Pitchford said she was learning a lot but does
appreciate the property and the applicant’s intent to preserve it.
Ms. Thompson went over the items for discussion. The first being the fence and its encroachment into
the right of way. Mr. Halferty said he was ok with it but was concerned about consistency when it comes
to other projects.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the fence in discussion includes the fence on the alley side of the property as well.
Mr. Haas said it was really just about the one in the front of the Chalet lot.
Ms. Thompson said she would be supportive of the encroachment to keep the fence in its current
location and allow maintenance of it, but to limit the amount of landscaping between the property line
and the fence.
Mr. Moyer said he wasn’t opposed to the fence and that if the parking is parallel, it won’t overwhelm
the view of the fence or the house.
Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Moyer on the parking given the location of the property. She then asked
for someone to start the discussion about the new structure.
Mr. Halferty said he thought the new structure complies with their guidelines and that the requested
setbacks related to the garage is fine because it helps maintains a nice distance between the historic
resource and the new structure. He thought it is a product of its own time.
Ms. Surfas agreed with Mr. Halferty and that it complements the existing structure.
Mr. Moyer had no issues with the new structure.
Ms. Thompson also agreed and supported the variance for the deck and below grade.
Ms. Pitchford said that she thought it was a product of its time but didn’t necessarily complement the
existing structure but realized that it didn’t have to. She asked a question about 30-foot setback of the
proposed building envelope and if everything was approved that any new owner of the lot would have
to adhere to that setback. Ms. Thompson said yes.
Ms. Thompson then moved the discussion to the items related to the vacant lot, including the sub-
division agreement, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), and the developable area. She said
she was concerned about the 30-foot setback while allowing all that floor area to be built on a smaller
footprint. She asked Ms. Simon if she was correct in the assumption that if the 30-foot setback was
approved that it would still be the same amount of floor area for a lot of that size and that the mass
could be larger than if they did something to limit a future project. Ms. Simon said those type of things is
what they are here to discuss and reminded HPC that even though the lot is 8,000 square feet, the
applicant is restricting themselves to the floor area allowed for a 6,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Thompson’s concerns over the potential massing of future development.
He thought it would help if any future development did a lot of sub-grade floor area.
179
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022
Mr. Moyer thought it would be helpful to go over and stake out a few scenarios. He also suggested that
sub-grade floor be able to go toward the front and be below the yard and above-grade be allowed to
move closer to the east property line.
Ms. Thompson agreed that a site visit would be helpful.
Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Haas if it was a disadvantage to a developer to be next to a landmark building and
what would come with that and if it would it be that much harder to sell. Ms. Haas said he wasn’t a
realtor, but that the members were bringing up some good points and things he hadn’t thought about.
He knew they were coming back for another meeting and wanted to further discuss the topics with the
applicant and City staff and hopefully come back with everyone on the same page.
Ms. Thompson said that she is generally supportive of the TDR but noted that she did not know the last
time the City Council approved a TDR. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty was also supportive of the TDR.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if the newly created lot could not be a receiving site of the TDR. Ms.
Simon said that a site that is not designated historic can be a landing site for TDRs which is why the
discussion of landmarking the lot could be part of any conditions of approval. Ms. Thompson said she
would be in favor of whatever they can do to limit the ability for a TDR to land on this site if it’s not
landmarked.
Ms. Pitchford asked to clarify if the fence on the east side of the second lot is inside the property line.
Mr. Haas said it was about 1-2 feet inside the line.
Ms. Thompson said she was in favor of the relocation of the “chicken coop” and the related setbacks.
Other members agreed.
There was a short discussion of the requested 10-year vesting rights.
Ms. Thompson said that if they were deferring payment on employee housing until the adjacent
property is sold, that they include some time limits on how long it could be deferred.
There was discussion on administrating and scheduling a site visit.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to Wednesday, April 27th at noon at 949 W.
Smuggler St. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
180
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer,
Sheri Sanzone and Barb Pitchford.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approval the minutes from 4/13/22 with the grammatical
revision on page 7 made. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms.
Sanzone, abstained; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in
favor, with one member abstaining, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty thanked everyone for the work session two weeks
ago and for the many great concepts that were brought up.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon said there was one item to bring before the HPC board for project
monitoring. 930 King St. which was approved by the board through a minor development hearing is
being brought forward because of a slight massing change from what was approved. The project
monitors for this project reviewed the application and agreed that it was acceptable, but because it a
slight floor area and massing change, staff thought it was important for the board to see it in its entirety.
She introduced Wheeler Clancy who is representing the applicant. Mr. Clancy showed some images of
the project and described the proposed changes. The initial Floor Area Ratio calculations were around
75 square feet and during the permitting process it was determined that they were entitled to about 85
square feet. He then described the slight changes to the west side expansion, increasing the area by 10
square feet, showing images of the original and proposed layouts.
Ms. Yoon mentioned that this does not constitute a new approval or resolution, it is just a modification
of the original approval. Ms. Thompson said that her and Mr. Fornell are the project monitors on this
project and that they reviewed the proposed changes and said that from the rendering that the massing
changes are insignificant. Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fornell were satisfied with the changes after
having their questions answered. Ms. Johnson then went over the board’s options, which were to, after
review, accept the changes or to bring it back to a public hearing. Mr. Halferty, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Surfas,
Ms. Pitchford and Ms. Sanzone were all ok with the changes.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez mentioned that her and staff have set up the schedule so that
the second meeting of each month will be in person and that it will include a work session. She
181
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022
requested that potential work session topics be emailed to her. She then mentioned that May is
Preservation month and that a progressive bike tour is scheduled for the 31st of May. She then went
over the details of the tour. Ms. Yoon mentioned that she would be leaving the meeting a bit early.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Feinberg Lopez went over a number of these including:
706 W. Main – basement addition that is within the setbacks.
400 E. Cooper – change in doors and siding.
520 E. Hyman – addition of a side and alleyway door.
305 & 307 S. Mill – interior changes.
Temporary structure at Aspen Tap.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that
notice was provided per the code for the agenda item.
OLD BUSINESS:
949 W. Smuggler – AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual and Final Major
Development, Relocation, Demolition, TDR, Subdivision, Growth Management – PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM APRIL 27th SITE VISIT
Applicant Presentation: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC & Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design
Collaborative
Mr. Haas provided a summary of the project, including some of the history of the property, the previous
lot split and showed the existing conditions. He described the historic chalet, surrounding fence, a
“chicken coop” structure and an outbuilding that is proposed to be demolished. He noted that most of
the surrounding fence can go away because it lies within the property line or is in the alley. He then
showed a few historic pictures of the chalet from the 1940s. He showed a comparison of the existing
and the proposed site plans, highlighting the new proposed lot line separating the historic “Chalet” lot
(10,000 square feet) and the new vacant lot (8,000 square feet), the new detached structure to be built
behind the historic chalet, and the repositioning of the “chicken coop”. He then went on to describe the
proposed front setbacks of the vacant lot. He mentioned that to the best of his memory, the HPC
members present at the last meeting did not have any real issues or concerns with what is proposed on
the “Chalet” lot. He said that the vacant lot was the main focus at the last meeting, including concerns
about potential massing issues because of the reduced building envelope and the proposal of the vacant
lot not being landmarked and not subject to HPC review. He also went over a few other topics of
discussion from the last meeting. He reminded the members that the applicant was proposing that the
vacant lot be limited to the allowable floor area for a 6,000 square foot lot, reducing the floor area by
280 square feet compared to an 8,000 square foot lot. In exchange for this the applicant is asking for a
250 square foot Transferable Development Right (TDR).
Mr. Haas said that since the last meeting he had been working with Ms. Simon and that they are fully ok
with the resolution as written, which he said seems to address most if not all the concerns raised. He
182
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022
then went over in some detail the staff conditions included in the Resolution, noting that he hoped that
these would all be written as recommendations to City Council from HPC because this is ultimately a
negotiated process.
Staff Presentation:Amy Simon, Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by focusing on the Resolution and reviewing each condition in detail with the HPC
members. She then opened her presentation to questions.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon to review and confirm the math in condition #9 regarding the allowable
floor area on the vacant lot be set at 3,240 square feet. Ms. Simon confirmed this and noted that the
recommendation also states that only a single-family home is allowed unless the condition is amended
by City Council.
There was then some discussion on the details and intentions of condition #11.
Mr. Fornell asked for clarity on why in this case HPC is a “recommending” body and not the deciding
body. Ms. Simon described how the AspenModern is a very different program, being a negotiated
process and that the final decision is in City Council’s court. There are also many processes that are part
of this proposal that are never in HPC’s purview.
There was some discussion around the reason and importance of preserving this historic property and
since this is currently not designated a historic property what could happen to the property if this
AspenModern designation does not go through.
Ms. Surfas asked about what HPC would have say over if the vacant lot is designated historic. Ms. Simon
explained that it would be the same as any other historically designated property that was under HPC
review.
Mr. Moyer asked if the City purchased the vacant lot, what could they or could they not out on the lot.
Ms. Thompson said that her understanding was that whatever was proposed would come before HPC
for review.
Ms. Sanzone did not understand where the potential for a multiple unit project could show up on the lot
and if it was a possibility of the major subdivision process. Ms. Simon said a lot would have to happen to
allow anything more than a duplex on the lot, but it was up to City Council.
Ms. Sanzone asked a few questions about grading, drainage and utilities plans in regard to their impact
on existing trees. Mr. Haas said that they had been on the property with the Parks department and most
of the trees that could be impacted do not require mitigation and are either in bad health, a hazard or
too small to be City regulated.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Mr. Halferty complimented the project and its importance to Aspen history. He emphasized the
importance of the HPC’s recommendation to City Council. He brought up some concerns over the
proposed “right of first refusal” for the vacant lot, but said if the City’s legal team was ok with it he was
as well from a consistency stand point.
183
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022
Ms. Thompson thought that the applicant had addressed every concern since the first meeting, and she
fully supports this resolution.
Mr. Fornell agreed that this is a good project. He strongly objected to condition #12 in the Resolution
regarding the 30-day option for the City. He did not think what was proposed was legal, ethical, or
proper. He went on to explain his thoughts. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Fornell would be comfortable
deferring that to City Council. Mr. Fornell said no and would like to see condition #12 removed. Ms.
Thompson said that she would like to defer this to City Council. Ms. Johnson went over some of the legal
aspects of the topic and mentioned that if the rest of the board is in agreement, then you can move to
strike it or state that HPC takes no position and refer it to Council.
Ms. Thompson stressed the importance of HPC’s unanimous support of this to Council and if removing
condition #12 means that Mr. Fornell will support it, she would be ok with that. Ms. Sanzone agreed that
it should be removed. Ms. Pitchford agreed as well. Mr. Moyer did not care whether it was included or
not but agreed that HPC needs to be all in agreement on their recommendations to avoid making things
more complicated for Council to allow this to happen.
Ms. Sanzone thought that the original lot split was a huge incentive to the applicant and was really
struggling with the creation of the additional lot and how it will affect the context of the lot including
the existing sage brush. She did not agree with staff’s comments that this application is meeting the
criteria for a major subdivision.
Mr. Haas expressed his concerns with saddling the vacant lot with too many restrictions, which could
lead to the whole thing falling apart by losing the value that makes this all possible. Ms. Thompson
wanted to make sure the project is viable for the applicant and Mr. Fornell did not want HPC to do
something that makes the applicant walk away for their effort.
HPC members then worked with Ms. Simon to make suggested edits to the language of the Resolutions
and the conditions therein. These included better emphasizing HPC’s recommendation of approval and
clarifying the difference between the two lots, as well as other clarifying details. Condition #12 was also
removed as part of the edits to conditions.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Resolution with the edits made. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1, motion passes.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Sanzone why she objected. Ms. Johnson mentioned that a member does not
need to disclose why they voted the way they voted but can if they choose. Ms. Sanzone did not prefer
to answer now.
Mr. Fornell wondered if there was a threshold by which that vote may change for the benefit of moving
to City Council. Ms. Sanzone wondered if she could change her vote to abstained. Ms. Johnson said
someone could call for a reconsideration and another vote.
Mr. Moyer called for reconsideration. Ms. Thompson seconded.
Ms. Sanzone explained that it was hard for her to vote yes on this, and it is inappropriate because she
didn’t attend the first meeting or the site visit. She fundamentally had a problem with the subdivision, in
184
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022
the fact that this lot is getting divided up further. She said we lost the context on the west side with the
original lot split a few years ago, and now were losing the rest of it. She had hoped her vote wouldn’t
count as the alternate member so that she could say that and feel good about her values and what she
feels is important.
Ms. Johnson said that if Ms. Sanzone felt that she did not have sufficient information to vote on this, she
could always abstain. She said that someone would have to make another motion to approve the
Resolution as amended, because things had somewhat reset.
Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the Resolution as amended. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Mr. Fornell, yes;
Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, abstain; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms.
Thompson, yes. 6-0, with one abstention. Motion passes.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
185
HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION #7, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION, DEMOLITION,
AND VARIATION APPROVAL, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT
ASPENMODERN HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS, TDR, SUBDIVISION,
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 949 W.
SMUGGLER STREET, LOT 2, VANDEMOER HILL LOT SPLIT, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-122-12-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Vandemoer Family, Inc., c/o Chris Vandemoer, P.O. Box 668,
Sterling, Colorado 80751, has requested review of AspenModern Historic Designation and
Benefits, Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Variations, TDR, Subdivision and
Growth Management for the property located at 949 W. Smuggler Street, Lot 2, Vandemoer Hill
Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID 2735-122-12-003; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been deemed to be exempt from the applicability of Ordinance
#27, Series of 2021 and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, ordinances which generally placed a
temporary moratorium on residential development, and has been allowed to proceed because
land use applications involving voluntary AspenModern landmark designation are specifically
permitted to be processed at this time; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed to be complete on March 31, 2022 and is to be
reviewed according to the land use regulations in affect prior to the adoption of Ordinance #27,
Series of 2021. The date of completeness commenced a code mandated 90 day period for the
City to negotiate historic designation with the property owner, which may be extended; and
WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and
Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code and allows for City Council approval of site specific
benefits to secure voluntary historic designation; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Major Development, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D of the
Municipal Code. In the case of this project, HPC must also apply the Residential Design
Standards of Section 26.410.040 to proposed new construction. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, HPC must find the application meets the requirements
of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, HPC must find the application meets the requirements
of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of historic properties; and
186
HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2022
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, HPC must find the application meets the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, to recommend Council approval of a TDR, HPC must find the application meets
the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.535.070, Transferable Development
Rights; and
WHEREAS, to recommend Council approval of Subdivision, HPC must find the application
meets the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.070, Major Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, to recommend Council approval of a Growth Management allotment, HPC must
find the application meets the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470.080 and
26.470.100, Planning and Zoning Commission Growth Management review; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards, sought referral comments from other City
Departments with requirements relevant to the proposal, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on April 13, 2022, April 27th, 2022 (site visit), and May
11, 2022, considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the
proposal consistent with the review standards. HPC supports the voluntary designation of this
property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Chalet in Aspen. This is likely among
the first buildings constructed here after World War II and is therefore particularly illustrative of
the early spirit of the ski resort. HPC granted approval for Major Development, Relocation,
Demolition, and Variations and recommended Council approval of AspenModern designation
and Benefits, TDR, Subdivision and Growth Management, with conditions, by a vote of 6 to 0,
with one abstention.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Approvals
HPC supports the application and hereby states the following conditions:
1. HPC recommends that designation will affect the entire property; Parcel A, the Chalet lot
and Parcel B, the corner lot. As such, future development of Parcel B is subject to HPC
Major Development Review and Residential Design Standards Review.
2. A full waiver of compliance with the Residential Design Standards is recommended for
the new home on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, as a negotiated benefit. This house is not
designed to relate to Smuggler Street and its character as an alley/back-drop structure is
appropriate.
3. HPC recommends the applicant comply with slope reduction on Parcel A, the Chalet lot,
rather than asking for a preservation benefit on this topic.
187
HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 4
4. HPC finds that the fence near the entry to the Chalet home is original and historically
significant and should remain in place (with maintenance and repair as needed) and
should be granted a permanent encroachment license to sit in the public right-of-way.
5. The applicant is asked to continue their excellent regular maintenance of the Chalet and
to work closely with the Parks Department to preserve the significant trees adjacent to the
home, while also taking note of the impacts of the tree roots and branches continually
moving towards the historic structure.
6. For relocation of the chicken coop, a letter from an engineer or housemover
demonstrating the structure is capable of withstanding the relocation, a plan for the safe
relocation of the building, and a financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be
required prior to building permit submission.
7. Setback variations are approved on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, for the “chicken-coop” and
the proposed new home along the alley. The chicken-coop is permitted a 5 foot east
setback where it should have 10 feet. The new house along the alley is permitted a 5 foot
rear setback rather than the 10 feet required for proposed below grade space, a second
floor deck, and a lightwell.
8. A combined sideyard of 15 feet is permitted on Parcel B, the corner lot, where 25 feet is
required. A 30’ front yard setback is required, only above grade. These requirements
may be adjusted by an affirmative vote of HPC at the time that development is proposed.
9. HPC recommends one TDR be approved for Parcel B, the corner lot, and that the
applicant thereafter forgo 30 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area and restrict the
lot to the development of a single- family home of 3,240 square feet. A duplex or other
residential structure is only permitted if this condition is amended by City Council.
10. HPC recommends the applicant withdraw the request for deferral of affordable housing
mitigation on Parcel A, the Chalet lot, as a preservation benefit.
11. HPC recommends the negotiation of affordable housing mitigation requirements on
Parcel B, the corner lot, be left to Council to resolve in their negotiation with the
applicant.
Section 2: Material Representations
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 Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
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
188
HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2022
Page 4 of 4
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of May, 2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
__________________ ___________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, HPC Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
189
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020
Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE:May 16, 2022
MEETING DATE:May 24, 2022
RE:First Reading, Proposed Amendments to the Land Use Code:
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 – Short-term Rentals
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff requests City Council review the proposed ordinance regulating short-term rentals
(STRs), provide input to staff in advance of second reading, and set the public hearing
for June 28, 2022.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In December 2021, Council passed Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, addressing the City’s
existing vacation rental program. Ordinance #26 extended existing Vacation Rental
Permits, issued as of December 8, 2021, through September 30, 2022. Pursuant to
Ordinance #26, Series of 2021 and Ordinance #27, Series of 2021, no new Vacation
Rental Permits were issued after December 8, 2021.
Council’s action in December of 2021 came as a result of the incredibly rapid expansion
of the short-term rental (STR) market. As of December 8, 2021, there were 1319 valid
Vacation Rental Permits. Consequently, as discussed above, Council stopped the
issuance of new Vacation Rental Permits and directed staff to amend the Land Use Code
(LUC) to further regulate the STR market in Aspen.
1 Two considerations have been
central to staff’s thinking and work in response to the moratorium. First, that Aspen’s
Climate policy goals are central to our analysis of the problems and the development of
regulatory responses. Secondly, the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) remains as
the City’s primary guidance and vision as we work towards solutions to the issues
identified in Ordinance #26 and Ordinance #27. These two policy frameworks form the
basis for staff’s work under the moratorium to date.
Staff and Council have been working together since the fall of 2019 to better understand
the STR market. The finance department instituted the MuniRevs STR management
system. Permitting and tax compliance increased as a result, and the City has developed
1 It should be noted that the City previously referred to the market and permits as “Vacation Rentals.” The
currently accepted term is Short Term Rental (STR). This memo will refer to the program as STRs.
190
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 2 of 15
a new and useful data set around the location, extent, and compliance of STRs. This
data has informed Council work sessions around the topic of STRs and assisted staff in
more effectively enforcing permitting and tax regulations.
On November 16, 2021, staff presented to Council, in a work session, about next steps
for exploring further regulations of STRs. At that meeting, Council directed staff to pursue
further regulations, specifically looking at the number and location, good neighbor and
nuisance policies, permitting, financial compliance, fees, and enforcement. Following that
work session and the adoption of Ordinance #26, staff has conducted analysis,
stakeholder and community engagement, and contracted with consultants to assist in the
development of regulations for Council consideration.
To support the development of new regulations, staff has met bi-weekly since February
with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to shape staff’s thinking and develop specific
responses to elements of the STR regulations. Staff would like to extend our sincere
gratitude to the TAC members who have been essential to this process to date:
Donnie Lee, Gant Aspen Wendalin Whitman, Whitman Properties
Tricia McIntyre, Aspen Luxury Vacation Rentals Joshua Landis, Aspen Real Estate
Joy Stryker, Resident Ben Wolff, Frias Properties
Valerie Forbes, Sotheby’s Realty Alain Sunier, Resident
John Corcoran, Aspen Alps Tracy Sutton, Aspen Signature Properties
Michael Miracle, Aspen Skiing Company Ginna Gordon, APD
The public engagement process has leveraged the community to inform the development
of regulations. Community engagement has included online surveys, an open house,
focus group meetings, one-on-one interviews, and public meetings. Included as Exhibit
B is the public engagement summary describing the results of the STR public
engagement process. Staff work has relied heavily on input gleaned from the
engagement process to develop our work product. Staff presented the engagement
summary to Council in a work session on May 9th. The STR engagement summary is
included as Exhibit B.
Process & Review Criteria
There are a number of steps prescribed in the LUC for amending the Code. The STR
amendments were initiated by City Council in the language of Ordinance 27 and
Ordinance 6. The LUC requires approval of a policy resolution to initiate the formal
amendment process. That resolution was passed unanimously by Council on March 22,
2022. It includes extensive AACP citations which form the policy basis for the draft
amendments developed by staff. The policy resolution in included as Exhibit C.
The LUC further requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission serve as an advisory
body for City Council, reviewing and commenting on LUC changes before they are
presented to Council. Ordinance #09 was presented to the Commission on May 17
th.
Commission members made comments and a recommendation, summarized later in this
memo.
191
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 3 of 15
When reviewing LUC amendments, there are three review criteria to guide Council’s
consideration. The following Review Criteria apply to all Amendments to the text of the
Land Use Code:
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A.Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
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.
C.Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City
and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
The draft ordinance was developed in close consultation with industry-leading planning
and legal consultants. Economic Planning Systems (EPS) led the fee study and
recommended the fee and tax approach for the regulations based on extensive local
analysis and national experience. Design Workshop reviewed the ordinance for best
practices alignment, clarity, legal justification, and coordination with other chapters of the
LUC and city policy. White & Smith, LLC reviewed the ordinance for legal sufficiency,
coordination with other LUC chapters, and best practices alignment. Each has assisted
several other communities in the development of STR regulations and brought significant
relevant experience and expertise to bear.
These industry leading professionals have determined that the draft ordinance is not in
conflict with applicable portions of the Land Use Code. They have also determined that
the draft ordinance meets the criteria in B – that is a measured, appropriate response to
Council’s mandate and supports adopted City policy. Staff finds that the proposed
regulations will support community character as articulated in the AACP and by Council.
It is for Council to decide whether each of the review criteria is met by the draft ordinance.
Staff finds that all review criteria are met.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At the meeting on May 17th, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
recommended that City Council approve Ordinance #09. The commission included in
their motion recommendations that Council include a greater focus on visitor education
as a means to support city policies and reinforce community culture. The motion also
included a recommendation to ensure that the whole of the lodging sector, including STRs
and traditional lodging, commit to a greater focus on environmental stewardship as an
essential element of Aspen culture and policy.
For example, the Commission suggested leveraging in-unit messaging to deliver
environmental stewardship messages. The Commission also discussed requiring that
visitor accommodations be held to higher standards for solid waste management and
192
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 4 of 15
reduce resource consumption among guests. Staff supports the Commission’s
recommendations and, with Council direction, will ensure that the in-unit messaging
requirements for STRs include strong environmental messages and information. Staff
would require additional direction from Council on how to respond to the Commission’s
recommendations as they relate to the large lodging industry.
In their presentation, staff highlighted Council’s stated policy objectives for the code
amendments and described the process to develop the regulations. The packet and
discussion included the findings of the Case Studies Report to support discussion about
best practices. Staff presented the complete ordinance, walking the commissioners
through how the regulations and STR program would work. The Commission members
asked a range of questions, seeking clarity on how elements of the permitting, cap, and
non-transferability system would work. No follow-up information was requested by the
Commission.
ORDINANCE OVERVIEW:
The following discussion mirrors the format of Ordinance #09, providing a description of
the contents of each section and commentary about their effect.
Section 1 – Definitions
Part 100 of the LUC contains defined terms for the contents of the LUC. When amending
or adding to the LUC, it is important to make sure that defined terms reflect the language
and intent of the code and assist users in understanding the meaning behind terms and
code language.
Ordinance #09 would remove obsolete terms (“Motel” and “Vacation Rental”). It would
clean-up the definition of “Hotel” by referring to the Use Categories later in Part 100. Most
importantly, the proposed changes introduce new terms to support the new STR
regulations. Those new definitions are self-explanatory by the language in the ordinance.
Adding them to the code ensures that the new regulations are enforceable and
comprehensible.
Section 2 – Grandpersoning
To ensure the orderly management of current permits and the roll-out of the new permit
system for 2023, valid 2021 permits which were extended to September 30, 2022, by
Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, would be further extended to December 31, 2022. On
the October 1st, staff expects some new permit applications to come in for those permit
types exempted from caps (STR-OO and STR-C in commercial and lodge zones). But
the bulk of the permitting work will be at the end of the year. This time is important to
afford staff and the industry time to learn how to work under the new rules.
On January 1, 2023, the new ‘permit year’ would begin and new regulations would take
effect. This approach will allow for staff to continue to develop the STR program to
manage the new regulations. It will also create predictability for STR owners and
operators about their ability to book their unit under their current permit and their eligibility
for a 2023 permit when the new regulations take effect.
193
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 5 of 15
Section 3 – Old Regulations
This section of the Ordinance would remove the current STR regulations from their
location in the LUC. Presently, the STR regulations are nested under “Miscellaneous
Regulations”. That may have been appropriate when the regulations were short and
relatively minor in the impact. The new regulations are extensive and will need to be easy
to locate for hundreds of operators, owners, and residents. So, they are being relocated
to their own chapter in Part 500 – 26.530, which is presently a vacant chapter.
Section 4 – New Regulations
This section formally places the new regulations in Chapter 26.530. The ordinance is
formatted to include the entirety of the new regulations as they will appear in the LUC.
The chapter is divided into sections (010 – 080). Each section contains elements of the
new regulations as identified in the table on contents below the Chapter title.
26.530.010 – Purpose
The purpose statement describes for the user the justification for the regulations, their
relationship to City policy and existing community conditions, and statements about the
STR market generally.
26.530.020 – Applicability
Applicability simply states for the user to what activities or land uses the regulations apply.
26.530.030 – Permitting Requirements
Central to the system of regulating STRs is the new process for permitting this use in the
community. Permits are a tool for the City to govern how, where, when, and by whom
STRs operate in the community. This section sets standards by which all STRs must
operate. Should an STR not follow those regulations, permits provide the City with a tool
to force compliance or restrict one’s right to operate an STR by revoking the permit. All
of this is described in subsequent sections of the ordinance.
STR permits may only be issued to a natural person, not an LLC or other ownership entity.
This is a departure from the current system, where LLCs can hold permits. This change
responds to input from Council and the TAC about the need for greater accountability in
the STR system. Staff recognizes many properties are owned by LLCs. In those
circumstances, the LLC must name a principal or manager or member of the LLC, which
has been defined in Ordinance #9 as the ‘qualified owner’s agent, to be the accountable
agent.
The revised permit application will collect significantly more data on STRs. Permit
numbers will be used to track all STRs in the community. The number will be tied to the
property address and Pitkin County Assessor parcel ID. The permit will collect unit size,
bedroom count, and occupancy data. Tax filings will collect nights rented and average
daily rate. Some of this data will be stored in a GIS mapping database and be open to
the public. This system will improve enforcement and increase accountability for owners
and guests.
194
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 6 of 15
Permits, “Grandpersoning”, & Non-Transferability
City Council directed staff to reduce the number of permits in town below the existing
number of approximately 1,300. To do so, they established caps on permits in residential
zones. (This is further explained later in the memo.) The caps means that there is likely
more demand for permits than there is supply. That means a system must be devised to
fairly allocate the limited supply.
There are two primary ways communities manage the number of STR permits. The first
is running a lottery to distribute permits to applicants. The other (which staff is
recommending the City of Aspen adopt) is to grandperson (the City is pushing back
against historically patriarchal terms by embracing “grandperson” to replace
“grandfather”) existing permits, allowing current permittees to maintain their permits until
they are abandoned or revoked. Permits may be voluntarily abandoned because a
permittee no longer wishes to operate an STR. A waitlist will be maintained for those who
wish to apply for an STR permit but who do not currently have one.
Permits also contain non-transferability clauses, whereby they may not be transferred to
a new owner when a property sells or from one residential address to other. Permits may
be revoked for non-compliance with the new STR regulations. The new regulations also
include a requirement that a permit be “used” annually. Use is measured by non-zero tax
filings. A year’s worth of zero tax filings will result in revocation of an STR-C permit. As
there is no cap on STR-OO and STR-LE permits, this regulation does not apply to those
types. In any of these scenarios, the number of permits will decrease over time,
eventually reaching the capped number. Once the number dips below the cap, the next
applicant on the waitlist will be able to obtain a permit. In this way, the permitting system
is the lynchpin of the larger regulatory scheme desired by Council.
Permit Types
Council directed staff to develop a three-permit system to distinguish between different
STR types in the community. The permit types are outlined below, along with summaries
of the regulations that apply to each. The three permit types recognize fundamental
differences between the operations, value, and impacts of the different types of STRs on
the community.
1) “Classic” Short-term Rental (STR-C)
Short-Term Rental Permit
Regulation Policy Outcome
No residency requirement available for vacant residential properties
Capped in residential zones limit extent and impacts in neighborhoods
No cap in commercial/lodge zones allow lodging where appropriate/existing
No annual rental night limit act as lodging, support bed base
Life-safety compliance guest safety
Operational standards support community, reduce impacts
AH and Admin Permit Fees higher than STR-OO; mitigate impacts & costs
195
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 7 of 15
The STR-C is intended for properties that serve primarily as lodging and secondarily as
a part-time residence home for the owner. The STR-C is limited in number in residential
zone districts throughout town (see Exhibit C), but it can operate as an STR for an
unlimited number of days per year. These regulations are in recognition of the fact that
these homes, without an STR permit, would not function as community housing. They
are vacation homes. The STR-C permit allows them to supplement the lodging bed base
when not occupied by an owner. The permit fee for these units would be higher than
other permit types.
Depending on location, the STR-C can be the most impactful in terms of community
infrastructure and neighborhood character, as they are disbursed throughout the
community. To mitigate these impacts and manage the use throughout town, the number
of permits would be capped in residential zones. The permit system, enforcement regime,
and operational standards would increase accountability for owners and managers to
ensure their property and guests support neighborhood character and reduce and
mitigate community impacts. Preliminary estimates from the fee study consultants are
that the permit fee would be sufficiently large enough to cover program administration
costs and support expanded infrastructure to better serve STRs and the community.
Compared to the current regulations, STR-C permitted properties would be subject to
expanded life-safety requirements, inspections at the time of permit and as needed
thereafter, and enforcement for compliance with life-safety, occupancy, nuisance, and
good neighbor regulations.
2) Owner-Occupied Short-term Rental Permit (STR-OO)
Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rental Permit
Regulation Policy Outcome
Primary residency requirement support residents who want to short-term
No cap in residential zones use exists throughout community
No cap in commercial/lodge zones use exists throughout community
90-day/year rental night limit primary use is residential, STR secondary
Life-safety compliance guest safety
Operational standards support community, reduce impacts
AH and Admin Permit Fees lower than STR-C; lower impacts than STR-C
The STR-OO is designed to balance community housing and neighborhood character
goals with the desire or need of some primary residents to rent their homes on a short-
term basis. Owner-occupied housing units are community housing first, and short-terms
rentals that supplement the lodging bed base second.
Community engagement has demonstrated that primary residents who short-term do so
occasionally, for perhaps 30 days each in the winter and summer seasons. As such staff
has recommended an annual rental night limit of 90 days per permit year. Owner-
occupants who wish to short-term their properties in excess of the annual rental nights
limit (90 days) can do so by applying for an STR-C permit, described above.
196
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 8 of 15
STR-OO permit holders would be subject to the same life-safety, occupancy, operational,
and enforcement standards as the STR-C permits. In addition to those regulations, STR-
OO permit holders would be required to verify their use of the residence at the permitted
location as their primary residence each year at permit renewal. Preliminary analysis by
the fee study consultants indicates the STR-OO permit fee would be lower than the STR-
C permit fee in acknowledgement of their primary use as a residence and their lower
community impacts.
3) Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental Permit (STR-LE)
Lodging Exempt Short-Term Rental Permit
Regulation Policy Outcome
Meets definition of Lodge support existing/traditional lodging
No residency requirement owner/operator maintain historical use pattern
No zoning caps support existing/traditional lodging
No rental night limit owner/operator maintain historical use pattern
Existing lodge life-safety standards properties already comply with comm. standards
Lodge Operational standards support community, reduce impacts
Batch tax and license filings ease administrative burden
Admin Permit Fee align with admin. costs and community impacts
Lodge Exempt Short-term Rentals (STR-LE) are tailored to specific properties with
condominiumized, individually owned units, which also meet the definition of “Lodge” in
the Land Use Code. Lodges are required to have centralized, 24-hour on-site
management, a variety of amenities for guests, and be purposely built for making
transient lodging available to the general public for a fee. This permit would not apply to
residential multi-family properties that do not meet that definition.
Lodging properties already comply with stricter commercial-style life-safety, occupancy,
and operational standards. So, the new STR-C and STR-OO regulations and processes
would not apply to these properties. One permit would cover each applicable lodge
property, regardless of the number of units on site. STR-LE properties would be permitted
to batch-file tax remittances. There would be no cap on the number of STR-LE permits,
as the number of eligible properties in the community serves as the natural cap.
Zoning Limitations
While permitting limits who can operate an STR, zoning limits where they can be located.
Council has directed staff to develop caps on the number of permits that can be located
in residential zone districts. This approach was also favored by members of the TAC as
an effective and defensible means of limiting the number of, and impacts from STRs.
Several peer communities around the West have adopted caps as a means to limit the
location and intensity of STRs in neighborhoods.
Staff presented different scenarios to Council, from 100% of existing permits in each
residential zone down to 25% (a 75% reduction) of existing permits. That analysis is
included as a table in Exhibit C and a series of maps in Exhibit D. In their May 2nd work
session, Council settled on capping STR permits in residential zones at 75% of existing.
The specific location of STRs in each residential zone district will not be regulated. With
197
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 9 of 15
the grandpersoning of existing permits, all those existing STRs will be allowed to remain.
As permits are abandoned or revoked, the total number of each zone will be reduced until
the cap is met. Once the number of permits dips below the cap, the next applicant on the
waitlist can apply for the permit.
The TAC helped staff and Council understand the difference between disbursed STRs in
neighborhoods throughout town and those concentrated in commercial and lodging
areas. Disbursed STRs have very different impacts than those concentrated in our
commercial and lodge zone districts, requiring more vehicle trips and parking,
accommodating larger parties, not utilizing public transit, often requiring more service
providers, and demanding higher utility service requirements for larger homes and lots.
Those STRs located downtown are close to goods and services, are proximate to transit
routes, and adjacent to recreation infrastructure and other amenities. As a result, their
impacts are less.
To acknowledge this disparity and the important role STRs in and around the commercial
core play in supporting the tourist economy, Council has supported exempting STRs in
the Commercial, Commercial Core, Lodge, and Commercial Lodge zones from STR
permit caps. Exhibit E includes a chart showing the number of STRs in these zones as
compared to residential zones, and it shows an analysis of the proportion of condo-hotels
to private STRs in those zones.
Recognizing that owner-occupied housing may occur almost anywhere in town, STR-OO
is exempted from zoning caps. Similarly, STR-LE is not limited by zoning. The only limit
to the number and location of both STR types is the criteria for obtaining one of the permits
in the first place.
26.530.040 - Permit Procedures and Standards
In addition to the requirements of zoning, that it is an allowed use and complies with the
cap for the zone, STR permit applications must comply with other standards to ensure
they are safe, accountable, and mitigate their costs and impacts to the community.
Currently, City STR permits are free. This is despite the significant administrative
requirements of managing the program’s permitting, licensing, and enforcement
functions. With new regulations, that administrative obligation, and the costs associated
with it, will increase. Staff worked with consultants, EPS to identify an appropriately
scaled annual permit fee for all three permit types. There will be a different permit fee for
each STR type for both affordable housing and administrative costs, commensurate with
their impacts. This is further explained in Section 26.530.070 – Fees, below.
Many communities require neighborhood noticing for new STR permit applications.
Similar to the noticing required for land use applications, these notices would inform
neighbors of a pending STR application and afford them the opportunity to comment to
City staff. This increases accountability for STR owners and operators. It also recognizes
the potential impacts of STRs in neighborhoods and creates a more open process for
neighbors of STRs.
198
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 10 of 15
The waitlist for vacant permits in a given zone district is an important tool to support the
limited permit model. Once the grandpersoning of existing permits has taken place, the
process of attrition (through abandonment and revocation) will unfold over time. At some
point, the number of active permits in a zone will dip below the cap. At that point, a waitlist
is the fairest way to make that permit available to property owners.
26.530.050 - Occupancy and Operational Standards
Occupancy limits are a means to support complimentary STR policy objectives. Limiting
the number of guests in an STR supports life-safety protection by ensuring there are not
an unsafe number of people staying in an STR. It also reduces the likelihood of an STR
creating nuisances for adjacent properties and neighborhoods. Occupancy limits also
create more parity between STRs and traditional lodging, which has unit and building
occupancy limits already established. For Aspen’s new regulations, staff has
recommended to Council that the occupancy limit be two guests per bedroom plus one
additional guest. A studio unit is considered a one bedroom for calculating occupancy
limits.
Research into comparable communities found that industry standard for destination
communities is between two per bedroom and two per bedroom plus two additional
guests. There are compelling arguments for why plus two additional guests makes more
practical sense and responds to market realities. Specifically, that a unit with a sleeper
sofa could reasonably accommodate two additional guests. And it is likely that that
additional guest would come anyway.
A change from the old regulations is that bedrooms or portions of houses may be rented
as an STR, with the proper permitting. The current regulations do not allow this. The
rationale behind this change is three-fold. First, like the occupancy limit discussion, there
are already portions of houses listed as STRs. This change recognizes how the market
already functions. Second, with the goal of ensuring STRs support a diverse lodging bed
base, allowing bedrooms or internal lock-offs in houses may support bringing to market
smaller sized and mid-priced STRs. Finally, the significantly expanded regulations for all
STRs ensures that they operate safely and above board, no matter the unit type. Staff
anticipates this scenario would apply primarily to STR-OO permits, as STR-C permits will
most frequently be issued to vacant properties.
Good Neighbor Policies
One of the most common and significant complaints from residents about STRs is that
the units and their occupants sometimes fail to follow local laws and act as good
neighbors in residential neighborhoods. In response, staff will develop a Good Neighbor
Guide which all STR operators must make available in their units to all guests. This guide
will include material from the Aspen Resort Chamber Association (ACRA), including their
“How to Aspen” campaign materials, which are designed to help visitors reinforce local
culture and customs and ‘be better tourists’.
199
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 11 of 15
The Good Neighbor Guide will also outline noise, wildlife, trash, and nuisance regulations
to which all guests must adhere to. In addition to these materials, in-unit messages about
life-safety, public safety and health, emergency preparedness and contact information,
will be designed to help guests stay safe and be good neighbors during their stay. The
Good Neighbor Guide and related in-unit materials will be developed by staff, in
partnership with ACRA and other entities, later this year as the larger STR management
program is developed and introduced.
26.530.060 - Enforcement
The current enforcement system is complaint-based. Currently, City staff do not actively
enforce STR regulations or violations of the municipal code from STRs. With the
expanded regulations, it will be necessary to engage in more active enforcement. A key
element of this will be unit inspections. New STR permits will require an inspection for
compliance with life-safety and other regulations. Inspections may be conducted by city
staff thereafter to ensure ongoing compliance. The new regulations will also include a
fine schedule and enforcement procedures specific to STRs. The new regulations include
a “three-strikes” rule, where three enforcement actions against a permitted STR would
result in permit revocation.
26.530.070 - Fees
Currently there is no permit fee assessed on STRs. This is despite their significant
economic value and the cost associated with the level of service and infrastructure from
public agencies to service them. Visitors to STRs spend money in Aspen, and in turn that
creates jobs which propels the need for affordable housing. To recover these costs,
mitigate the risk of losing labor supply due to lack of affordable housing, align with industry
best practices, and continue to sustain and support the tourism economy, Council
directed staff to propose a permit fee for STRs under the new regulations.
A key element of the three-permit system are fees for each permit type which recognizes
their differing impacts and costs to the community. Staff has worked with EPS to complete
a fee nexus study for STRs. EPS modeled two fees to recover affordable housing and
administration costs generated by STR visitors and program administration. A draft of the
report is included as Exhibit D, STR Fee Technical Memo.
The affordable housing fee accounts for the number of jobs generated by STR activity in
Aspen. The vast majority of jobs created by the services that support STRs in Aspen are
at a wage level that do not support the ability to pay free market housing prices. The
housing fee is intended to cover the gap between what the employees who service the
STR industry in Aspen can afford and the cost to provide affordable housing for those
individuals. Two additional factors in the model account for the possibility that a home
used as an STR could be occupied by a local resident for a portion of the year. The fee
also accounts for the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local
economy and the baseline impact of local resident spending, which is accounted for in
the STR-OO model.
200
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 12 of 15
The proposed fee framework for STRs includes an administrative fee and an affordable
housing fee. The approach is similar to that being developed by EPS in Breckenridge
and Vail to respond to their community dynamics around STRs. These fees would be
assessed annually on STRs according to the table below.
Annual Housing Mitigation Fee per Bedroom
100% Mitigation:65% Mitigation:30% Mitigation:
STR-Classic:$5,139 $3,080 $1,540
STR-Owner-occupied:$3,763 $1,510 $750
STR-Lodging Exempt:NA NA NA
Table 1: Proposed Housing Mitigation Fee
Annual STR Administration Fees per Permit
STR-Classic:$268
STR-Owner-occupied:$268
STR-Lodging Exempt:$204
Table 2: Administration Fees
Methodology
The draft report includes a detailed description of the methodology and EPS’s
recommendations. The housing fee nexus study used the IMPLAN model (Impact
Analysis for Planning), a jobs-housing impact model, to quantify the relationship between
guest spending in Aspen while staying in STRs to the number of jobs generated and the
resulting number of employee-households supported by jobs generated. Data for the
model was collected from AirDNA, a platform and resource for STR research, the Aspen
Lodging Guest Survey performed by RRC Associates from 2014 – 2016, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census, and the 2019 Aspen Community Survey Results
performed by EPS and RRC Associates.
The model analyzes data points including the average daily expenditures of guests in
Aspen, $1,337 per day, a job multiplier of 1.4 jobs per employee in the City, wages by
occupation, an occupancy rate of 37.7% per STR annually, and Area Median Income.
The output is a fee that will cover the difference in affordable housing costs for those
employees that service the STR industry per STR bedroom. Bedroom is the unit of
measure, as the number of bedrooms in an STR translates into the number of occupants
and their resulting economic impact and job generating activities. This annualized fee per
STR-C bedroom is $5,139. This is the maximum recommended fee to be charged by the
city.
STR-OO modeling produces a different nexus fee based on the distinction that a STR-
OO is limited to 90 annual rental days and runs at a lower occupancy rate of 24.7%. The
guest spending profile is also lower because there is a local resident spending factor that
is netted out of the guest spending impact. The result is a maximum annual housing fee
of $3,763. STR-LE will not be charged a housing fee as these units are traditional lodging
not residential units acting as lodging. They are subject to greater impact mitigation tied
201
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 13 of 15
to development activity, and have fundamentally different occupancy, operational, and
impact profiles than disbursed, residential STRs.
Question for Council
What should the mitigation rate and resulting affordable housing fee be for STR-C and
STR-OO?
Staff requests Council direction as to the percentage of housing mitigation to assess
annually on STR-C and STR-OO. While the development of job generation rates has
certain requirements and standards, legislators can choose to modulate the impact fee
by reducing the mitigation rate for an impact fee below 100%. The City has done this for
decades with affordable housing inclusionary requirements and impact fees. Currently,
the residential mitigation rate for new construction is 30%. The commercial and lodge
rate is 65%.
Staff recommends using the mitigation rate to modulate the impact fee below 100%. The
EPS report includes analysis showing the annual employee housing fee for STRs at 30%
and 65%. Staff recommends Council consider these two rates and direct staff to include
a rate below 100% in the ordinance for second reading.
The second fee (Table 2 above) is the annual fee per STR that will cover program
administration costs. This fee was calculated by combining the costs of departments by
FTE to support the administration of the program, inspection of STRs, enforcement,
finance, and legal components. Lodge properties do not take the same amount of staff
resources that a single residential STR unit takes due to the nature of a commerical
property having on site resources such as front desk management, security, and general
manager, producing a lower fee. STR-LE administration fees are proposed to be $204
per unit. STR-C and STR-OO administration fees will be $268 per unit.
Together, the housing and administration fee are intended to cover the annualized cost
of providing both housing to the local workforce supported by guest spending and the
cost to administer the STR program by the City. City staff and EPS have accounted for
the three STR types and how different fees should be applied based on their impacts.
Tables 3 and 4 below show the annual cost for different STR types at different example
unit sizes. Table 5 is an estimate of the STR-C revenue under a 100% fee scenario. It
is not possible at this time to estimate revenue from STR-OO and STR-LE, because we
do not have reliable data on the number STR-OO units that currently exist, nor do we
know how many lodge properties would qualify and apply for STR-LE permits.
202
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 14 of 15
Annual AH Permit Cost STR-C
Size of Unit:
100%
Mitigation:
65%
Mitigation:
30%
Mitigation:
Studio/ 1bd:$5,139 $3,080 $1,540
2.48 bd*:$12,745 $7,638 $3,819
5 bd:$25,695 $15,400 $7,700
*Current average number of bedrooms per STR
Table 3: Permit Cost for STR-C
Annual AH Permit Cost STR-OO
Size of Unit:
100%
Mitigation:
65%
Mitigation:
30%
Mitigation:
Studio/ 1bd:$3,763 $1,510 $750
2.48 bd*:$9,332 $3,745 $1,860
5 bd:$18,815 $7,550 $3,750
*Current average number of bedrooms per STR
Table 4: Permit Cost for STR-OO
Estimated Average Annual Revenue from STR-C*
100%
Mitigation:
65%
Mitigation:
30%
Mitigation:
2.48 bd:$8,487,984 $5,087,174 $2,543,587
*Estimated number of permitted STR-Cs under Ord. #09 is 666
Table 5: Total Annual Revenue
It is valuable to put the fee numbers into context. The estimated cost to build a one-
bedroom deed restricted AH unit is approximately $1,000,000. To put it another way,
affordable housing units cost approximately $611,000 per FTE, based on the last fee in
lieu study. While the permit fee revenue projections are significant in size, in staff’s
estimation, they are commensurate with the City’s ongoing affordable housing needs and
costs. Likewise, EPS’s modeling strongly supports the fees are proportional to their
economic and housing impacts. Staff recognizes Council may desire to modulate those
fees to ensure their defensibility and alignment with Council goals and City policies.
Should Council desire a mitigation rate below 100% of the fee amount, staff recommends
using the 30% to 65% range.
Staff recommends Council adopt both the administrative and affordable housing fee in
Ordinance #09, but that the affordable housing fee include a lower mitigation rate for the
AH fee at Council’s discretion.
26.530.080 - Appeals
203
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 15 of 15
Permittees of STRs will have the opportunity to appeal any decisions made by the
Community Development Director in the enforcement of Section 26.530.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
The discussion around STRs as an industry and its relationship to community character
and economy has been underway for several years. Since the adoption of MuniRevs and
increased regulatory and financial scrutiny of the STR industry in Aspen, the City has
learned more about the extent of the industry and its impacts, positive and negative, on
the community. In response to this increased understanding, Council acted decisively
last December to freeze the number of STR permits and to allow for a comprehensive
rewrite of STR regulations. The data collected about Aspen’s STR industry over the last
two years, and the extensive research and engagement conducted by staff in 2022 is a
direct response to Council’s mandate to more thoughtfully and precisely manage STRs.
In this way, Ordinance #09 is the conclusion of a process longer and more in-depth than
the moratorium itself.
The adoption of Ordinance #09 will also mark the beginning of the process of building a
program within Community Development and Finance to manage STRs in accordance
with the new regulations. The extension of 2021 permits past the September 30, 2022,
deadline to December 31, 2022, will provide STR owners, operators, and staff the time
necessary to understand who to work with and administer the new regulations. It will also
support market predictability for STR owners, managers, and potential occupants.
City staff has begun the hiring process to fill the new STR staff position authorized by
Council in the spring supplementals. That individual will take the framework of the
ordinance and guidelines and build it into a program in time to begin issuing 2023 permits.
Prior to the September 30th deadline, the STR program manager will also bring the STR
Program Guidelines to Council for adoption via resolution.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:N/A.
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance #9, Series
of 2022, on first reading with a determination of a proposed affordable housing fee as
Council deems appropriate and that the matter be placed on the agenda for the second
reading public hearing on June 28
th.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit B – STR Engagement Summary
Exhibit C – Resolution #043, Series of 2020 – Moratorium Policy Resolution
Exhibit D – EPS Nexus Study Report
204
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09
(Series of 2022)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE VACATION RENTAL REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the “City”) is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq.of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, §§29-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen is a tourists destination, attracting tens of thousands of visitors a year
in all seasons, visitors which require transient tourist accommodations and participate in and
support Aspen’s tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a variety of tourist accommodations at varied sizes, quality, and price points
is essential to supporting the City’s tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS,a tourist-based economy such as the City’s requires a sufficient number of
employees to provide the services required to serve such an economy. Without adequate
workforce housing, a tourist-based economy cannot thrive; and,
WHEREAS,to allow for a sufficient number of employees to be hired to provide the
services necessary to sustain a tourist-based economy there must be an adequate supply of
workforce housing; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the long-term rental of residential property, or at least the
long-term rental of space within a residential property, has been an important means for
providing workforce housing within the City; and,
WHEREAS,in addition to the required workforce housing, it is also essential to the
continued vitality of the City’s economy that adequate short-term housing be made available to
the many tourists who visit the City each year; and,
WHEREAS,short-term rentals are extremely valuable to the City’s economy and exist
in various locations throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS,the operation of a short-term rental in the City is the operation of a
business; and,
205
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
2
WHEREAS,without regulations and limitations on their operation and extent, short-
term rentals also have adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods and the
availability of long-term housing options; and,
WHEREAS, tourist’s visitation, the operation of tourist accommodations, the goods
and services demanded by tourists, and the transportation systems required to move tourist to
and throughout the community have environmental impacts, measured as Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and,
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to preserve
small town character while maintaining livability, the City desires to minimize the negative
impacts of short-term rentals on Aspen’s neighborhoods, housing supply, economy, and
environment; and,
WHEREAS, during the moratorium, adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2021, City
staff engaged in a robust public engagement process which included two online surveys
regarding community perception of short-term rentals and feelings toward specific regulations;
an open house at City Hall which included story boards and an opportunity for feedback; a public
work session to discuss the online survey results and expand further into certain topic areas;
and research into how other municipalities in Colorado regulateshort-termrentals;and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission received and considered the
information gathered through the public engagement process, as well as comments from the
public,during a Meeting held on May 17
th, 2022, and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 to City Council; and,
WHEREAS,on December 12, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of
2021 enacting a temporary moratorium in the issuance of new short-term rental permits until
September 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on May 24, 2022, City Council by a __ – __ (_-_) vote,
approved Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, approving at First Reading a Code Amendment to
Vacation Rental Regulations; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Section 26.104.100 “Definitions shall” be amended as follows:
Condo-hotel. A condo-hotel is a lodging property which meets the definition of Lodge in
26.104.110, Use Categories and in which ownership of individual lodge units has been
206
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
3
condominiumized in accordance with The Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-
33-101, et. seq.
Hotel.See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Motel.See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Natural Person. A living, individual human being, as distinct from a “legal person” for the
purpose of assigning certain legal rights.
Owner Occupied. A residential property that serves as the primary residence of the title owner of
the property.
Owner Occupant. For the purposes of permitting specific types of short-term rentals, owner-
occupant is a natural person whose principal residence is the City of Aspen residential property or
unit for which a short-term rental permit is sought.
Pillow. A unit of measure for assessing affordable housing generation and occupancy of lodge
rooms/units per bedroom in a short-term rental. Each lodge and short-term rental bedroom shall be
considered to have two pillows for each bedroom. For calculating occupancy in short-term rentals,
sleeper sofas, murphy beds, and similar sleeping accommodations shall be considered to have one
pillow.
Primary residence. The permanent residential address, as demonstrated by acceptable legal
documentation described in this title, of an Owner- Occupied Short-term Rental Permit holder.
Qualified Owner’s Representative. A natural person who is legally designated on the permit
application by the permittee to apply for and maintain compliance with a City of Aspen Short-term
Rental Permit. For each short-term rental property, there may be only one qualified owner’s
representative. All qualified owner’s representatives must have a business license through the City
of Aspen.
Short-term Rental (STR). The use or occupancy of a residential property or dwelling unit, in
whole or in part, by the general public for a fee, primarily for tourist accommodations, and for a
period of less than 30 days. Timeshare, hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast uses are not short-term
rental uses.
Vacation Rental. See short-term rental.
Section 2.
Valid 2021-2022 Permits. 2021 Vacation Rental Permits (2021 VRP) issued pursuant to
Section 26.575.020 “Vacation Rentals” on or prior to December 8
th, 2021, shall be deemed to be
valid 2022 STR Permits and shall be valid until December 31, 2022. Valid 2022 permits may be
renewed annually thereafter, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter until they
are abandoned or revoked in accordance with this chapter. Valid 2022 permits which are
207
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
4
renewed after December 31, 2022, may not be transferred to owners or properties other than that
listed on the 2022 STR permit. Upon renewal, 2022 STR permits issued to a corporation,
partnership, association, or company must update the permit application information to comply
with the requirements of Chapter 26.530. The number of Short-term Rental-Classic (STR-C)
permits as of January 1, 2023, may exceed the cap for zone districts, as defined in Chapter
26.530, until such time as they are revoked, abandoned, or otherwise eliminated. Owner-
occupied Short-term Rental Permits and Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental Permits may be
issued with the requirements of Chapter 26.530 beginning October 1, 2022.
Section 3.
Section 26.575.220 “Vacation Rentals” shall be deleted in its entirety.
Section 4.
Chapter 26.530 “Reserved” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Chapter 26.530
Short-term Rental Regulations
Sec. 26.530.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.530.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
Sec. 26.530.040 Permitting Procedures and Standards
Sec. 26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards
Sec. 26.530.060 Enforcement
Sec. 26.530.070 Fees
Sec. 26.530.080 Appeals
26.530.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate short-term rentals (STRs) as a land use within the City
of Aspen. STRs are an important component of the City’s lodging bed base, support a vibrant
tourist economy, and provide real property owners with STR permits significant financial benefit.
STRs influence property value and occupancy patterns of residential dwelling units. STRs
influence neighborhood character by introducing commercial lodging uses in residential
neighborhoods. STRs require services and infrastructure to operate. STRs further reduce the
potential availability of long-term rental housing to support the local economy and community.
STRs require regulation as a distinct land use to ensure the health, safety, peace, and welfare of
the community through the application of zoning police powers. The following regulations
support the operation of STRs balanced with community policies related to housing,
development, growth management, and a sustainable economy as described in the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
26.530.020 Applicability
A. This chapter applies to all STRs in the City of Aspen. STRs are required to obtain a
permit in accordance with their type and operation as defined in this section. STRs
208
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
5
operating without a permit are subject to enforcement as defined in Section 26.530.060
Enforcement.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether a principal or agent, clerk, or employee,
either for him or herself, or for any other person for anybody, corporation or otherwise, to
lease or operate a STR without first obtaining a STR permit in accordance with the
provisions and procedures of this section.
26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
A.Permits.
STRs shall require a permit to operate. Permits shall be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria:
1) Permittee. Permittees must be the property owner of the STR. The permittee is the
holder of the permit. The permittee may seek the permit, apply for the permit, and
designate a qualified owner’s representative if necessary. The permittee may be a natural
person(s), corporation, association, company, or partnership. If the permittee is a
member of a corporation, association, company, or partnership, the permit is deemed to
be held by the permittee who is a single natural person whose contact information and
relationship to the legal ownership entity are included on the permit application.
2) Permit Number.STR permits are issued a unique permit number. That permit number
shall be clearly displayed in all advertising and listings of the STR, including but not
limited to all digital and print advertising. The permit number must be listed in the STR,
along with permittee and/or qualified owner’s representative and emergency contact
information as part of the in-unit Community Messaging Program described in the STR
Program Guidelines.
3) Permit Application Contents. The following information is required for STR permit
applications: the owner(s), or if title to the subject property is held by a corporation,
partnership, association, or company, the name and contact information of any officer
director or stockholder holding ten percent (10%) or more of the interests in the
corporation, partnership, association, or company: property address, Pitkin County parcel
identification number, permittee name and contact information, qualified owner’s
representative (if applicable) name and contact information, number of bedrooms and
pillows in the unit in its largest configuration, size in heated area of the STR residence,
and all previous notices of code violations or complaints filed against the property.
4) Licensing. STRs are required to maintain a City of Aspen Business License and are
required to remit lodging and sales tax in accordance with Municipal Code regulations
and Finance department policies. The STR Program Guidelines include details about
licensing and tax compliance standards and procedures.
209
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
6
5) Non-Transferability.Commencing October 1, 2022, STR permits shall be granted only
for the property for which it is issued and solely to the applicant to which it is issued. The
permit shall not be transferable to any other person, legal entity, or residential address.
The permit is nontransferable upon sale or other transfer of ownership of the property.
Upon such transfer of ownership, the new owner of the property shall apply for a new
Short-Term Rental Permit if it wishes to continue the use of the property as a vacation
rental. The STR permit shall include a non-transferability clause and the permit shall be
revoked automatically upon the sale or change of ownership of the property for which a
permit has been issued.
B.Permit Types.
STRs shall be eligible for one of three permit types: Short-term Rental Classic, Owner-Occupied
Short-term Rental, or Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental. The eligibility, requirements, and
standards for each permit type are as follows:
1)Short-term Rental Classic (STR-C)– this permit is issued only to residential units
located in eligible zones and the approved use of which is not a Lodge use. (Condo-hotel
properties must apply for a Lodging-Exempt STR permit.)
a. STR-C permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-C permits are subject to the life-safety standards and the operational
standards described in this chapter and the STR Program Guidelines.
c. There is no annual limit on the number of nights a STR-C permittee may
operate the STR unit. Bedrooms, lock-offs, or portions of the residential
unit, in addition to the whole residential unit, may be rented. Occupancy
for the unit is limited by the standards described in Section 26.530.050.
2)Owner-occupied Short-term Rental (STR-OO)–this permit is issued only to owner-
occupied residential units, where the property is the primary residence of the permittee.
Part 700 of this Title describes the zone districts where STRs are a permitted use.
a. STR-OO rental permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an
annual permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-OO are subject to the life-safety standards for STRs described in this
chapter and the Program Guidelines, and who must have two (2) of the
following valid documents indicating that the STR is the applicant’s
primary residence:
i.valid Colorado driver’s license;
ii.valid motor vehicle registration;
iii.voter registration;
iv.Federal or state tax return; or,
v.other legal documentation deemed sufficient by the Community
Development Director which is pertinent toward establishing
principal residence.
210
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
7
3)Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental (STR-LE)– Lodges and condo-hotels which meet
the definition of Lodge are eligible for STR-LE permits.
a. For eligible properties, only one permit is required for all units under
management.
b. In addition to the limitations of the definition of Lodge and/or Condo-
hotel, Lodging Exempt eligible properties must offer STR units under a
unified brand and marketing model where individual ownership of units is
secondary to the central brand of the property.
c. Lodging Exempt permittees must submit an affidavit attesting to their
eligibility.
d. STR-LE permits must be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees. To ensure
ongoing eligibility for the STR-LE permit, permittees are subject to the
Lodging Occupancy Auditing regulations in Section 26.575.210.
C.Zoning Limitations.
STR-C permits are limited by number in residential zone districts. Refer to Part 700 of this title for
permitted uses by zone to assess where STR-Cs are permitted. In zones where STR is not a
permitted use, it is a prohibited use.
1) STR-C permits are limited by number in specific zone districts as follows:
a. RR: 2 permits;
b. R-3: 1 permit;
c. R-6: 81 permits;
d. R-15: 47 permits;
e. R-15A: 8 permits;
f. R-15B: 12 permits;
g. R-30: 1 permit;
h. R/MF: 190 permits;
i. R/MFA: 12 permits;
j. AH: 9 permits;
k. MU: 39 permits;
l. NC: 1 permit;
m. SCI: 2 permits;
n. SKI: 2 permits.
2) There is no limit to the number of STR-C permits in the following zone districts:
Commercial (C-1), Commercial Core (CC), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge
Overlay(LP), Lodge Preservation Overlay(LO).
3) STR-OO are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted use.
4) STR-LE are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted or prohibited use.
211
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
8
26.530.040 Permit Procedures and Standards.
Prior to the issuance of a STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A.Zoning Compliance.
All STR permits must comply with zoning regulations for the zone district in which they are
located. STR permit applications shall include the Parcel Identification Number and residential
address including unit number for the property to ensure compliance with underlying zoning.
Zone district STR regulations, including permitted uses and cap limitations, may change over
time per City Council action. Possession of a STR permit does not supersede compliance with
zone district STR regulations.
B.Life-safety Compliance and Inspection.
1) Required Noticing.All new STR applicants shall comply with neighborhood noticing
requirements per Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-c, Manner of Notice.
2) Inspections. By signing and submitting a STR permit application, and subsequently
being granted a permit, the owner(s) of the property shall consent to inspections of the
property by City of Aspen personnel and their agents for the purpose of determining
compliance with City Codes, Regulations and Laws. No inspection will be made without
first giving the permittee and, if applicable, the qualified owner’s representative, 48
hours’ notice of the inspection.
3) Life-Safety. STRs are required to comply with all applicable life-safety standards in
Municipal Code Title 8 and the STR Program Guidelines, as amended from time to time.
Life-safety standards including: fire suppression, occupancy limitations, mechanical
codes, emergency contacts and procedures, and inspections.
C.Qualified Owner’s Representative.
STR permits may only be issued to a natural person, who is the owner or member of a
corporation or association which is the owner of the property for which the permit is sought.
Permittees who cannot meet requirement for regulatory compliance, in-person service,
emergency response and other regulations in this title may designate a qualified owner’s
representative. A qualified owner’s representative shall be a natural person residing in the
Roaring Fork River Drainage area situated in Eagle, Pitkin Garfield or Gunnison Counties, or
within the Colorado River Drainage area from and including the unincorporated No Name area to
and including Rifle. The qualified owner’s representative is designated by the property owner as
the point of contact for the permitted STR. For permittees that designate a qualified owner’s
representative, the qualified owner’s representative shall be responsible for responding to tenant
and City inquiries, complaints, enforcement actions, and other on-site needs.
1)If a qualified owner’s representative is designated for a STR, the qualified owner’s
representative must have a City of Aspen business license. The qualified owner’s
representative shall be listed on the STR permit for the property including the qualified
212
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
9
owner’s representative’s name, entity or company name, telephone number, email
address, and physical address.
2)STR permittees who designate a qualified owner’s representative are liable for
compliance with applicable Land Use Code and Municipal Code regulations. The
qualified owner’s representative is not legally liable for violations of this section or
compliance with applicable Municipal Code regulations but is responsible for notifying
the permittee when a violation has occurred.
3)The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the qualified owner’s representative, as
shown on the STR permit, shall be made available to the Community Development
Department, the Aspen Police Department, and the Aspen Fire Protection District. Any
change to the qualified owner’s representative or permittees’ contact information shall be
promptly furnished to the City of Aspen via a revised STR permit application within ten
(10) days.Failure of the permittee to provide or update the qualified owner’s
representative contact information to the City shall constitute an enforcement violation
subject to actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement.
4)The permittee, or if designated, the qualified owner’s representative, shall be available 24
hours a day, year-round to ensure that the property is maintained and operated as required
by Land Use Code standards and the STR Program Guidelines. The permittee, or if
designated, the qualified owner’s representative, shall respond to service or compliance
inquiries from occupants and City officials, and shall be available to be at the property
within two (2) hours in an emergency. Failure of the permittee, or if designated, the
qualified owner’s representative, to respond to a call from a tenant or the Community
Development Director within 24 hours shall result in an enforcement violation subject to
actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement against the
permittee.
D.Permit Application, Fees, Issuance, Renewal, Revocation, and Abandonment.
1) Application.Permit applications shall be received and processed on a first come, first
served basis. The Community Development Director shall deem applications complete
based on the requirements of this Chapter and the standards in the STR Program
Guidelines. Only complete STR permit applications shall be accepted and reviewed.
2) Fee Payment. Permit fees shall be remitted at the time of permit application and cover the
cost of processing the application. Should a permit application be denied, the City shall
retain a $200 processing fee and refund the difference to the applicant.
3) Neighborhood Noticing. Upon application for a new STR-C or STR-OO permit, the
applicant shall provide neighborhood noticing in accordance with Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-
c.Manner of Notice. Permit renewals do not require neighborhood noticing. Permits shall
be approved, approved with conditions, or denied following the notice period. STR-LE are
exempt from this provision.
213
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
10
4) HOA Compliance.Permit applications for residential properties which are in a
Homeowners Association (HOA) must include HOA approval for the applicant to operate a
STR in the form of a signed letter, including telephone and email contact information for
the HOA, with the permit application.
5) Issuance. Permits shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within 21
working days of the closure of the notice period described above. The Community
Development Director may issue permits with conditions based on review of the permit
application and public comment. The review and issuance period for individual permit
applications maybe extended at the direction of the Community Development Director.
6) Waitlist.Once the permit limit is reached for each zone district, applicants will be placed
on a waitlist for the next available permit in the order in which the application was received.
A waitlist applicant shall be a natural person. The residential address included in the
waitlist application must match the residential address for which the subsequent permit is
issued. Applicants who sell the property for which the permit is sought shall be removed
from the waitlist. As permits become available, waitlist applications shall be reviewed and
approved, approved with conditions, or denied. If the property has been found in violation
of this Chapter during the waitlist period, the application shall be denied.
7) Renewal. STR permits shall be renewed annually in accordance with the procedures in the
STR Program Guidelines. Failure to renew a permit within fourteen days (14) of the permit
expiration date shall result in the abandonment of the permit.
8) Tax Filing.STRs must be occupied by a short-term renter a minimum of once per year,
as shown in tax filings to be eligible for renewal. Permits with one year of zero tax
filings from the date of permit issuance or renewal will be considered abandoned and be
processed in accordance with the standards in this chapter.
9) Abandonment. STR-C and STR-OO permits shall be valid for one year from the date of
issuance and shall be renewed annually. Failure to renew a permit in accordance with the
STR Program Guidelines will result in the abandonment of the permit. STR permits may
be abandoned by permittees at any time by notifying the Community Development Director
of the intent to abandon the permit. Abandoned permits will be made available to the next
applicant on a first-come, first-served basis or the next applicant on the waitlist for that
zone district in accordance with the STR Program Guidelines. STR-LE are exempt from
this provision.
10)Revocation. STR permits may be revoked by the Community Development Director for
any of the following reasons: three violations of the requirements of this chapter and
applicable Municipal Code standards as described in the STR Program Guidelines, failure
to rent the property during the term of the permit, failure to pay STR taxes and fees, or
violations of the requirements of this section.
214
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
11
26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards.
Prior to the issuance of a STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A.Occupancy Limits and Unit Size.
STRs are limited to a total occupancy of two occupants per bedroom plus one additional
occupant. Permit applications are required to list the number of bedrooms in the unit at its
largest configuration. STRs may be inspected for accuracy of bedroom count on the permit
application and for compliance with these occupancy requirements. For the purpose of
establishing unit occupancy, a studio dwelling is a one bedroom. Occupancy for each STR shall
be included in all STR advertising, the in-unit messaging, and permit on display in each
permitted STR. Bedrooms, lock-offs, or portions of the residential unit, in addition to the whole
residential unit, may be rented.
B.Annual Rental Night Limits.
STR-OO are limited to 90 rental nights per year from the date of permit issuance. There is no
annual limit on the number of nights per year a STR-C can be rented. There is no annual limit on
the number of nights per year a STR-LE can be rented.
C.Good Neighbor Guide.
STRs are required to operate in accordance with all applicable Municipal Code regulations
protecting the health, safety, and peace of the community and supporting the maintenance of
community character and values. STR owners and permittees are required to assist STR
occupants in being ‘good neighbors’ by recognizing their obligation to following the rules and
customs of the community. To support these community goals, the Community Development
Department maintains the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines, Good Neighbor Guide, and
collaborates with non-governmental organizations to promote good neighbor behavior by
visitors.
1) STR-C and STR-OO permittees, and if designated, their qualified owner’s representatives
must comply with the policies described in the City of Aspen Good Neighbor Guide and
provide that information at all times to occupants of the unit.
2)In-unit messaging is essential to assisting STR occupants in supporting the City’s good
neighbor policies, ensuring STRs in neighborhoods support community character, and
assisting in the promotion of Aspen’s community character. The following notices shall
be posted in a conspicuous location inside the rental unit:
i.A copy of the STR-C or STR-OO permit,
ii.STR license and business number,
iii.The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the owner or qualified owner’s
agent,
iv.A statement which reads: Occupants shall comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance,
v.The location of the required parking spaces,
vi.Wildlife protection policy,
215
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
12
vii.The location of the fire extinguisher,
viii.Information on the trash, recycling, and composting programs including:
a. Solid waste pickup schedules;
b. Guidelines on living with wildlife and instructions for operating wildlife
containers; and
c. A notice that trash and recycling containers must be stored indoors except
between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on the day of scheduled trash or recycling
pickup, where they may be placed at the curbside or in alleys.
ix.City of Aspen emergency services information and contact information,
x.The City of Aspen’s Good Neighbor Guide
D.Adoption of and Compliance with STR Program Guidelines.
The City Council hereby adopts the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines. The Community
Development Department shall keep on file and make available to STR permittees, and if
applicable, qualified owner’s representatives. These guidelines set forth the standards, procedures,
and supplemental information necessary for the operation of a STR within the City of Aspen. The
Community Development Director may use the guidelines as a basis for enforcement actions in
accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Guidelines may be updated, amended, and
expanded from time to time byCity Council Resolution.
26.530.060 Enforcement.
The City of Aspen actively enforces its STR regulations through inspections, citizen complaints,
audits, and permitting. These measures ensure that STRs reinforce, not undermine, community
policies and character. Active enforcement ensures that visitors who choose to stay in STRs are
informed of the unique qualities of mountain living and enhance our community culture by being
good visitors and acting as neighbors and community members during their stay. STR permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner’s representative, play an essential role in supporting and
advancing these policies and supporting the City’s enforcement activities.
A.Complaints.
Any valid complaint received regarding the STR property will first be referred to the permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner’s representative for response and correction. The Community
Development Director will follow up with any complaining party, the permittee, and if applicable,
qualified owner’s representative, for compliance or resolution. The permittee or qualified owner’s
representative must respond to all complaints or inquiries from City officials within 24 hours and
occupant complaints within two (2) hours. The City of Aspen is not responsible for complaints
against a HOA, hotel, or condo-hotel’s own guidelines outside of the City’s code, rules and
regulations. Failure to respond within 24 hours shall result in a notice of violation and demand to
cure. All valid complaints will be recorded and kept on-file including the address, permittee,
permit number, business license number associated with the complaint, and the complainer’s
name and contact information.
B.Enforcement and Penalties.
Upon receipt of a compliant, the Community Development Department shall investigate and if it
is determined there are grounds to believe a violation of this Chapter or any STR rules and
216
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
13
regulations may have occurred, the Community Development Director may issue an
Administrative Notice of Violation to the permittee. The Director shall revoke the STR permit
of any permittee who receives three (3) Administrative Notices of Violation within the one (1)
year permit cycle, effective upon mailing notice to the permittee’s address on file. The permittee
may appeal the decision to revoke the STR permit by providing notice of appeal to the
Community Development Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision to revoke
the permit. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall hear appeals brought pursuant to this
section (B). Appeals shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 26.316.030.
1) Penalty. Any permittee that violates or allows another to violate any section of this Title
shall be subject to prosecution in Municipal Court and upon conviction subject to the
fines and penalties set forth in Section 1.04.080. A first offense shall be punishable by a
fine of no less than five-hundred dollars ($500). Each day of any violation of this section
shall constitute a separate offense.
2) Civil Remedies.
a.The City Attorney may institute injunctive, abatement, or other appropriate action
to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of this Title when it occurs. The same
right of action shall accrue to any property owner who may be especially damaged by
violation of this Title.
b.In addition to the penalties and remedies set forth herein, an STR permit shall be
automatically revoked by the Community Development Director upon the third
conviction of a violation of this Title by the permittee of the property subject to the
permit within the one (1) year.
c.Until paid, any delinquent charges, assessments, or taxes made or levied by the
City pursuant to this Title shall, as of recording, be a lien against the property on
which the violation has been found to exist. If not paid within thirty (30) days from
the date of assessment, the City Clerk may certify any unpaid charges, assessments, or
taxes to the Pitkin County Treasurer to be collected and paid over by the Pitkin
County Treasurer in the same manner as taxes are authorized to be by statute together
with a ten percent penalty for costs of collection. Any lien placed against the property
pursuant to this Chapter shall be recorded with the Pitkin County clerk and recorder.
26.530.070 Fees.
STR permits are assessed an annual fee, remitted at the time of permit application, in accordance
with the following table. STR affordable housing fees are assessed on a per bedroom basis, where
studio units are a one bedroom. The total fee for an STR includes the affordable housing fee per
bedroom, as applicable, and the administrative fee.
Affordable Housing
Fee per Bedroom Administrative Fee
STR-Classic:$5,139 $268
217
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rental Regulations
14
STR-Owner-occupied:$3,763 $268
STR-Lodging Exempt:NA $204/unit
Table 1: Fee Schedule
26.530.080 Appeals.
Permittees may appeal decisions made by the Community Development Director in the
enforcement of this chapter. Appeals will be heard by the Administrative Hearing Officer in
accordance with Section 26.316.020.D. Appeals shall be processed in accordance with Section
26.316.030.
INTRODUCED AND READ,as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 28th day of June 2022.
Attest:
_________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of ______ 2022.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, CityClerk Torre, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
218
OUTREACH SUMMARYMAY 9, 2022ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPDATE219
DATA ANALYSIS INITIAL DATA FINDINGSCASE STUDY ANALYSISDATA FINDINGSINITIAL DRAFT POLICY IDEASPOLICY DRAFTINGPOLICY DRAFTINGIn December 2021, Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 26, Series 2021, a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits (also known as short-term rental permits). During this time, and again in April 2022, an additional moratorium was instated on the issuance of residential building permits (Ordinance 27, 2021, and Ordinance 6, 2022). The moratorium on residential building permits is scheduled until June 8, 2022, and the moratorium on short-term rental (STR) permits extends until September 30, 2022. While residential building and short-term rentals are intertwined, the City facilitated two unique outreach campaigns, one for each focus area. Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment is an overarching outreach campaign that dives deep into STR and residential building activity in Aspen.This report is specifi c to STRs.Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment was in response to the moratorium and explores solutions that will improve regulations and respond to specific themes that correlate with STR activity, specifically in mountain communities throughout the United States. These themes include:PROJECT PLANNINGJAN2022ENGAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENTFEB2022TECHNICAL ADVISORY MEETINGS BEGIN1X1 INTERVIEWS BEGINAPR2022CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONSMAY2022CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONSSTR MORATORIUM ENDSOPEN HOUSEADOPTED ORDINANCES PROPOSEDDATA FINALIZATION AND POLICY UPDATESSEPT2022The chart below illustrates concurrent project planning eff orts and data analyses with arrows indicating where data, information, outreach results and community discussions are informing project components.1PROJECT PHASING AND DATA ANALYSIS FLOW CHARTOUTREACH SUMMARY: PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULE• Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement• Life Safety• Permitting• FinancialsPROMISE TO THE PUBLIC: Utilizing values and ethics from the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) - which defines the development context, promise to the public, and how feedback would be put into action – the project team drafted a public engagement plan outlining goals and objectives, as well as anticipated stakeholders, engagement levels, and how best to communicate with them. The engagement approach focuses on:• Informing the community-at-large (public) of the project by providing balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the “problem”, what alternatives may be appropriate, and what opportunities and/or solutions there might be to address change to current City policy.• Consulting with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on current process successes and barriers, data analysis, policy alternatives, and involve them throughout the process to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.• Involving technical advisors on specific discrete policy questions that can further the data analysis and proposed code changes.PUTTING FEEDBACK INTO ACTION: The project team identified the need to work diligently to summarize engagement initiatives and findings in real-time to provide for a continuous information loop in and out of the policy development process to:• Set clear expectations with stakeholders and the community on engagement activities and how their feedback will be considered or incorporated in the policy development process.• Provide status updates through Aspen Community Voice and make engagement summaries readily available to the public.ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY #1220
Public engagement focused on facilitating dialogue about an aspirational vision for the community. A variety of mechanisms and tools were used to share information including one-on-one discussions with community members, focus groups, questionnaires, and public drop-in events. The project team created a webpage on Aspen Community Voice that hosts project information, outreach opportunities, key project dates, events, meeting registrations, and documents for review. Through a series of online tools on Aspen Community Voice and questions developed for technical stakeholders and community members alike, the project team gathered data points to assist Aspen City Council and staff in furthering project discussions around our STR themes: • Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement• Life Safety• Permitting• FinancialsThese discussions, held both in-person and virtually, began with the launch of Aspen Community Voice on February 8, 2022, and continued with focus group sessions and publicly available questionnaires between February and April, and an Open House on April 6, 2022. Each tactic offered a different style of discussion with the project team: • Questionnaires(Consult) – Gauge public interest and concerns,as well as obtain public feedback on the direction of policydevelopment.• 1x1 Discussions (Consult) – Intentional meetings with passionate,invested, and/or expert parties to better understand existingconditions, opinions, and trends, as well as concerns andaspirations, and provide feedback on the process.• Focus Groups (Collaborate) - Data- and values-driven conversationswith technical advisors based upon initial data fi ndings and policyquestions pertaining to discussion points outlined above.• Open House (Consult) - Information sharing and values-basedconversations based upon community members experiences livingand working in Aspen.OUTREACH SUMMARY: SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIESENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TO DATE2The activities listed below illustrate distinct engagement activities that included technical stakeholder meetings, one-on-one interviews, two questionnaires,, an open house and presentations between January 25 and April 30, 2022. In total, there were approximately 760 participants across Aspen Community Voice (656), one-on-one interviews (11), technical stakeholder advisory group members (12), Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and the Aspen Board of Realtors (ABOR) technical stakeholder meeting (~15), and the April 6, 2022 Open House (70).123MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 4TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 5TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss short-term rental activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 678-18192021THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022Public Open House event at City Hall from 4-6pm to collect feedback about the future of STRs in Aspen.TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022Community Development Director presented to ACRA on the status of the moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA board members. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs and online engagement activities.MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022The Technical Advisory Group is comprised of 12 community members that represent their technical area of expertise in the community. Members gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs Questionnaire #1.FEBRUARY-APRIL, 2022Stakeholder interviews (11) to learn more about the current state of STRs, as well as concerns and recommendations for potential solutions. APRIL 19-29, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs Questionnaire #2. 22TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022Community Development Director presented on the status of the moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA and ABOR members. 221
OUTREACH SUMMARY: COMMUNICATIONS AND PARTICIPATION3In order to meet the goals outlined by the project team, it was important to employ a variety of tactics to inform the public about how they could get involved in the engagement process, share their voice, and shape the future of STR activity in Aspen. Communication channels included: Aspen Community Voice (AspenCommunityVoice.com), Aspen Daily News advertisements, Aspen Times advertisements, Twitter (@cityofaspen), Facebook posts, events, and advertisements, Instagram, newsletters (ACRA, Colorado Conversations, and Community Development Updates), targeted email invitations (200+), Aspen 82 interviews, CGTV advertisements and media releases. Engagement activities and events included two (2) presentations to ACRA, one (1) Technical Stakeholder Meeting (ACRA and ABOR), eleven (11) one-on-one interviews, five (5) Technical Advisory Group meetings, one (1) Open House, two (2) online questionnaires on Aspen Community Voice, and receipt and response to 35 emails and inquiries.This coordinated communications and outreach initiative was intended to maximize information shared with the community and clearly identify opportunities for community members to engage with the project team both in-person and virtually. In total, there were: 15011x17 Posters placed in venues between Basalt and Aspen6,404Targeted event mailers for the April 6, 2022 Open House141 DAYSContinuously running digital ads in Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News159K+Digital ad impressions between Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News214New registrations on Aspen Community Voice platform562‘Engaged’ Visitors to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + project page2.8KVisits to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + STR project page322Largest number of visitors to ACVproject pages in one day~760Total participants across surveys, interviews, advisory groups, and the open house70Participants at the April 6, 2022 Open House at City Hall12Technical Advisory Group members that attended five (5) meetings656Project questionnaires taken on Aspen Community Voice 222
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKZONINGTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMERCIAL AND LODGING DISTRICTS WHEN PERMITTING LOCATION OF STRS. 1ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE HOW MANY STRS ARE PERMITTED PER ZONE DISTRICT. 2ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE WHERE STRS ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT ASPEN. 3In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, 227 participants ranked their preference on where STRs should be permitted based on zone district. Most respondents felt that STRs should first be permitted in the Downtown Core, then lodge districts, then West End neighborhoods, then East End neighborhoods, followed by Cemetery Lane residential neighborhoods, then finally, residential neighborhoods outside of the roundabout. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONE DISTRICT PREFERENCES4DOWNTOWN CORE LODGE DISTRICTSMIXED-USE DISTRICTSWEST END RESIDENTIALEAST END RESIDENTIALCEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL1( THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL)7(THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED)65432OUTSIDE THE ROUNDABOUTBelow is a summary of high-level findings from discussions (Aspen Community Voice, Interviews, Focus Groups and an Open House) on STR activity in Aspen. General engagement opportunities were presented in various mediums, such as virtually and in person, to aid in access for participants to engage in the process. Of note was the availability of technical experts to have rich and intentional conversations with participants in order to attain high-quality qualitative and quantitative data to support ongoing analyses and case study work. Key findings do not represent consensus but rather indicate either a majority response or important discovery through conversations with technical stakeholders and community members.Regulating STRs in commercial and lodge zones differently from residential zones can create certainty in zoning and the land use process, as well as ensure that lodging development is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood. Allowing market demand to determine where and how many STRs are permitted per zone district increases the likelihood that residential zones will become increasingly attractive for STRs, impacting community character and livability. For example, in Park City, Utah, only 32.6% of all housing units (10,440 total) are occupied. Vacant seasonal and recreational housing units have nearly doubled since 2000 to 6,750 units, and Park City is the only city in Utah where the number of jobs (11,000) out numbers the population (8,500). Zoning regulations and affordable housing policies can help mitigate some of the impacts STRs have on housing, infrastructure, and other community impacts. In Durango, Colorado, only 39 STRs are allowed in residential zone districts to keep the majority of STRs in the commercial core. STRs are permitted in the central business, mixed-use, and selected planned development zones. The intent in having a small cap in residential zones is to focus on neighborhood preservation, quality of life, and housing preservation.Questionnaire #1: Rank your preference for where you believe short-term rentals should be permitted based on zone district:223
77224599555871991768Traffic and ParkingTrash and Wildlife SafetyNeighborhood Impacts (ex: Noise, Crowding) Over TourismTax Fairness (Ex.: Property Tax Increases, Loss of Local HousingCompetition to Traditional Lodging in TownOther (please specify)GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICIESSTRS OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES SHOULD USE IN-UNIT MESSAGING ABOUT HOW GUESTS CAN BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY VALUES. 4HAVE ONE STANDARD SET OF GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD POLICIES THAT ALL STRS ABIDE BY. POLICIES WOULD INCLUDE RULES ABOUT NOISE, TRASH, WILDLIFE, PARKING, TRANSIT, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. 5WHEN VISITING ASPEN, RESPECTING AND EMBRACING OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER, ETIQUETTE, AND UNIQUE MOUNTAIN STYLE IS WELCOMED, APPRECIATED, AND NON-NEGOTIABLE. 6In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, more than 200 participants ranked their areas of greatest concern regarding STRs in Aspen. Loss of local housing was ranked #1, neighborhood impacts such as noise and crowding was ranked #2, and traffic and parking followed in closely at #3. The landscape of Aspen is changing, and it is a priority for our community to invest in maintaining our mountain views, small-town community character, and historical heritage. When visitors come to our area, the community appreciates when visitors invest in our community and embrace all that Aspen has to offer, our mountain town values, culture, and lifestyle. A group of technical advisors knowledgeable about best practices in lodging and STR industry, particularly in mountain towns, has met regularly with City of Aspen staff to discuss the future of STRs in Aspen. The group emphasized the need for good neighbor policies that all STR owners and renters abide by to solve for some of the nuisance complaints submitted by community members in regard to STRs. Those policies would also help visitors be a part of the community. For example, visitors often don’t know how important it is to lock their trash. In 2021, Aspen Police received more than 300 reports of bear OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.GREATEST AREAS OF CONCERN 5activity, mostly because bears were getting into trash or other food sources that weren’t properly stowed. This is a 20% increase from the year prior. The Aspen Police Department also responded to nearly 200 calls for disorderly conduct and harassment.In Salida, Colorado, STRs are only granted to ‘bona fide residents’ or their designated agents who are certified Chaffee County residents. A ‘bona fide resident’ means the applicant must show two of the following: a valid driver’s license or Colorado identification card, current voter registration, valid motor vehicle registration, or a document designating a primary residence for income tax purposes. The hope is that the concerns posed by STRs will be mitigated and neighborhoods and quality of life will be preserved since those operating businesses in Salida are those who live and invest in their local community.Questionnaire #1: Please check your three areas of greatest concern regarding short-term rentals in Aspen? (Other please specify):224
INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKOPERATIONAL STANDARDS & ENFORCEMENTTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF STR REGULATIONS IS NEEDED. 7RESIDENTS AND STR OPERATORS SUPPORT PENALTIES FOR FREQUENT VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS. 8STRS MUST HAVE QUALIFIED, LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF UNIT. 9The 245 participants who responded to the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice provided more than 400 comments related to STR activity in Aspen. Nearly 10% of these comments and questions were related to enforcement, with some participants remarking that regulations without enforcement will be broken and the City’s current resources, specifically the Aspen Police, should focus on local needs rather than responding to nuisances from STR visitors. Further, those who do not adhere to established regulations should have their STR permit revoked. Noncompliance to STR regulations can lead to issues with responsiveness in emergency situations and a lack of clarity on the owner of the unit if nuisances occur during a visitors stay and a compliant is made. In Aspen, lodges generally have 24-hour, seven days per week, on-site management. STRs, however, are typically managed or rented by off-site entities including property management firms or real estate agents. The reduced availability of services and longer response times create burdens for service providers and increase the likelihood of safety and regulatory compliance issues from STRs. ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS6OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKPrior to the adoption of Santa, Fe, New Mexico’s current STR policy, 40% of STR owners were noncompliant with the previous policy. In the new policy, Santa Fe responded to these issues by adopting policy that requires STRs to have a local operator who can arrive at the rental within an hour to response to issues and daily fines against violations. The Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, has a full-time staff member dedicated to overseeing Crested Butte’s STR permitting process, financial compliance, and enforcement. Part of their enforcement includes revoking permits for STRs that are noncompliant and issuing liens on the properties until compliance is met.225
LIFE SAFETYINCLUDE A PERMIT NUMBER AND LOCAL CONTACT OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE IN STR LISTINGS, AS WELL AS POST THEM ON THE PROPERTY. 10STR OPERATORS AND OWNERS WANT TO COMPLY WITH LODGING APPROPRIATE LIFE-SAFETY STANDARDS. 11LIMIT UNIT OCCUPANCY. 12When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between lodge (condo-hotel) properties and residential properties or units, participants stated that residential properties should primarily serve our local community and exist in residential districts for the wellbeing of our community and character. Since lodges operate under certain regulations and operational standards to monitor noise, wildlife, safety, service concerns, STRs should do the same. More people are coming to Aspen to visit. In a report provided by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), paid occupancy rose in the summer months (May-October) from 44.2% in 2020 to 65.6% in 2021. When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what respondents viewed as the greatest benefits to having short-term rentals in Aspen, more visitors in town was the least beneficial outcome. With more people comes more responsibility to keep our residents and visitors safe. Instituting occupancy restrictions can help manage the number of visitors coming to our community, as well as ensure proper safety measures are met for those who are visiting. Occupancy restrictions also reduce neighborhood nuisances and impacts from STRs. In Breckenridge, Colorado, occupancy restrictions are a key tool for managing STR impacts. There is a two person per bedroom occupancy limit and STRs cannot advertise for more than what the occupancy maximum is. Through the financial regulatory tool, LODGINGRevs, the City can enforce these restrictions. Under current regulations in Aspen, the requirements for lodges to ensure the safety of their guests, provide for a quality visitor experience, and contribute to Aspen’s efforts to facilitate a sustainable economy and maintain sustainable community infrastructure, are significantly more rigorous than those required of vacation rentals. For example, traditional lodges are required to mitigate for job generation and affordable housing, support transit systems, offer parking for all visitors, and meet higher building code life safety standards. INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.THREE GREATEST BENEFITS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS7OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKEXPANDED AND DIVERSIFIED LODGING BED BASEREVENUE FOR PROPERTY OWNERSINCREASED TAX REVENUEINCREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITYMORE VISITORSOTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)060801004020120140Questionnaire #1: What do you view the three greatest benefi ts of short-term rentals to be in Aspen?226
PERMITTINGCREATE DIFFERENT PERMITS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROPERTY TYPES. 13COLLECT RELEVANT UNIT AND OWNER DATA ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO PROVIDE IMPORTANT DATA TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS, SUPPORT GREATER MARKET UNDERSTANDING, AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT. 14EXISTING PERMITS SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED TO CURRENT PERMITTEES AND ATTRITION SHOULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS. 15When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied STRs and have different regulations for owner-occupied than for nonowner-occupied, 42% of 243 participants responded “yes”, while 58% of participants responded “no”. Per the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code, the use of STRs is allowable in all lodging, commercial, and residential zones. This is to say, there are few restrictions or regulations on where STRs can be located and no restrictions on the number allowed in the lodging, commercial, and residential zones. The number one way that mountain communities around the country are regulating STR operations is through a permitting system. Those in favor of instituting different regulations commented that non-owner-occupied STR permit holders tend not to be residents and are less invested in the wellbeing of the Aspen community. In addition, those who operate their homes as a business should be subject to the same regulations as a commercial lodge. Those against differentiating permits between non-owner-occupied and owner-occupied STRs expressed that property owners should be able to manage their properties without government oversight and subsize the cost of the property by renting it out for additional income. Further, regardless of regulations, respondents felt neither owner-occupied homes nor non-owner-occupied homes are likely to be affordable housing options for locals but do offer additional opportunities for tourism. Also, the distinction could affect the resale value of a property and be difficult to enforce. In the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, the City asked participants if they think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit of issued permits OR use a lottery to arrive at the capped limit. 61.2% of respondents chose attrition.OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.TYPES OF PERMITS AND ONGOING TRACKING8LOTTERY030025020015010050ATTRITION Questionnaire #2: Q1 - Do you think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit over time OR use a lottery to arrie at the capped limit?227
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKFINANCIALSTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.ASSESS A PERMIT FEE THAT ALIGNS WITH STR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS. 16PREFERENCE FOR A TAX (WHICH IS SCALABLE PER UNIT) OVER AN IMPACT FEE (WHICH IS A SET COST). 17When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice whether respondents thought that Aspen City Council should approve a new short-term rental specific tax to mitigate for community and environmental impacts, 60% of partcipants said “yes”.Prior to Santa Fe, New Mexico adjusting its STR regulations and tax structure, only 60% of its 1,444 active whole-unit STRs were registered with the City, which cost the City $1.6 million each year in missed revenue. On average, research demonstrated that the owners of STRs were making over $80,000 per host per year. Santa Fe has since instituted regulations and enforcement for STRs that are noncompliant, making them subject to a fine of $100 per day for a first violation, increasing up to $500 per day for further offenses. In Aspen, there are currently 1,246 registered STRs. Prior to the moratorium, STR permit holders were not required to pay a fee with their annual application. However, all lodges, including STRs, are subject to a 2% lodging tax that is used to support destination marketing (75%) and local transit services (25%). When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what community benefits could be supported by an STR tax, affordable housing rose to the top, followed by infrastructure and then the Climate Action Fund. SHORT-TERM RENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION9No40%60%YesAFFORDABLE HOUSINGINFRASTRUCTURECLIMATE ACTION FUNDEARLY CHILDHOOD COMMUNITY POLICINGOTHER02402001601208040Questionnaire #2: Q5 - Should Aspen City Council ask Aspen voters to approve a new short-term rental specifi c tax to mitigate for community and environmental impacts?Questionnaire #2: Q6 - If yes, what community benefi ts should the new tax revenue fund?228
APPENDICES LISTINGAPP A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPP B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP SUMMARYAPP C APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTSAPP D ACV QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2APP E STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW12132274229
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY1APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYThe team interviewed residents, resident property owners, resident aff ordable housing occupants, property managers, real estate brokers, STR owners, former elected offi cials, lodge operators in Aspen and summarized key fi ndings below:I. KEY FINDINGSA. Positive Impacts• STRs diversify and expand the lodging bed base by off ering more unit sizes and diff erent product types than traditional lodging. STRs are off ered at diff erent price points, which makes Aspen available to more and diff erent visitors. • STRs provide income for property owners, supporting the economy. • STRs help locals stay in their house with supplemental income. B. Negative Impacts• STRs undermine community character and the sense of a lived-in community. • STRs have contributed to the movement of workers from the “public” service economy to the “private” service economy. • STRs have unmitigated impacts on community infrastructure and character, such as over-dependence on private vehicles taxing roads and parking capacity. • STRs do not suffi ciently mitigate their job generation and aff ordable housing demand. • STRs have reduced the availability of free market rental housing.C. Preferred Regulatory Options• Limit the over-all number in the community. • Treat STRs more like lodging than residential uses. • Assess and permit fee on STRs that is commensurate with their value and cost. • Help STR occupants be better visitors and reinforcing community culture and character. • Implement stronger life-safety and compliance regulations. • Take the speculation out of the real estate market by limiting the ability to short-term properties.230
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP2APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPThe City of Aspen short-term rental staff team organized 12 community professional and citizen members who are subject experts or who personally have experience in short-term rentals. This working group of 12 met every other week for a total of fi ve meetings on data sharing, information gathering, and policy recommendations for the City’s short-term rental ordinance. Their time, feedback, community engagement with constituents, and input towards the policy drafting process has been essential to staff throughoutthe moratorium.I. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEETING DATESDonnie Lee, Gant Aspen Tricia McIntyre, ALVR Wayne Stryker, Stryker BrownJoy Stryker, Stryker BrownValerie Forbes, Sotheby’s John Corcoran, Aspen Alps Michael Miracle, SkiCo Wendalin Whitman, Whitman PropertiesJoshua Landis Chuck Frias, Frias Properties Tracy Sutton, Aspen Signature PropertiesGinna Gordon, APDMeeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3Meeting #4Meeting #52/17/223.3.223.17.223.28.224.28.22II. MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARIESA. Meeting #1 Summary• The fi rst meeting gave staff the opportunity to hear from the group what their personal interactions were with STRs to better understand the diff erent ways individuals or businesses work with STRs. Staff gained valuable knowledge on the economics of STRs and how some types of STRs may profi t or be fi nancially diff erent from others. Market functions and fi nances were a great topic of discussion, and it gave staff data around how homes with STRs market diff erently than those without and what those implications for the owner may be. The group decided to think about ‘what needs to be managed’ to help guide the conversation around the second meeting.B. Meeting #2 Summary• The second meeting focused on how zoning and permitting contribute towards STRs and how the regulation of both can help set better operating standards for the City. The group agreed that the ‘right number in the right zones makes sense’ and that having STRs in the core and in traditionally short-term rental buildings should be top priority when thinking about limitations to zoning. The priority for zoning was having the core and lodging/commerical zones have the majority of STRs and as one moves out from the core, have decreasing density and increased limitations of STRs. The group also focused heavily on ‘whose accountable’ and emphasizing the recommendation that a local owner or local managing group should be solely responsible for STRs in the community due to the unique community character that is Aspen. The group was asked to give their detailed opinions on how zoning and permitting can regulate the STR market for their homework.C. Meeting #3• Pete Strecker led the third meeting on accounting and fi nances. The group was asked their opinion on having fees and taxes. There was consensus that a tax, possibly in addition to a fee, made sense as there is scalability for a tax based on the size, number of beds, and number of nights a guest will stay in a STR. This has greater mitigation than a one-time-fee ‘for all’. The group thought that housing was a logical nexus to the tax question but also decided that turning STRs into long-term local housing will be viable. This discussion also brought up the need for a good neighbor policy that all STR owners and renters abide by that might help solve for some of the nuisance complaints by neighbors. Staff asked as homework ‘what are we solving for’D. Meeting #4• The fourth meeting focused on the question ‘if there are caps then what’. The group looked at the number of STRs broken out by zone, location and density and answered questions on how to fairly and equitably decease density and intensity of STRs. The group agreed that if there is a cap on STRs, grandfathering all existing permits and decreasing that number over time via attrition was the preferred method. The group also explored the idea of diff erent permit types based on the use of the STR. There was consensus on the ‘3-strikes and your out’ policy for STRs who violate code or who have three complaints on the property within a permit year. There was also discussion on data points the City should be collecting when re-doing the permitting process that can help clarify some questions around current STR use in Aspen.E. Meeting #5 • The fi fth meeting of the TAC focused on draft ordinance and guidelines. Staff looked to TAC for specifi c recommendations on how the caps by zones should be established, what should defi ne a qualifi ed owner’s representative, and their preference on how STRs are capped in residential zone districts. There was strong consensus on grandfathering in all permits and letting ‘natural attrition’ take over to help regulate the market, and then followed by non-transferable licenses. There was productive conversation and clarity on ‘who’ should be the property manager and who may qualify to be a representative of the property when applying for a STR permit. Specifi c questions and comments that came out of the work session that staff will apply to developing guidelines and the ordinance include: a recommendation for September 30 as renewal date rather than December, determining what’s the timeline for the ‘3 strikes and you’re out’, a HOA compliance document from the HOA president to ensure that STRs are allowed, having an occupancy of 2, confi rming that inspections will help with compliance, having a permit fee be assessed based on the number of bedrooms, determining if permit gets revoked does the owner get it back after a certain number of years or do they loose it indefi nitely.231
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP3APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #1 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Background, Purpose, Objectives, Process • Industry DiscussionoHow do you interact with the STR market?oDescribe the industryoDescribe the economic ecosystemoWhat do regulators need to know that we don’t know?• STRs in AspenoHow does the local/regional STR market function? oAre there diff erences between in and out of town?oWhat share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?• Regulating STRsoDo STRs in Aspen require additional regulation and oversight?oIf no, why? If yes, in what ways?oWhat level of regulation is appropriate?oWhat would happen in the community if?• Wrap and Next StepsB. Meeting #1 Notes232
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP4APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #2 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Summary of PurposeoCouncil directionoGoals for meeting #2oPrevious meeting summar• Council Work Session OverviewoSummary of staff presentation and Council direction• STRs in AspenoHow does the local/regional STR market function? oAre there diff erences between in and out of town?oWhat share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?• STRs in Aspen - PermittingoSummary of Council directionoGroup discussion of permitting optionsoGroup preferences for permitting233
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP5APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPMEETING #2 NOTES234
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP6APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #3 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Summary of PurposeoOutreach Updates - Open House Invite for April 6th 2022• Homework ReviewoSummary of comments received from members• Financial Discussion – Pete StreckeroCouncil’s thoughts on STR fi nancials oWhat Council has expressed interest inoStaff ’s actionsoQuestions to contemplate: oWhat do you think about taxes in the context of property zoning?oWhat do you think about both fees and taxes in the context of community impacts (aff ordable housing, transit, etc.)?oWhat do you think about a fee for the vacation rental permit? It is currently $0.oSome communities have done fee schedules based on bedroom counts – any thoughts around that?oSTRs remitted in 2021 data• Wrap and Next StepsB. Meeting #3 Homework Responses• STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use regulations do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and community impacts which our current system fails to address. I think it makes sense to create an additional tax on short term each rental that goes directly into a fund to work towards addressing the inequities and community impacts, whether it be employee housing or otherwise.• Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation and other infrastructure and service demands. Same as above.• The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and safety standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related to property management and guest behavior standards. Frias would of course support a more stringent review process by the City when applying for a permit to verify that each STR has a licensed and insured property manager available to assist the guests for emergencies or otherwise. We also support a standard fl yer that could be prepared by ACRA, the City, or both, that all STRs must provide to their guest and have in each rental unit. Perhaps education is the fi rst step prior to regulation when it comes to guest behavior.• The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important aspects of neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just beginning to understand. It is clear that some STRs are operating as commercial uses in dedicated residential zone districts. This seems to fall into the conversation we have been having about certain restrictions for residential neighborhoods, such as the West End, but I do not think this pertains to the condo buildings that have always had STRs. I still think it would be interesting to learn about owner comments or concerns as it relates to STRs in residential neighborhoods and do a majority of these owners want restrictions?• STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a transition of many housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge. I think this is true, but I also don’t see this new ownership base renting to locals at aff ordable or even semi-aff ordable rates if they aren’t allowed to rent short term. When an owner sees how much money they can make renting short term or even seasonally long term, it no longer makes fi nancial sense to rent the unit to a local for 6 months or a year as that makes the unit unavailable for their own use. An owner may rent long term for July and August and then use the unit in June and September, which they could not do if it was rented to a local for 6-12 months. I honestly don’t know what to do about the displacement of locals from units that they rented in the past. I remember renting a very average unit at the Scandia on West Hopkins in 2012 for $2k/month and while I believe it is listed for sale now, the most recent advertised rental rate was $5,500/month because the market supports that even though the unit was not updated at all in the last 30 years.• In regards to transferring a valid STR license. Should it be transferred?• From one broker comment - I think this needs to be explored more not really thrilled with any of these options below.• A) Owner to Owner• Yes• B)With the property until the expiration date• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)• C) Tied forever with the propertyoYes• In regards to the price of the annual permit, the consultants will give us a range that will help cover the cost of the STR program administration by the city.• What would be an appropriate price of annual permit?• A)$150• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)• B)$150 + $50 per bedroomoYes• C)$500oYes• D)$1,000• E) A % based on the tax amount received in 2021 from the rental property• F) Another Amount ______________________• General comments from one broker on STRs are here:oAspen and Snowmass are resort communities that exist but for the grace of tourism. Limiting short term rentals limit the more aff ordable sector of our lodging pool, which personally I think is a shame. In terms of our rental business specifi cally, most of our rental listings prefer to rent for 30+ days, so limiting short term rentals there simply cuts the tax revenue that would have come in from the 7-10 day rentals that happen usually over the holidays, President’s Week or spring break. Originally, the STR permit was so the city could track how many beds were available in the community and to ensure compliance with lodging taxes. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with cancelling permits for non-compliance or 235
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP7APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP“nuisance” rental properties. However, dreating an artifi cial limit on permits will constrain supply and drive up prices, which seems incongruent with the city’s goals. It “feels good” to feel like you have control over your community, but care must be taken to remove the emotion and consider the consequences of any government action.• I think the problem statements outlined in the council memo adequately summarizes the LEO specifi c concerns. Additionally I wanted to fi ll you in on a recent encounter that the APD responded to. It is mainly just informational, but I wanted to highlight this your for awareness as you continue to aggregate an approach to STR units in the City.• A local Air BnB owner seems to bait and switch incoming visitors. They come expecting to stay in one unit, but for what ever reason that unit is not available when they arrive, so he off ers them another less appealing unit, renters are left to fend for themselves to fi nd another place to stay during busy seasons or accept his lesser unit. He does adjust the fee, but this practice is still shady for many reasons.• Additionally in this instance, Offi cers are more routinely called upon to be the enforcement arm for this property owner. Here is where it gets challenging. The owner has requested police escort a short term tenant off of his property. The tenant (or short-term renter) has some, although possibly limited rights, and any dispute about the lease or rental agreement is a civil issue. There are some distinctions, if the allegation is that the guests activity is breaking the law – we can investigate it the same way as any other crime – however, the end result will be either arrest or a ticket, the Police do not have authority to kick someone out of a short term rental. • All of this is a roundabout way of explaining that violation of a contract in these cases is a civil issue. The DA explained that short term rentals provide certain rights (evictions and such) that hotels don’t and to simplify it, we are the Aspen Police not the AirBnB Police.• Without any context, I have to say the heat maps suggesting limiting STR’s to a hundred per zone is very concerning. Our market is like other resort communities, but also totally diff erent. To go from 1000+ STRs to just a few hundred is way more extreme that we’ve seem to be talking about the fi rst 3 meetings.• It does appear the “non-transferrable” is a theme, and maybe that’s the case to get the city to a number their more comfortable with for STRs.• I fully support our discussions of rolling this out in phases. Phase I – educate, get the permitting system and fee in place, and cleaning up the actual STR numbers. Those that apply do so for rentals less than 30 days. Just from our rentals here at Sotheby’s, I know many are shooting for 30+ days, and we have a lot of long term rentals too, that currently have a permit. So cleaning up the program and language would be very helpful.• Just this week, I had an owner in Pitkin county, and they were approved an COA STR. This has since been corrected, but surprised that this far in the process, that they were approved in the fi rst place.• Thanks for all your hard work on this and I look forward to coming to an amendable solution for the fi rst phase. It would set an awful precedent to have all the time and feedback and then city council just go ahead and put the hammer down anyway.• You asked us to give our thoughts on what the problem is that the city trying to solve with the new STR regulations. Why does City Council think there is a problem in Aspen? Why has the pressure we all feel bubbled over and become palpable in the last couple years to the point that the newspapers are fi lled with opinion columns and letters to the editor about it almost daily? • I started a letter the night after our meeting two weeks ago but honestly I didn’t know where to start or stop and my heart got heavy and I put it aside. I spent the last two weeks asking my friends, family and acquaintances what they thought. • I feel like three main themes emerged. • Cultural Shift (also commonly described as “Aspen losing its soul” and more recently boiled down to “Aspen Sucks”)oThere has been a major culture shift and the people who live and work here no longer feel included in the joy and spirit of Aspen. The homeowners, visitors and full-time residents have changed. The homes being built and remodeled are not like homes twenty years ago. There are “smart” systems, air conditioning, heated year-round pools, hot tubs, snow melt, and every other luxury imaginable. The people who live in these homes have no tolerance for any level of discomfort or things not working. The end result is a lot of property management and service calls up and down the valley that did not used to exist. A few weeks ago I saw a listing in the Aspen Times classifi eds for a private home looking for a butler.oThe gradual change was accelerated in the last two years with the large amount of people who moved here full time and part time. Rising commercial rent and an infl ux in out of town restaurants opening Aspen locations and longtime restaurant owners taking the opportunity to retire, which resulted in what felt like a whirlwind of changes to local businesses, though this is not a new phenomenon: ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/the-past-is-showing-our-future/article_6e758160-c728-59c9-bba7-0be21afdeaa0.htmloInexplicably one of the community’s largest stakeholders dumped gasoline on the smoldering class war being perpetuated by some, by choosing the worst time possible (if ever there was a good one) to explicitly divide us into insulting categories based on our net worth. ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-skiing-co-launches-a-new-luxury-division/oUnsurprisingly causing no shortage of backlash and general thoughts and introspection about the cultural shift (I won’t even get into the Gorsuch situation):ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-aspen-sucks/ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/parrott-if-you-can-t-duct-it/article_15766ed0-a655-11ec-9909-4f25bfbb828a.htmlohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/brandon-duct-tape-darlings/article_06a5d0c4-a599-11ec-ae49-6f18d5197337.htmlohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/whiting-vail-doesn-t-suck-anymore/article_68ac1eba-ab0a-11ec-8feb-47019c172dee.htmlo https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-learn-to-say-no-or-kiss-this-place-goodbye/oThe true spirit and joy of Aspen was that everyone, locals, both seasonal workers, ski bums, the local middle class and everyone in between, partied together, skied, ate, drank and played together with second homeowners and visitors. Cloud Nine used to be a fun place to have a fondue lunch. On-mountain picnic spots and parties that used to be free or impromptu now require reservations and cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to be a part of. Locals and visitors used to mingle at Little Annie’s and The Red Onion. Visitors and second homeowners used to want to hang out where the locals hung out. Restaurants knew that “hooking up” locals at the bar with some discounted food and drinks was good for business because the fun energy drew in visitors. The people who lived and worked here enjoyed interacting with our visitors and second homeowners. These days most locals just feel disgusted, excluded or simply uninterested in joining in the contrived excess and hope that the few remaining local gathering spots don’t disappear.• I’ll add an important sub-category here: More People oThere is a higher demand live in the valley there does not seem to be any limit to what people will pay to buy or rent homes. This is true from Aspen to Carbondale (and throughout Colorado and resort communities everywhere).oThis pretty much sums it up: https://www.aspentimes.com/news/236
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP8APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPbasalt-mayor-says-urban-exodus-is-game-changer-for-towns-in-roaring-fork-valley/oThe truth is that many of the new full or part-time homeowners and guests are not here for the traditional Aspen spirit that used to attract people and draw them into the community. This culture shift is taking its toll on everyone. ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/new-marketing-plan-for-aspen-will-back-off -on-shoulder-seasons/o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/acra-midway-through-journey-to-destination-marketing-plan/oThe sacrifi ces we make to live here always seemed more than worth the gain of living in a beautiful and joyful place where most people got along most of the time. But many locals simply don’t feel like they can thrive and enjoy their town and the community anymore. • Lack of Aff ordable Housing. Not new, getting worse, no one can seem to agree on the solution. oIt has also become a more heated issue at the heart of the above mentioned “class war” narrative. o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/elizabeth-milias-aspen-vs-the-worker/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/high-brow-and-tone-deaf/o As a side note, and just based on people I know and anecdotal evidence, I think the real estate boom in Snowmass and Basalt probably has had more impact in terms of people losing housing than what’s happened in Aspen, that ship had, with a few exceptions, pretty much already sailed. • Questions about the Effi cacy of City RegulationsoInfi ll, penthouses, not enough pillows, more density, more aff ordable housing, Lift One Lodge, view planes, the art museum, vacancy tax, no more penthouses, too many rentals, too many people, not the right kind of people, Gorsuch Haus.ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/aspen-council-not-all-there-with-vacancy-tax/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-city-council-advances-aff ordable-housing-eff orts/ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/council-passes-lodging-incentive-ordinance/article_c56f5939-72d1-53c9-89fb-bdae5527291d.htmlohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/city-softens-infi ll-plan/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/views-on-infi ll-all-about-views/ohttps://aspenjournalism.org/frame-by-frame-how-the-aspen-art-museum-was-approved-by-the-city/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-councils-concerns-leave-lift-one-lodge-in-limbo/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/hotel-boom-hasnt-off set-pillow-drain/oIt has been a long 20 years with a lot of changes. It is easy to look back and criticize when things backfi red, had unintended consequences or just fl at out didn’t work. My very off the top-of-my-head list is not a fair or exhaustive summary nor in historical order and it does not acknowledge positive things that happened along the way, but when you talk to someone who has been around for long enough it just feels like we bounce from shore to shore like a rudderless ship, reacting to the issue of the day, losing a piece of our collective soul every step of the way. I hope that this process and all of the work and community involvement will go beyond the individual matters at hand and help the city and community fi nd our North Star. oI appreciate your time and energy on this issue and the bigger issue of doing what is best for our city and our community. Public service is not for the faint hearted, I know your job is not easy and you and your team will be criticized no matter what you do. You have my thanks any my support and hope that we can all move forward together.II. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #4 A. AGENDA• Introductions• UpdatesoOpen house April 6th 4-6 @ Pearl PassoWork Session April 11th 4pm @ Council ChambersoPre-review Council work product• Discussion from last meetingo“Problem we are solving for”• PermittingoDiscussion of how to manage the permit system with limited supplyoEligibility, Lotteries, Transferability, Caps, NoticingoProcess for diff erent permit types: condo, owner-occupied, non-owner occupied• Wrap and Next Steps237
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP9APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #5 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Caps By Zone Districto Review of Data and MapsoThoughts on Cap Percentages by Zone District• Ordinance and Program Guidelines - Topics of consideration:oQualifi ed owner’s representativeoGrandfather v. Lottery oDetails of permit application content• Wrap Up and Next StepsB. Meeting #5 Ideas on Ordinance and Guidelines• Is is possible that we could incorporate the zone in the permit number? Ex R6100 Might help or hurt the cap per zone idea. I mean in the actual permit license number Example Bob Jones – 100 Aspen Way – His license number would be R6-089703 (identify the zone in the permit license number).• Thank you for the detailed report. I have reviewed it and have the following concerns and comments. I promise I am not trying to be sassy. I am completely blown away as the suggestions of who are the representatives. Also, I will be handing you the keys to my business if this goes through as written. Corporate Monsters like Sotheby’s are swallowing me whole as we speak. In fact, it is mere website for leads and reservationist. • A Rental Agency is the following: A property management company that has the following. 1.) Strict contracts with the owner to manage their calendar, give expert advice as to the rates, use a modern reservation system to store data and give data and pay taxes, on call 24-7 Maintenance person who knows how to fi x anything, pre-arrival guest services, a front desk to ask questions, concierge services to assist in the pre-arrival planned of rental cars, taxis, grocery shopping etc., and is responsible for all aspects of the property as a full-service business. A lack of a better word, Hotel. There are professional policies, staff , and procedures in place to protect the guest, the property, and the community around them. This costs money, education and is a real commitment to the business of STR’s. Real Estate Companies have none of this nor are they willing or will ever put a penny into it because they don’t want to be known as a Rental Agency they want to be know as a Real Estate Company. They have had (10) years to do so and have done nothing. 2.) You do not need a License to be a property manager. Also, you do not need a license of any kind to do short term rentals. This will change over time but right now this is what we are working with. Continued...I read in the paper today that the following would be a qualifi ed representative: A license real estate broker – why not say Plumber or Attorney here? As Plumbers – Realtors have absolutely no business doing STR’s especially in a Resort environment. Please explain to me why they are even on this list? True Rental agencies do not do RE SALES, so they are not a threat to Realtors. Realtors can still book properties (Frias-I trip – SAS ) with the PM and get their commission. The Russian Oligarchs and the bookkeeper somewhere else are working with Real Estate Brokers! There are no rules here. AIRBNB is more accountable than Realtors as the owners must be. To be on the platform there are rules, requirements, and protocols in place. They have a system of vetting the guest, vetting the owner and have a review section to voice any complaints. AIRBNBs are being managed by boots on the ground they must be, and they must be trained or the whole thing falls apart. Real Estate companies have none of the above. After a sale, the company gives the rentals to a broker who is new to the business or one broker - a one man show and they 100% cater to the owners. The contracts are written as I mentioned before which states the broker could set the house on fi re and would not be liable anything, so whatever accountability we think they have – they don’t. They have contracts with the owner that not worth the paper they are written on. Real Estate companies don’t have a reservation system (MLS is not a reservation system and they all know it) or have a handle on rates. They pull pie in the sky rates ( they have no technology behind anything) and availability and then (here it comes) check with the owner to see if those dates are available and the rates are ok AFTER they have already presented it to the guest. This is unethical. But they won’t get in trouble because they are not overseen by ABOR or the CDOR. Then they add a service fee to the reservation of 3% to 7% - for what? Absolutely nothing. Pocket change for their welcome baskets that they order from AMEN WARDY. They add no value to the STR business , in fact they are the cause of the BLACK HOLE. They will do whatever the Russian Oligarch wants, where a professional will force them to honor their rates and their availability or there will be fi nancial (big fi nancial consequences). Brokers do not put these kinds of restriction on because they don’t want to lose the relationship with the owners – ever. This is a tragedy. Wait until every STR is Listed and marketed (NOT MANAGED) because that is NOT what they do – they LIST and Market only with realtors, because that is what is happening right now. You have 400 or more properties managed by 100 or more diff erent brokers who have their ideas of what an STR is. Well, it is a mess. There are lawsuits. You won’t see them in the paper because they are settled out of court because the Russian Oligarch’s don’t want their name in the paper. Giving this power to Licensed Real Estate brokers is the biggest mistake – they have no reservation system – so no data (everything is on an EXCEL Spreadsheet), no protocols, no training, no requirements for the owner to deliver the product in a truthful manner, educate the guests on anything.. I could go on and on. Real Estate Brokers are the “bad actors” in all of this. I am shocked. I would prefer you put down elementary school teachers here as they would do a better job and have more compassion for the guests. Frias, Alpine Properties, Sky Run, Itrips, McCartney properties, North of Nell, The Gant or the condo-tels are professional Rental agencies. They put the time and money into it. They have all the tools in place to be a legit business that caters to the guest and make the owners income. They are all local. Believe it or not “out of town companies” don’t really exist here because the brokers will not work with them because they don’t want to lose control of the real estate asset. True Rental Agencies make the owners honor the availability, honor the rates, honor the guest with the correct insurance, maintenance and cleaning that is required to be even close to being fair on what we are charging these poor people. How did the realtors get to you? If you took them out of the equation, there would be a more organized STR business’ and all the issues you are trying to combat would be solved. I can 100% guarantee it. I would ask Joshua Landis how he feels as a realtor and realtors doing STR’s- he will be honest. • I’d like to commend you on your work so far. Although I have missed the past couple of meetings, I’ve been paying attention and watching council meetings, etc. This is a complicated task and many of my own positions and opinions have evolved throughout this process, interactions with group members, etc. I plan to join you at 2:00 today but wanted to send over of few of my thoughts and opinions ahead of time. 1. I like the idea of grandfathering with attrition and I’m happy to learn that you don’t plan to make STR permits transferable if you are going to put a limit on the number issued. It sounds like those who purchase a condo or TH in the downtown core that currently allows STR by Declaration will generally be allowed to get a permit without a waitlist - I think that’s great too. 2. I’m happy that you are addressing who is managing the STR’s for property owners. I’d like to learn more about what constitutes a “qualifi ed” owner’s rep. and how they will be allowed to market a property. A licensed Realtor typically markets through the MLS and the Broker to Broker network while a “professional AirBnb host” / property manager utilizes the online, consumer to consumer platforms. If a Realtor causes problems for owners, neighbors, etc.. they can be held accountable through their brokerages, DORA, ethics boards, etc... The same is not true for professional hosts / property managers. How will they be regulated? I think it’s great that you are requiring the property owner to hold the permit in their own name and pay their own taxes rather than allow these management companies to control the permits for absentee / investor owners. This will hold the owners more accountable for the actions of their managers and tenants. The online platforms are powerful tools that are designed to be used in a consumer to consumer way. The 238
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP10APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPgame changer in Aspen seems to be the use of the Consumer to Consumer platforms in a Business to Consumer way. Some of these professional hosts do a great job at maximizing revenue because they have learned how to optimize these online platforms. This has led to national corporations and/ or new residents with little connection to the Aspen community maximizing profi ts for absentee investors. There is no doubt that these professional host have created a better business model and they often do a much better job than the realtors because they have the benefi t of the online platforms. 3. I would suggest only allowing renters in the number of 2 per bedroom plus 1 (at least in a small condo). Some of the problem that I have encountered as the head of my association have been caused by owners packing 4 adult guests in to a small 1 BR unit (440 ft.2) with only one bathroom and sensitive plumbing. This creates much higher occupancy than intended in a small complex and many of the utility bills are shared. 2 per BR seems to be a common standard in multi family. Perhaps you could allow more in larger condos where it may be appropriate. And perhaps allow an exception for immediate family (2 adults with up to two children). https://www.wmfha.org/news/occupancy-standard-of-2-persons-per-bedroom-challenged4. As part of the permit process and management selection for a condo, I think it would be a good idea to require a “sign off ” from the home owners association just as someone would for a building permit. I’ve seen some of these outside managers refuse to provide the building rules to tenants as required and refuse to work in harmony with the association. While this can and should be handled at the association level, it would go a long way toward alleviating management problems if all rental managers were required read the governing documents and emergency protocols of the association and agree that all tenants will be provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of the building. If there are any emergency situations in a condo, common elements and neighbors will likely be aff ected, and it is critical that that rental manager have a relationship with the association manager and the HOA board and that they know who to contact to represent the association in the case of an emergency. • I’m sure you will want to confi rm all of this but I spoke with the fi re marshal today to see if there was a limitation on the number residents that could occupy a small rental unit. As I mentioned, I’ve seen an airbnb host marketing a 440 square foot 1BR for up to 4 occupants. Common sense makes this type of density seem inappropriate, and the neighbors have been complaining about the level of impact caused as a result of having this many residents in a tiny 1/1 condo, which barely seems to accommodate 2 residents comfortably. In this case, the 2 per bedroom +2 formula seems like it would not work. The fi re code and IBC code seem to say the same.• Please reference the table in section 1004.1.2 that shows that for “business residential use” the limitation would be 200 gross square foot per resident. That would make 440 ft2 appropriate only for 2ppl.Perhaps 2 plus one child could work, but it seems that an owner could only market this property to a party of 2, not a party of 4. This may or may not hold true for a residence, but since a STR is licensed as a business, the fi re marshall believes that this code limit would apply. • Great. More people may be appropriate if a unit is larger. I think it would be important to clarify that a 1br or studio under 600 ft. could only be MARKETED to parties of 2, but a third (overnight guest or additional family member) may not be a violation. Same for a 2br under 1,000 ft as 5ppl under 1000 may be a fi re code violation. They probably should not be marketed to 3 and 5 - only to 2 and 4.IMHO I think we should specifi cally state that we do have sidewalks in Aspen - so no one should walk in the middle of a traffi c lane while talking on their phone. • If I understand the reduction of STR permits for consideration by council correctly then I prefer council to consider permit reduction through attrition with a goal for a cap rather than a permit reduction by percentages. I do realize that is not the direction council has voiced. If they choose reduction by percentages I suggest they will start with 75% as a pilot program to see how it goes. In time they can always reduce by more but it would be diffi cult to go the other direction.ACRA’S ‘GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDE’: At a glance it seems good. Perhaps in referring to “black bears” a comment should be made that refers to the type of bear in this area not their color as we know they can be black, brown, beige etc. Minor detail.I learned to ski wearing jeans and duck tape on the toes of my Lange ski boots. Not to sound like a Karen but I would prefer the last sentence suggested not to wear a microwave one piece. Thank you and your fellow staff members for all the research, time, eff orts, drafts, teeth mashing etc that takes place to achieve a workable solution. I hope you can get to Moab when this is all over.239
APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES11APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTESI. AGENDA• Presentation of Issues • Discussions with Council to Date • Overview of Research - Comparable Communities • Response to Questions for Council on 4/11 • Addition of Questions and Discussions II. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF MATERIALS• Looked at 12 diff erent mountain west communities • What are common themes/practices that work well III. 6 MAIN TOPICS - BEST PRACTICES• Life Safety oNeed building inspection oPublic notice of new permits oDisplay of permit #s oGood Neighbor guidelines, standardized • Permitting oDistinguish the diff erence b/w nonexempt & exempt STRs oDiff erentiating lodges vs. residential etc. oOwner occupied oNon-owner occupied oCondo-hotel oCreating a primary resident STR permit oOne year cooling period oAny new purchase has to wait one year before applying for STR oCap vs Attrition oNon-transferable licenses oUnlimited Licenses vs Primary Residence License • Operational Standards oOccupancy restrictions oSTR Holders must have representative who is able to be reached 24/7, and within 2 hour reach oSet diff . max. caps for diff erent permit types oLive & public document of all STRs & waitlist oLive waitlist, queue check • Enforcement oA dedicated full time employee for enforcement oIssuing Liens on non-compliant properties o“3-strike” complaint rule o3 strikes in one year, loose license for 5 years oHaving conversations up front oCity being more transparent • Financials oOccupational Lodging tax oApplies to STR & hotels oProve STR owners are remitting lodging tax oStandard for renewal of permit oTax spreads better across price ranges oTax has to be brought to public vote oCharging an annual fee on each STR bedroom oBenefi ts local housing programs oPer room per night fee is not recommended • Zoning oCreating Buff ers oWorked better than a cap, GWS used 250ft buff er oResidential Restrictions oSome towns restrict STRs in residential oConsider limiting STRs w/in multi-family units oR/MF is not being used as designed oMunicipalities use % Ratio oZone specifi c % ratios for limiting STRs IV. MEETING NOTES• Permit types is supported, helps to identify STR types • Helps support all types of STR rentals • Big goal should be information collection • Good neighbor laws could control the “loosing neighborhood” feel • Guest vs. paid guests isn’t a big diff erence • West end etc isn’t truly occupied full time anyway • STR is diff erent use than long term use • Reality is that owner occupancy is up • Feedback is happening because neighborhoods are not empty anymore 240
APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES12APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES• Owner occupancy of second homes is upping the stretching of city resources • Community has gotten bigger, can’t shrink it • How do we defi ne property rights, regulation makes sense, not prohibit people’s property use • Local representation, local enforcement, solves a lot of problems • Good neighbor policy is a great addition, should solve a lot issues • Think about layers of regulation, more than 1 person to call for emergencies • Whatever is set up will be trial and error, make practical decisions • Do not want to see # or % restrictions • STR should be transferrable by property • Already used to rules, activity usage. Only if not renewed is STR lost. • Lottery makes it hard to plan year over year • Will not address neighborhood concerns • Attrition is better limiting factor • Should have clear objective of long term goal • What problem are we trying to solve? • Aspen is a little bit behind the times when it comes to STRs • Add regulation, management, oversite to STR • Occupancy regulations • Council does not seem to be listening, not seeing council representation at open houses etc. • Data driven regulation vs. limitation. Pro regulation now, limitation later based on data • The decisions made here aff ect the whole valley. Non-constituents livelihoods based on what happens in Aspen. Community diff erent then voters • HOAs already do STR limitation. • HOAs must give approval for STR permit • City has good count of what is being rented out • Not a good tally of occupation/pillows etc. • Real Estate community contribute to metrics for monthly reporting - Destimetrics • Willing to do it if it will help greater community • What do we do with data? • Great data to have for all versions of rentals • Long-term vs short-term rentals • Better report metrics for week by week capacity totals • Fees/taxes not very limiting as a regulation tool • Layered approach to regulation • Permitting is not an issue: capping days, permit amount etc will be an issue. • Need to be able to rent houses, not just lodges/hotels • With increase in STR, is stretching capacity beyond community ability to handle. Peak is increasing, council is aware of this. • Demand will not decrease • Need to decide what the point/goal is. • Additional Questions and Discussion • Enforcing display of permit #s and ability to remove fraudulent listings • Enforcement trip is city code • Point of contact for each residence, local, in valley. • One year cooling could present tax issues with people who buy and sell property • Tax fee is preferred over per night per bed fee • Financial incentive for long term rentals could potentially work for smaller condos/homes • Enough of an incentive to change it from STR to long term • Might be more viable the building new employee housing • Could increase tax to fund a program to manage an incentive program • Could help contribute to solving housing issues • Multi-family limits could cause lots of issues • Not all locations got a lodge overlay • Multi-family is more dense near the core, better for visitors not as great for long term residents • Very complicated zone to regulate • Current STR are 16% roughly • Stuff the core, smaller percentage in the outer zone districts • 16% is not high, why is there a problem? • Most of the neighborhoods are only around 8% • Could be slightly higher if no moratorium • Market changes could aff ect % • STRs are not transferrable from one owner to the next, reduction via attrition • Other options include lottery system 241
13APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTSCommunity Development staff hosted an Open House from 4-6pm on April 6, 2022, to offer the opportunity to the community to engage with technical experts around the topic of STR activity in Aspen now and into the future. The goal was to facilitate an understanding of the engagement process and the direction of the project, as well as collect input to present to Council to help in the decision-making process. More than 70 participants attended the Open House, engaged in conversation, and responded to questions highlighted on display boards throughout the room. Each display board question was introduced with background data and summaries to give content to the questions. While the data collected on the display boards during the event is not considered to be an accurate representation due to some attendees taking the liberty to “double-dot”, the feedback is essential to consider for the success of the development of regulations for short-term rentals. Comments made by attendees were also collected and transcribed into this report for further reference. 242
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS14APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS243
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS15APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS244
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS16APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS245
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS17APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS246
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS18APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS247
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS19APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS248
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS20APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS249
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS21APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS250
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #222APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "
#$ %
& #$## "' &()
#
8
!"" #$ %%$& '( "$&) $* )11 " '' ) 3329 * :&5 8 : ; : %
:5 ; : ) 68 :
:< + : 1 ; + ; : + :< : ; : ':
$ 33/=4>?=>?
$ %%$& '( "$&) $*')% , " '' ) 33/
6 :5: 6 :
$ " 6 : :: : $ @ "
* :%< * :' * * :,
A * ; : = ** :?
$ /3
=
49>?=>?
$ %%$& '( "$&) $+0 '' )
B3
: *
$
B3
* 8251
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #223APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "
#$ % & #$## *#+
,
-
,
.
/ 0-
-
1 2
2 / *$ 344/%56 3!/756 3!/756839/956%3#/!56! 3 /%56# 3$/856# 3$/856 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 !" #$%% & '(% ' %) !" &*+,- %!) $ . !" &*/, 0&1. 1/ 2$%% 3.4.4 ,)% '1) 5 . 6%% 74&'1.% 1.1'*8)% 9 &' 2) # 5. '% 3,% '1%%$) *1&0 #$%% &+
! "
#$ % & #$###*#252
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #224APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+#&2 3$/!564 3#/*568* 39%/956*4 39*/%567 3#$/856 ) ) 5 + '51.+*5&.+ * & :+
! "
#$ % & #$##9*#+9:
$8 3!!/%56 9! 377/!56;%<"%+
! "
#$ % & #$##!*#253
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #225APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 #=
! "
#$ % & #$##7*#+ & ' - &
2
-
&
1
. ' .
;
1
< --
2
-
-/// $9 3!#/!56 !$ 374/%56= +
! "
#$ % & #$##%*#254
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #226APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)'>'4>'.''.
* ;(8 $)8 ! $) $ ?$$ 8""$ , % $)$"@$"$-$ /$$"A8 " )8)'>' >'.''.4
.4;"!8 " )8)'>' >'.''.'
' ; , 8%%$ , /%) , ") ! 8""$ B/$8B 8% 8A /$,$%$ %$!$/ /% 8"$ ) / A " A $/ ""A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''
1 ;% $ ,8"$ 8"")$ !+88$)$A /$ ) $ % $"8$ 8$CD%$ %$A !+88$)% %! ,$) !/ !+88$)% % 88$%%)A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''.
. ;, % )$8 $ / $) 88$) %$/%
)) / ) @ $8" , /$ $ " )$) ,!/ /)%"%8%AAA /)!,?8$%8 " )8)1>. >'.''.*
4 ; !+88$) /+"% ,$ / ,$" @ ) $%,% /"!!/)$8%%A / %%!%>$" !8%$" 8$ ))8$!/$% / $ !)E ) %8%@ ) ), $8 " "$8>""@ )8$$ ) % B$8B $) F+)!/ 8/ $ %) $ 8D%$ .1 +@+))@8/ + / B! $%% )B $8$% % $$A ,$ %%!) $$)$%- / /%) , )%$G,$ )D$) "$$ /$$"8A8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' '
.*;H8%$) %$$ 8"$8%% $ @$"%% ! " ,)% ) / @ $8" "!/+"% /$/"8/A 8/ %8%$) $% "$$$ 8""$ ) ) $ A(8 $!/ , % % $ " $// /+"% $)$ 8A+#=
! "
#$ % & #$##4*#8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.*
* ;%%$"$)!/ 88$%% /$/" $%% 8$, / $%$ / $/,/) ) / 88$ / /$/,A / $"8 / $/,/) $ %!A 2$ // $ %!) $ 8"%% )$ " ,$$ 8 " " $$!$/ 88$ /$/,/) ) 8!///$$ ) $8 $)$,$ /$) ) /"A % )$%8 "$% /8%) , %$$ $ / %% $" ,$%)$ 88$ /8""$A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.5
&5 ; " / , %8 /)! ,$)$-/$$)$8%% @$ "!$/ /"% / , $A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
* ; $ ,$ ,$ / / $% / /)%) ) / " ) 8) ) /" / $$!%) / %8 A /$,%"!$/ / 8 $A / 2% $)8%$!$/ / /"%$)A %C,%% )!/$%C!%% $8 /" 8">$$%$G / /$ ) A(/ ,$ 8$ $$ !/ ) " / %8%8"!/$8/ /% "%!G8A0)C ) "%$A! "$/ ) %%$ / /% $)$/% / $% )A / ,) %G) / 8A0$/ %% / )% ) %8%% ,)$ / /% $) !/ /$G, )%$!/ 8 , )%) , / 8$ I8 " )8)1> .>'.''.
& ;!!$%% /" /$$/,$/) 8)8 A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
&& ;!88$) 8%% ) $" $ / 8""$ /%%)$ / " ) / ) 8$,$ / 8""$A8 " )8)1> >'.'' '
.5; $) , / % %GD$8G$ !$/ $$ $ /8""$ + "G$ )$$8$ 8%) $% ) !$/ / ! !/ ,) %$ %!G% $ / "%$G%!C $ // , / !/C $$$A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
. ;/ !88$)%!%) , % $,% !G$%8%A / !88$)% $%% 8%) , %8%!G/$A
! "
#$ % & #$##8*#255
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #227APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1> >'.'' '
' ;!88$) ,$ / 8""$A ,%$ //" 8 / $ 88$) $"$% , $)%$"$ / $"8 /% %$G$8 $ $/,/) )$) , %8% % // /A$)8 / !88$) ) %%!G /%%! / % $/,/)A8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
1& ;" !+88$) )) / " $8"A8 " )8)1> >'.''.1
.5; )C/$G/ ) , )$%$ $% ,/ /%) , 8 8/ A %!/ %$ /" / "/ / " %$G% "$)$/ 8""$ ) / "G!%) , +8$$8$ 8/ !$%)%$ $8$ )8$ $%A !%), " 88$ / / $ /% +)A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.5
. ;!!/ /"% %$ /" / "/ / %% / " 88$ / 8""$ ) "G$$ $ 8/88 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
&' ;/ )$$8$ $!//>- $ $"$%$)$% ,$A %%!$ ,$E!+88$)F$ $)$% 8 /$ )$)$ / $ " % $ ) $8A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.1
&1 ;!+88$) C " / % $"8 /$)$ $/,/) $ / %) )$8%%A !+88$) C 8 , %$G "$$ /% !/$8/ $ $)$% $/,/) $A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
.; !+88$) /" ) , $)$$) ) / ,%$8) G!!/ / % / G) //$ "GA % %$G%% % 8"$ ) /,$ ! $ ) /G ) / /$ "G )$ ) $) ,8/$ / $ )$ ) %$ /" )/"G$ $ B$"$,%B %8% $% % "$%$ )$ %$ ) , / 8""$ / /!G$ " / %$) $ %% /$%$ ) 8A /B)B "
! "
#$ % & #$##**#" /% 8"$ % ) /,$ !!/ // / 8%) G ) /$%%!8$$- )$ / )"$8 ) /% "G " %!/ ) /$ $ )$$A /$)8$%8$ / , ) )% $)%$ )%$) , $ %8 $"")$%A /%) , 8$" )!// / )A $ $ %% $" $"$)8 / %$ $ % "/ / / $ /%) ,8$)) % ) ) 8/A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;<" % @$8 /!$) / +!88$)/+" ) / / "8 ) 8 / / $!A% /$%8""$!/ % $ $/,/) ,$%)$ $!)A %$ $ 8) ,$%)$!$/ $ )8% / $ /"% +!/$8/ ) ,%$ / "$ $%8%% /"A 8% " /$) $ / / , $% % $ / $/!/$8/%) $ 8%% / %$8 8%" /" )!A / 8)) $$/ !)$ /!,8 ) ))") / / ,A !/$8 $%) )G%$ /" % $/ %G$ %)% ) ,D% $$ $/!/$8/%) $ % %%$ ) %""$ )A/$ / %% /)!$/$ / '!GA /$ $ )$$ / % / "$)8!/ %$ )!G/A0 / "$%$ ) ?, G8) $ %% $/A C 8$ A %$ / )$$%, $% $"8) , / %$$ /"%A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1
& ;2) !/ " , +!88$)A 6 "$"$)8E$$ 8) /" ,$ !/$ $% ,$% ) /">%I2)$8 ,! B/"B , $ $"8))/">8$% B,$BA / %/ $$$8 $"8 $/,/) /%) , "$) $$)$%- ) $%%!) /%) ,%) > "$$ $"8 %$G /%A 8)"$$" $ "$@) >$)$%-! %! $)) , ) /" ,$A )"$$" /"%$G%)8%$) )"$8%%$8"% .>4.C )%" , $ !$8$ ) #()"G 8/A %$>"$$$ / /"% /%)8/A " % 88)!$/ /$/ >/$/$8$%$-$ /" $$)$%-A8 " )8)/ J!88$)% 8 $ ) /
! "
#$ % & #$## $*#256
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #228APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>'.>'.''.
*& ;$)A %$!$%% /%% )% " ,$ /% %8%A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.'
'' ;!88$) / 8$, 8""$A88$% KGA !88$) " ,$" $A / %% )K8$,8""$ ) )8 " / $/,/)A % %% $) $ $ $/,/)!$/ 8A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.'
.&;(8 $" $ /!"%!/ 8)$ )$8) ) $%% $ $" /",8 " )8)1>''>'.''.
&5 ;) 8""$ A 8$% 8$ /%A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ; /8$ $ $)$$)% )C8//">$ /% $A0%) / /$,%/$ /)) %8% / %8 %$A /$$ % %$G% /!$/ !88$)% % /$$8$ ) 8A0)" /$ "%A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ; "$ /%)K8% / /$ "G /!/$8/ $!/!%) / $ /$)$$8$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ;!" 88) / ) / 8""$ ) ? $ "G "8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
5 ; !88$)$)8 % %,% / )8""$A / G8 ,) / 8""$ , % " %A / % "G ),% %$$ $ % %$G%A/ "$/!%/ $) 8" /$ ,$ / % $ /$8$$- /! , $$% $,$ 8""$ "", %$ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''
.';!88$) /" $,)/!G>$A!/ %$ /" $ $! /% /$,%" $ A8 " )8) ,)$/,/) ! /%) )8 /"A
! "
#$ % & #$## *#1>'1>'.'' '
. ;" "88)!$/ /"!!/ $8" "$$ /$/"E) "G $ $,% /" G $F/%!/ ! /" $" $ %A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;0 " ) / 8/$ /" %% / $ /" $ %% $" /"% $8"$A % $) / " ,$%$ /"/$$ , $ ! $ %% $" "% $8/$ !/ , / $ @ ,$ ) %8$$ %A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.*
*' ;!88$) %%) ,8 / !$ /%) / 88$,% ) 8"%$!$/ 8$%$ 8A %$ "%$G%,)/) , /!/ / !$ A @ 8%%8) ) $)!// !/ 8% / 888A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
* ;K%)A %8% !$ /$)!%%$!/$%/K!'"/8$$/"8"/ / "%$% /%)$ / G$ %%$ %$!/ / $" $$/A 2!8!/ )!%%$8 1G! "/ / , )/ "$)%$ 8"!$/ "%$% /%)$$ '.G!GI8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' '
& ; ) , )$$ ) $"A K/$$ !$ !/$% !A K/$ ?$ "G " 8/!$/ $"A8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' '
& ;= !/%)$$$-! %$$ $ /$$A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
* ; !88$) $ )% $% "%8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
& ;,8 / / G$%$ /A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
.1;!!/ $)8 ,$ /%) , 8"%% ) L/! / /%) , ,?8 / " @ )%$ / /% A
! "
#$ % & #$## #*#257
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #229APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>' >'.'' '
*& ;!+88$) /"!C$) % " /$ %8% / /%)C,$8) )$ /"%!/ /C $ $A )C/$G/ +!+88$) /" /%) ,$8) $/, $ " %$G / ! 88A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.
* ;(8 $ " +!88$) %8 ,8" /"/!$%% , /$ % ),% % "%A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.'
&' ;8G$ /!/" $%$-) ) ,$$A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.&
.1;!88$) $ $%% /"/8$,$ / %8%8""$ ) 8"A 8" "% /% ") @ %$$ /!/$8/ "$" 8K , "!$/"% $8"A 8) /" ! )$ $ $") ,$ /$$"$)8 / $ ?) ,$ ,% "G " "/$ $"$%A%%%8% / " 8/) /$$)8!/$8/!%) %, 8$)) /"% , $K 8%% ,$8$% ,8 $ ,) % %$G %!G8 " )8)1>' >'.''.&
' ;!88$)!$%% %$G% ,) % ) !%)G!/ ! " $/,A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;!+88$) $ / 8""$A +!+88$)$ % G" / 8""$A 2% 8""$ )8% / / )C 8$, 8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
& ;$ 8""8$% ,$ $ $)$% $/,/) $0 M$ ! ,$ $ $)$% $/,/)/ 2 % ) ,$ %$8 %$G %% /,$8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
1& ; )C/$G$,, 8A /%) , %%!) !+88$)%A /$ $ /!! $ /$ ),% /$"A +! )HH 8/$ $ ) /$/" N'' ...; 2" $ GA8 " )8)!%) %$"$ / 8%$ -
! "
#$ % & #$## 9*#1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ;H % / 8) /" % % % "% $8" %$ /"/$"A0/ C" ) / $ / % $" $ ) 8G) %% $ $/%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.*
;+!88$) /" 8 %) ,G$!/$8/ $8 % )% / @ %!/8/ %$ )!G/A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
'.;/ !+88$) /+"% @ ) / , ,%" A 2 / "G " ) / % % ,%$ $/,/) 8""$A 36A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
' ;/$"8/% ) %8 % %$$ )!G$/8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'* ;0$/ !+88$)% /%% / % $ ///%)!$%% , 8""$ % /% / ) /"% !/ / 88 " %$G% ) / % $ $ 8""$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;!)$ $$ !88$)!%) , %)!/ !88$)!%) , $ %% 88 $)$%/%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;;$8 +!88$)% %% , "" 8"$ / @% "/L8""$ 8%$ %)8$ 8A / $/,/)" %8G % " 88 ) 8)$ %8G8""$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
.4;/ /%) , )$$8$ $" $A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
1 ;/ " 8$ ) %8% /"%A / !" ,$)$!$/$ /% /" / $ )$$$ ) )$$$8$A $$ "$/
! "
#$ % & #$## !*#258
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #230APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, / !) $) $ / /" , /%$)8 $88$) , /$ /"$% "", ) / /" $ 88$%%) /"/%G ) "$$ / %)8A/ 8) $$ " , 8$)) !88$) ,)$$$ , "$/ , 8$)) ) )$%$A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
.1; +! /%%! 8""$ , $ $/,/) $/%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.'
* ;(8 / ) )$%A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;!88$) $ )$ / ,$%$ %+"H8% ) / /$/O$8 ),%$ M8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
*& ;/$G! /%) )$$$/ ,! / $ )"%%) %)$ ,$EAA "/1. .) %F) /" / $ %% 88$) ,$) !$/$D% "@$8"/"A " % %" )) D8 88 !///$ $ $ ,$!$/ " $$$8 $"8 / 8""$A !%) % , $$$8% $ %$8P" $! %%!%% ! %$"$) ,$%$ E 1.)F !$/ ,% ) !+88$)E / & 1.)F )8$% %$8E/ %$"$) %$)F+!+88$) /!$/ "/1.)FA8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;! "$$ /"% / /%) % , %!/ 8%% %$ /"/$8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
' ;(8 $ !$ /% ) $)%$ %$G% , "$$)8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
*' ; % / / 2"!/ /$/ )$ / $" // /A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;/ $((/"% "G /G$%%) /% "G %8%A8 " )8) %8% /% & "!$ ) ,/
! "
#$ % & #$## 7*#*>.&>'.''
.&;"G 8) $ !$/%/"$"$"$"!/!!A %%!$ /$! !/ ") $$,% ) "G8)$A2$/$,$%$ /" G ! " ,$%$ "$$8) $ $ ?)A0$/ /% $8 $8$)$8%% // / %% /$ / ,$%$ $!/ ! 8%) 8 / % / %%A /%) , /8) !$/ /$$ )) $ 8$%C$/ )8$) $!88$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
. ; " 8) ) /" ) ,$ $"")$% ) $/"% $D$$)$% A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
.; +!88$) /%) / $8%$ / ,$ /8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
1' ;$"$)8 $$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1
& ;(8 !+88$)% %$ $ ) )) /8""$!/ +!88$) %% $"$ / /%%! 8""$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;!88$) $ / 8""$A !88$) // % $">$8" $8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
;!+88$) " %$G%!%) )8 "$,$%$)8 / 8" )8$$ ")A !,,% %" $) $ / 8""$ ) / "A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
. ;$ / /$/ 8 %$$ / " !88$)E%8%F% / $8" ) "$ /$/"!/ %%$8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .
* ;!!/ 88 /$/" % /% / "%$G%% $"$) ) $ / 8""$ ) 8$,$$"! / +$)A / % " / ")$8"/ $"$) ) $ $"% $ / $" /$8%A8 " )8)/ $/,/) / %%!+88$)%"
! "
#$ % & #$## %*#259
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #231APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2*>. >'.''.*
&1 ;/%%!/ / /8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
&& ;C8- @$ %$ / ) % / 8) "$ 8""$$ ) ? %$A / !$%%$ )%!$/ / $8$8 /$ $/$8%/" /% ,)" C )"$/ / /%), %G) )$% / "">$"8" / $ $/ $ ,$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
4 ; !8 $) $)8 %% "8/$ @8)$ "/$ %$G 2CD$" "$$/$ / /%) , ) )$% , $>8$$8$ /$ ) / $ "%>$%% $ $ /8""$A +!/%) , ) )$% /$ $% /$8% ) / " $ %$G% $ $ /8""$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
'4 ; ! ) / $" $ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
&' ;! / $" $ / 8""$8 " )8)*> >'.'' '
1 ;/!/ %$ $ ) / /" /$$"$)8G!/$ 8""$ ) 8 , )8 /!/ $$A/ % "$/ ) / ))$$% %$$ $A /!/ )C%$$%+" " / /" %$ ,/ $ ) $) 8""$ ) C%$ %"% $8" /$$"$)8A 2$ 8) /" $ @ + 8A % 8) /" $" $ ? / + $" + )/%) , ) )$% / $"$)8A8 " )8)'>'&>'.''.
'' ; $ $" 8 $8"
>
E 'EF 1 G$)F+
) $+9 =
! "
#$ % & #$## 4*#8 " )8)'>' >'.''.
'.; )$8$"$)!A8 " )8)'>' >'.'' .
14 ; $ 8% "!///$ )$$8$ $"8 " "$ 88!$/ /"%Q)%$ $ %$ 88,$%$ )$%$ $/,/)A8 " )8)1>.'>'.''.
1 ;0,/ ) 8) //! ,% "/ "8/ !!%) %$G A 2$ $) / $ ,/$$! / 8""$ // $)$ ?, /!/ G88) !%% @ 8A " !+88$) $A0!%) / 8) % % "%A0 )K)$!$ %% /D!8/G$ A8 " )8)1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;$2#%$)$%%$"$8 545 "H /;$ #%% / G $ 551 ) $%% $$) $8 55 A0 !!G $) ," @$8!$/ / B$"B / , / / / " " /G %!)%!$ % /$"8 ! $ %" / "!$/ $ / %$ /A / # /) 8"%$ $ " $/,/) " $/, /" $ % $"% ,GA/ H= 8"%$ 8$%%8$) " $/,! $ %)/" $ ;A #%% / ) ,8/ %8%!G!/ ,) / G$ $$ / ) ",% $ / /A / $/,8%%) / /$AAA8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;K % )$$8$ ) $% $/8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ;(8 $ $ $ A /%) !$/$) 8$ ",) )$%++/ @$ ++/ $ /%) , ,/ ,%$88"" ) )$8$A /$ /%) , ) $ / )) $/E$$% G$F %$G / 8 "$"A C ) $ " $$ $%%%A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.'
*& ; /) )$$$/ ,! ) ? )) /)8/ !/$ G)!$/ 8$ /%A8 " )8)/ $ / " ? / " $") $ )$A
! "
#$ % & #$## 8*#260
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #232APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>.4>'.''.4
*.;8 " )8)1>.4>'.''
'' ; 8$C,$/! !8/ /$/"A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.1
.;(8! ) % " 8/A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.'
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
&* ;"$% / !) $ *. ) /%$) / $"A / ,$%$ ! )" 8$!/ / %%!) !/$/$ %8A0$/ /$ $!!%) , 8) %%A $ /"E % "F%%!/ %@$,$%$ $%% ? / ) !%%A )C,%$ !+88$) C /%) , %$-) ,$ ,% $) / %%+$"A % !+88$)$)8!%%!) / C /!/!%) /" " %$$%!/ %%$" ) $%%$ /$ I(/+!) !88$)$)8 / / , !)$ / 68",'.' "$"/%),,%$ /$$/ ) @8%)) " $% $$ /
! "
#$ % & #$## **#"$$%A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
.5; $ ! / ) / ,$ , ) ,$"A 2% ) $ "$%$ $)% %8 8$A <"$%$) 8 )! 8"" 8/ %$$" $ /G$8/A0/!8$! $8%% /" /! 8 , 8",% ,8 /%" ? ) $ / " /$ ) $ / %A /$G, )$$$/$,! / ! ) $$8$ / /!$%%%$"$ % $" !/$8/ $!$%% / / "%% ,$A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
4 ;!/A % %%!8""$% / $)% 8A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
'* ;$) ,) / 8"$ $ / 8""$A @ / %8% " ) )K! , %) /! "%$A " ) 8""$ "",) )K $8D8 $ " /"!/ " $ $A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
&* ;0/ /%) $ "I; ! 88 /$"EG$ */ 3% ) ", / /%$) @"% )! //$"!/ /C/A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
4 ;0/ $)$$)%E!/ ) /@$/!%%+$"$)F)!$/ /$$ $ /$,$ )/$,$ % ,?8 8"" %!%$"$$E$ 8FA % @%$!/ ,%" $ %I" " / /"% "G $ $ ,%"$8$C! G / 8$ $,A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.
;$ "/!"8/ $" $)$!A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.4
&* ; $ % % %8% "$ G$ 8/8 " )8)1> .>'.''.5
*.;8" !G /" 8 " )8)!/%), )!/ /!!$/$8$A /$
! "
#$ % & #$###$*#261
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #233APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21> >'.''.&
.';$!/ " % %$G% 8/) $ / $ %8 )!/ "G / "G !/$A % / 8"!$/ 8% " /!R8%) ,)S !/$8/ G! ,$ " / %8% "8/ ) / / %8% 8"A / % " ! ) %%!! % /$$ / "G $ / / %8% 8" ) / $ / / %8%/ ! /G "GTA / % ")% / !/!G,%8%M8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
1.;0/ $ / )$8I ! !) @A % $ %A )C/!$"/!% !%$ / /!!%)G8GA8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
* ;0 %$ $ 8 ) /%) , %%!) !")/% / @$)!/ 8/) / ) , ,$$% $/) ,8 / 8""$ !/% 8 8" !$/ %$ / 8 %$$A $C " % ))C $/ "A8 " )8)1> >'.''.*
*.;/"% /"%A8 " )8)1> '>'.''.4
'.;/ 8$ "!%) % , )$ /$ "%%", %!/!%) ,$A /!%) , / $8/A8 " )8)1> >'.''.1
'4 ;/ /%) , )$8 ,! !888 )888A 2!!%) / )$ 888 , 8$")I8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
;" % ) ! /$/"A / /$/" %" % ) "$) A /!$/ ,% /$/" /" ,$ !!G/// A /$ /%) , "$)A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;$/! / !%) ) , ") / " G$ $88 " )8)1> 4>'.''.4
&4 ;G ! $/A
! "
#$ % & #$### *#8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
* ;/ %% !)% / " $" / ,% ) /A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
..;(8 /! / ) %$ $ %% $" / !)% / 8""$A / "$/!$" @ 8A /$/ "$/ / ? $ ")!/ ) / 8/$I8 " )8)1> >'.'' .
1& ; /"!$ $ / , 8$ %@ 8A $ / /%) , $%) $,% // $%% ,G $"!/ "% %$8) )$) ,GA8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
*4 ; /$%%)!$/ )$8$"$$ /!8 " )8)1> >'.''.
1 ;! / $" $ /$$A / /%) , ,% G / $" $ / 8/ )% ! ) /A !!/ $8$$-) G "$8 /$ /8$ / C% !/$8/% /8 / $/,/)C %A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
** ; $ 8""$ )) $ 8%%8$ %$%$/)L/% $$)8 ? "GAAAA $8%% $8 88$% % !88) , /$G$ ,) , " 8% "%% /%A))$$%% $ C $ ,$8 $/A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' .
*1 ;% %A )% $ , $%,% $ ) /$A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.
& ;/$!%) )% $ $ 8") 8%A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.4
.&; / /"% $ $/,/) 8%$" , !88$) , $K A /%%$ 8 ) $%% 8,%"A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.4
*.;%% /"% / / " $"8 $/,/) )/%) ,%) / "
! "
#$ % & #$####*#262
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #234APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>''>'.'' '
1 ;0/// !$ / / /%) , )$8A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.*
11 ; $ D% "A6C"G @8$ / 8%)8 ",%"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
..; )C )) / $A $ $ ,/$) $"8 $/, ,% ) 8" "8/$" $ %8A C% 8 $,% , %$8) / )$%,) /!" "/ " %$ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
;0/ $ / )$$$ !88$)I$">$8$%$) +" %% $"$) C,%"G /$/" $%,% )%) 8$ ,$A 6 !88$) 8')/" !!/ /$$)8 /,! @IIC $"% !A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
&5 ;/$ $ $% / 8""$ ) )K)$8% % / ,%" / 8$ 88$% 8%$" @$A / $ $ $%%) $/!A % / 2 %%!/"% )K/8$/%) , $ $%)A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.'
*.;0!A % / /$$8%% 8/) // ') /" ) $$!/ /$8/)% %%!A /% 8 ?, ) $8" / !A "" ,G ) @A %$"$ $ $"/"!!$%% %$"$ / ", ?, $ %) )$$8%!$)!G8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;/ $ )$$8$ $ 888)%!/ $$)$ $ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5
. ;,8 $ /!%) 8 "C% %A %$/$/!$) ""A ")!/ %% /$ 8)$)/%$G / / 1 & $ $ " 8"%@" 8)!$%% % $% ,A " ? ,$ /A 8/) % ) ,8 / $!)$) $$/ /%$8$ // / $%) / @ %E%FA 8/ $ ) % /%)%$- / / )$) / A " %G$ %% ,
! "
#$ % & #$###9*#", .+'." ! "$/A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
. ;(8 $ "G ,%% )$8 !////" $ 88$) 1 & ) &)A "! /$/" /" $ $ /$, A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
& ; $ $%$ K 8$$%$/ )!/ /!!$/ /$$ A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;" % 8"%$8) % ) )$A8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' .
'* ; % )K /$G/ 8$ /%) %% /"%A ) /$G/8%),! "G /%$ "$ %$!$/ / $K%$ 8""$A <@"% /%$ 8%) " 8%$ $ / % "G !>$$ /!$%% % / $" /"% $8"A /$ /! , %$" 8) /"! / /$$ %A $ / / $ /! ) / 8 88$$ " / /"!!%) @)/ " 8"G $% $"" % / 8 /"% $8" / )A /!) ,%$ / ", /"! ,/ $"$)) /!$ / ) , 8$)) $ /$ 8 ) /$,$%$ /" $ ) $8" ) /$$ ) 8$ ) ? /"A ) ,%$ /, /"!!$/ %$"% /$$ $ /"% ,$A $ @"% $" 8$)/$,8 " $!/"?8$%$"" ,8"; ) 8/ /" / ! " ,8)!$/ % $ / 8 /"A <$$8%$ $ /%) ) )) / !) "G/8$$E8 %$8 %)$ @ 8AF" 8% $8/ 8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1
1& ;,%$ !/%),,%)!/ / %!$//$ % / $/@)$$ "A)/$GC ) !G ,!/ (G ;" $8 $ $%)A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;$C$/A $ / $) "$8 /%) , ,% )!/ !!A
! "
#$ % & #$###!*#263
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #235APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>'*>'.''.&
1 ; "8/ /$G$!%) , $8 )! )$$8$ /$G$!%) , )$$8% 8 /$A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4
.&;$/ 8/ D% +8 " )8)1>' >'.''
* ;/+"% $ /+"%A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' '
'4 ;" /$$ $) "$% ) /$!/"!%% % $A8 " )8)1>'4>'.''.
'.; )) /%$ , / "!88$) 88$8 " )8)1>'4>'.''.
'* ;%$ /%) , 8$ ) D%%)% !//$ $ $"$)8 A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5
;(8!!!/ / , 8"$ *.: ) 8$ 8""$ %$ $ A0 )C%$ /$@"/ ,!$"$%$>8""8$%% "$) )!%)/ , )!$/ /!/ A / //8$$ / /%) ,)$$) 8/ "%$%+$ !/$ AAAAI8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1
& ;,,% / "?$ /"! / 8) /" /)" , / "/A $%%!)! )) / /"! @ ) %8% 8/ "G! $$$8)$) ?, %$A ))$$ /$ % / !88$) /" 8!$%% ,,% 8 8$ " / /"!/ 8%) ) / / )!%) %%A $ / %) //" $8!%) 8" )! / "/%8%!G,,%),$G$ /"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4
4 ;0 ,/ 8$ /" $ !" )!$/ ,$ ,% !!$%% / %%A ; % $ / " , /8"!$%% 8/ $ " #$%%M
! "
#$ % & #$###7*#8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ; !88$) $ /%) , ,% /"$$)$% $/,/) %%A $)$% $/,/)!)$) $ 888A /!)$)% %$ /$ 8""$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
* ; ,%$ / /!B!88$)B$)8 / /"A /$G/ ",$D$ "%% ) //$G/%$ /%) HH/"! !//$C')/" $" /"A % /$G/ )$$8$!%) , /)8P%$8A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.
14 ; /%) / / ,$%$ /$$ /%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.'
1.;/ 2 /%) )$$$/ / %% %$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
11 ; / /%) , % +!88$) $A; / / ) 8$% // /% / %"$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4
;/$ $ / ,%"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;0)! )$% !88$) A !88$)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5
* ;/"," $%,%!$%% ,$ " % // / 8 " )8)1>1 >'.'' '
;<$ ) /$G/ !%$$ $ "/'"/ $ $ "G )$8 $!/ $ 88"%$/A %C % 8/ 8% ) /$8$! )$$8% 8$- /$ 8$A !!/ %$ $ "/ )/88$%%8%))8$)"2!$$ ) %% $" ) % 8/$A /$ $ ? @"% !/ 8 "G )$$8$A / $ ) / A /$) $ ) %8$A %% /88$$8%A
! "
#$ % & #$###%*#264
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #236APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>1 >'.''.&
.; ) "A / $ /%) %% %!/ / 8 )!$/ /$% % / 8"%$!$/ ) %8%%P%$A8 " )8)1>1 >'.''.5
* ; !!/ "$%%$ )%%/$ )/% @ /%) / /$/ )!//!!$/ /$ %$)C $"8 /A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
&.;!/$/A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
.';0/ ) $ "I% / $/ /$ /!/ $!// / %$ /A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
*.;!/$%% %%) / " 8 , %$) $"%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
..;0/ % )!/$ $ /$,$8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
; +!88$)$)8 /% / 8""$ 8"$8%% ,$)$ /$ 8$% "% ) )A0$/ / /$ 8/$8 $ /)8$/$%%/) $$ "$ ) 8$% / /%)$A/$ $ $" / 8""$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''
*.;)KG!!/ / )$$$ !88$) $A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ; ,%$ $ "GA 8%) / ))%$$) %%$ ) %$ %% $" $ /) , ,% ) /")$" %/% !$%%8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.
.4; /%) , ) D%%A !88$) $)"$,8 / 8$ ,$ "/!88$)8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.
'4 ; /%) , ) / " + ) %$G?)$8 "A )C /!/ $ )$8 ,!!!/ $ %$$ $/$$)8 "/ % ) " %!/ " ,%$$ $ /$$)8 % / "/A 2!8 $
! "
#$ % & #$###4*#/ // 8$-$ /"!I2"! / + /0 /$/" ) / /%) , ,% )!//!!$/ /$/"A 8 /!/$ $ 88 / 8$ /!/ 8$ /$G / 8 %%% )$8!/ /"!)!$//$! /"M</" /$ "" $8 ) " /" $ %% / " !$ $,, /$/"A $,, ) " /" / ?8$$8 !$)$A / !$%% ) " /$! /"
/ 8//$/ ) $,% / ,8 / /% $ $!/ $ $ /$/"A 1) "" $8 $ %% % $) $G$ /$$) )A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;(/ )@8$8 %8%!G / "GA8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
. ;K$" !" !8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.
' ;(8 $ $ ,$% /$$"$)8 ) $ $%%$/ $8A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.&
&& ;/ "/% $ %$8,%A / % , "/ BB !A ))$8) $!$%% % , &.)A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
*5 ;0/"%$%/"8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
&* ; !$ /$/" / /%) ) $ / %$ @)) $) $" / 88"")$% 1.) %AC%$$8 " /+"% /" + $ % //"$,$ !/$8/ $!/!$ $)A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' '
1 ;(8 $ C! /%) / /$/ % 8)>/" ) $"%% !/$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
' ;U / "
! "
#$ % & #$###8*#265
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #237APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;/$% "!/ 8 " /%,/ !8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
&& ; $"% $8" %%! % !$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
& ;(/ /%) %% )/ "$8$ )%$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
. ;0/ $%$$%)I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
; %$$ $ 8$$- /"!/$! $ )$8$"$ )8$8$ )$8$"$$ /%) , $ 8$% )$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
' ;0 /) 8) &. $ // /A"$% / $ %% * , 8$% $@"/ A!%) , $8$ 8) /" ! / 8"%!$/ "$8$%$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
*.;/ $ )$$8$ ,! 8) /" !) % ) /" !) $" A / " / % "% 8G / %A / "%% $D ) /% !/$ 8A /%D ) ,$ %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ; $$$8 8" / /$ $ / $ <G#%% $)) % $8" ) 8$% $ $$A " /% $8" 8" $!$%% $$,%)8)") ) %% %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
*1 ;/$G/"!/ /$/ /$ $ ) / / $ @ $ / $ <G#%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
& ;FK / 8$K ,$ /!% 8/ /$$(F))K ,) ,!/$8/ ,% /8"$8 8$$ 8"A 6K "$ /! 88 /" A
! "
#$ % & #$###**#8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
.*; $ %!/ %$ $ / A / %8!//!88$) "G % / 8 ,)) , /!G8A % " ! " / 8)/" // / %% , " , ,% "/ %A0/ /%) / , %%!) G$" 8 / 8 / I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;"$,% )8A $)) 8D8A ;))%"" /%) %K%$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;/ ! )$ ,A !88$) $ /) 88$% $ %$) $ /"!$/ "$% / )% $"A !88$) $ $ 8"$!$/ /$8) /% $ / %%!$ % ) % " / " 8 ) 8$, 8" !/$8/ %! $ "$% )$ , $A / ) %8 A 6!! )$ $$!/! 8" G$ , 8) /H$% %%I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
&& ;; ! ) / $8" G /$/"A ;! 8 % )%$$$",$ /$/" $"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
14 ;/$)$8 ,! !+88$) ) !+88$)A(/ 8 / ! / A / ! /%), ) D%%A / ,/ @ / / 8$ A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
&' ;!%) , /%% $ )$) / , " $ /D$A "$ / / !" , $ / $!/$%$ / )$!$/ /$A ; $$8""$! ) /$! 8 ) /$%$G/%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
; $)$8$"$$8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' .
&' ; !88$) $ 8%% 8 % "$8$%8 ,8 % ) %$ $ 8""$ %% $"A /!) 888 " , %% )$ G , % / %%$" A
! "
#$ % & #$##9$*#266
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #238APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.''
&4 ;% "%$ $ 8"%@ !88$) ) /2% /% / @ !/$8/ / 8""$!%) %$GA / 2 /%) / $8AAA8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
&4 ; % % %%+$" ! )$8 @ $ /+"% $ ) 8/$/"@ /))$$% $8"!/$% / %!$/ /$"$%$ ) ) $ )$$$/$ ,! / !A(/!+88$) ) !+88$) / " " $ @ $ 8 8 A /"A !$%% % %) " % 8%$"$ /$%%+$"$)8 $ ) ) /!$%% 8/ $ ,!/$8/ 8%) / "$)) 8D8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' '
'* ;/$!%) %$- "$%$!///)/"$/%%" " "$%!G8$ ) /$ $$ % 88$%% /% 8/ @A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1
'* ; 8%) ,8" )$8$"$ 8%) G! )" )$// ? ! %8$8"8 8/ 8/ !$/ #6 "$% 8 ) 8%) )% $"8%8% ?, /%/ )!%%+,$ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;(8 ) /"% / %8G /%88"")$A % " %"$%$% /$ G$8/ " /" "% 8$%% $8 8%)K / / $8 ) " %% !D$"/ $ )8 ,G$ ,%A % ) ) /$"$%$ $!GAK8$8% ) ,) /8 %8G )$$ $ /%A /K!/!/ 8) ) /" $ ))$$ ,$!$/A "$ / "$%$ % /%8% "$% % %$ $8G G$ % )D$"%A/ $ % 8",$) % ) @ " ) % $ /%$ /% AH% ,$ /"%!$%% % / ),% /$)$%"" $ $ "%$"$%%$ )%%$$)8 ),% /$ !G "$ / 8%%,% $ !/$8/ "8/ 8 "$ % ) @ $%@ !$%% $"% $ " ) +$%$-)A 6 ;%$- / / @ /% ) /$/$,)$$8""$ 8%) D "?$ / )$ /D$ ,$%) ))$$%),% /$I(8$ I2K 8%% "$$ / ,
! "
#$ % & #$##9 *#) /%) , ;A /$ %$G 8$ $ 8 %$8A 6K"G ) $K,,$ %$ 88"")$ 8,$%$$A / /!$%% %%/) #$% $)A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.4; /%) "$8 " /$ %% )$%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.;C %% / " $%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
1& ;0/ !/$/"8 8 %8$ 8 !88$) ) !88$)A %% /$/ 8% /$/D%$ "$8 ) $A $ )$ / " / / 8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
.*;B!888B $ $$$8 $ $ %$"$$ $8%% $ / $ $ ,$ ") 88 /$ $%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
'& ; $ $%A " " %$ $ %%+$" ) / !!A " " %$ /$$" ,! )"!/ %A " " ) "8/ $" / 8 $A0/ / !) $ 8"%% $%A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .
.5; ,$ ", ) $ / /" , / !/%)C)"$ /%$A @$ ) )$$8% "$) 8 "A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
.';(8 / % / 8" %$ $ ) %% ) % / /%G$$ ) /$ 8 "/"A / )) " " )K8 /$A // / 8"!$/ "$% 8$ %%!/%A6%%//$/) / $ /!/$8/"G %$$ )$$8% ) @$ ) $%,%A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'' ;0/I/ %%% / )/ )$8$ /!A %%!) / /%) , %%!) %%A K/" $"8
) 8$ ) / ,) $ /$ $8"%% $ 8"A ,) %8% +!/%8%$A
! "
#$ % & #$##9#*#267
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #239APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>. >'.''.1
&.; " $C $ 8%$$ !/$ $ , / 8 8/ $A $ 8$ / $8 % "% 88 @%)A !!$%% 8/ " " $% %+"/$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
* ; ) "G)$8 $ $ !88$)A / ) / ) / " /) $ ,) "G P/%/ %8% 8" %% %%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;% /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$A /%) , 8%%)A0/ $ / 8/ /$"$) /!%/%$$/$I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
1* ;!/$/)$$$!+88$)A !!/ ) &"/ /I $/)$$8$!+88$)"!/ )C " / .) III8 " )8)*>.4>'.''
*.; +!+88$) /" $ 8E// B%8%BFA(%%!$ /" $8$$/ $ )))% / 8" $ @ ?, 8A !) %%!/" $8$ /!$%% / 8$, ,%% /$ 8"AE;%$G!) 8FA $ /$/% %$G% / /$8/!%)% $ " %+" % / %8%A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
&' ; )K!/ )$8 $ /%) "GA(/ $) $% /$ $$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.'
' ; ,%$ $ )"88 ) "G 8"$8++ ) /$/ !/$ )$ /! $ )A / $ / "$8!8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1
* ;(8!/ )$8 ) $ "GI8 " )8)*> >'.'' .
&1 ;"! $)8 1' $ A / "$$/ /$A <"%$%!$/8/ 8"%$8) , ,$%)! /$ A )C / )D % 2%8 ) /$G)%$ / $ ) $) ,) / )%" ! 88"") / %G!/ 8" ) )!$ $) @" 8A 'A 6 %%! / )G)
! "
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
>
E 1 EF *G$)F+
) $
! "
#$ % & #$##9!*#268
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #240APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+! & ' - &
2
-
&
1
. .
;
2 3
6
7$ 3% /#56*7 398/856= +
! "
#$ % & #$##97*#8 " )8)'>'4>'.''.
* ;$)$% $ /%) $"$% %8% 8""$AH) $$ ) %8)!$/$ / $ 8A /"% /%) % , %%!) $$)8!/ / %8%% %$$A $/,/) $"8) , %!/ /B)$"B)$) $ 8""$A $ ) % 88 $ /"%AH) %)D$) "$/ $A $) /"% ) 8 , / $ % , /$ $"A8 " )8)'>' >'.''.'
' ;/A "/%) ,D$) ))"8$ $/ $/,/) $"8A8 " )8)'>' >'.'' .
14 ;= / /%) , )$$8$ , /"% /%) ,@) / " 8""8$%A8 " )8)1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;0! ) ,%$ / 8 $ B%)$B-A $)$% $/,/) 8%) / ", 8%% $ / $ %) 8"%$)$ G$ $ 8A $ " $/,/) !$) , 8%%$ / %$8 /$ )$ $ " )$ B $B BHAB % % % @ / $8! ?A = "$/8$)H$ / !/ 88 " ,,%$/) 8"%$ $ $)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;/ )$% $8) ) $) )$ "$$A )8$!$%% $8 /% $8A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''
1 ;;$)$% $/,/) $ % $"8) , / 8,$ $ * 8" / % A 8 A / / ) 8 "8/ " $ /D$ $/,A0 / / ) G/ % ,D$A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''.
. ;,8 / ) , $"$% / 8 / )$ / % " "G%!/$8/ $!/ " )% ) 8 / 8" ? " 2 " ," ) $)$% , ",$%)$!$/ )$ $- ) $8$!$/ $%$
+7=
! "
#$ % & #$##9%*#269
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #241APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2" / , % "% %% $" %8%A0/$)!/ / , $% / !G) G$ 1&8 $)$ % "% !%! /) !%%G!$ $,8 / / /" %$A ) %$ $ $)$%- 8) ,$%)$ ,$ , + )$ % $ 8$$ 8%AH )$$ $ D$- ) ' ,%8G" 8$ "GA8 " )8)1>. >'.''.'
*& ;/ %% )$ $$ ) $!)C"G )$$8$ %% $ $ !$%% 8$ /%A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.*
4 ; ) /% $ / 8$ /! ,$% ,8G$/ .C ) % 4.C ! )$) 88"") / A/ / "$$ ) 8%$)) $8A ; /" %8) $ / )!! 8""8$% 8 8% /$ ) 8$$$A /$$8 %!G$ ! ,$%)$// /%$ %% !A8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' '
.*;%% / 8$) , $ / $)8$ /$D$A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.*
* ;0%% C "") $ !%% %)A0/ $)$% $ -) $)$% $/,/) ) $ )$%8 "$% / 8%) %$ / $) 8 $ )$8 $ / $/,/) ) 8$% 8$ 8""8$%,$A /$ $!/! /-$ + 8 /D%$ %$ $$)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.5
&5 ;/ / ,$ ,$ ) /%) , /%) /" @ )-$ %! /A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
4 ;$ / 8) $ A! $ "$% ,,% /"/ $8%% / G$ A $ $ $! $// / $ $ $)% / "/ ,! G$ !/ ,$ $ $ I" $8" " $ @) / %$ $ " 8) @ ) / / $8 / / " $%$$8A0$/ / !%) , %$"$) ? /% ,)A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
* ;/$G /%) /%,) / %) $)// "G$" )$$8% / 8$% A " $G/ /% $)/!$%% !/"
! "
#$ % & #$##94*#% )%$ %%!A/!$%% % ) $C"/$$/ "$ ,/$) / /% / /"%"G B / %$ $%)BA /$ $ ,A // /% $ $ / )") $$A /$ $!// /"% "G 8" $ %A / "G %%!))$$% $$ 8" ) 8) /" )) /$"A= )C! " ,$ %,% /% $ A0/!%) /"A ))$$% /%!%) 8/ /8/8 / !A / /"% $) "% % @ ) $ ))$$% 8"$8 )$/ !A!/!%) !8/ / , ))$ !8%$I8 " )8)1> .>'.''.
;$% !)$)8 8""8$% $A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.4
&* ;$ ,/ D%%!%) ) ,) $)$% !A ; ! / /"%AH)/ %">8 ) / % ,$ " @ @"$/ $)$$)% !",$ "A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.
& ;8)!$%% / +$ ""A +!+88$) /"!$%% A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
* ; /$G"$ ,)" $ !G $" $ )$ / / /% %) / $ %% $" / ,$A/$C / /$ $ $ ) / $8" $,% / 8/ 8 / $ !A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
&& ;H) / 8$ ) $8 /$ ,G$ 8%$ 8A0/$% "$)$% $/$ / " ) ) ) / ,$ " /% ,/$)/" ,8G$A ; $ , ,% $$ %$ $ / "G $ $8$%% $,%A 2% ) $) /$A8 " )8)1> >'.'' '
.5; %) $ ,)" !,)" $ %%!) 1." ) % /" .%" + $!$%% ,,% )) 8)$ /% %)!$%% )) % 1. .8A8 " )8)1> >'.''.*
*.;/ )$ !$/ )$ @8$ "A % $)$% $ %% !) ) "$$)
! "
#$ % & #$##98*#270
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #242APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, $)$$)%!/ ) / / $8$% 8"$8 %,,$!/ 8 ! /A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;$)$% $ ?/AK$)8A / %8)$8""8$% ) /%) , @) 8""8$%$A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.4
&4 ;(8 / )$ !/$ 8A 8 / )$A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
. ;=)8$$ , $ " ) + $8 G$ )G$8 8A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
* ;/ ')$ %AA ;, /" / !), ,$ ) ) % % /%) , ) %$G %) , $)$$)% !$ /$/ /%) , %%!) $)/ ) % , ,% $ A / %$"$ / " $"/" 8%) ,) AI8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
..;(8 / )$8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
1& ;</ ) , 8$%%
H) %%%8)$ / 8$E- )$$8F/ $)) ))$) $) / $"8 8""8$% 8/ $ ) G$A #8$% / $$)$%,$%)$ $/,/) %8) $ / 8!$/) / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,K$8A @ %) ,) 8""8$% @A #8$% ,$ %8) $$)8 /"8/%! @ ,)A8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
*4 ;%) 8""8$%A /" $)$%8 " )8)1> >'.''.
1 ;%$ ) @ /+"% /%)D$/%%!$/,/)%A ! /%) /D$)@A8 " )8)<%% / %$) $ / @%$ , $8%% /
! "
#$ % & #$##9**#1> 5>'.''.5
. ;88 / %) D$) ) ""$$/$$"8 / )$ A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
** ;$)$% $ / $$$8% ! / %)8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
&' ;$)!/ !$$)$% / @8$ //$$/,/)!$%%"$$)$%A $8) /+"%%$ " 8/% 8/ %$G$(P(8 D$ "$% $/,/) $ ,$ )$$8A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1
& ;2$/ >/$/$8$)$% $ /%) , "$)$$)$%- ,%) %$"$ /" )"$$ $"8A " % $$ %%$)$% B"$$+/%BA 8 "%%8 $)$%$ ) @$ /"%A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' .
*1 ;/ )$8 , "G A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.'
'' ; ) /% ?/ /%A/$!/ / $)) ,A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.4
*.;</ ) ,)$ +$ "" ) /"$D$" /% ) %)A8 " )8)1>''>'.'' '
1 ;(8 / %$8C% ,$ /% / $$)$%$ /%$ / , $ %8 %A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.'
.&; ""8$% @ /%) , ..O$ $ " $8"A /$8/
F8 " )8)1>''>'.''.*
11 ;/ $"8 $ "8/ "$$)$% /"%A / %)$ ) 8""8$% )$$8 / ,-) ))$) 88 /$ $8!/$$)$%- / @ /"% )C 8" / /$"8 $ 8 / 8% )D$ $" /!-) A
! "
#$ % & #$##!$*#271
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #243APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>''>'.''.
&5 ;9$A " $/,/) /%) ,$)$% " 8 ,%)$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ; )$8 ,8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
5 ;/ / " ) / )$ $"8 / 8""$A( /$ +$ "" $ $/,/) 8 % / 8 ,/ /!/ %!$/%8D8A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''
.';%) 8$8%% $ /" $$A$)$%$$ /!8 ) /%) , ) / % / %$)!G/A / $ /!G/ ) / %8G),% /$ $!! 8$ / /% ")$8% ) /!G / "/$ ) , )A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
. ;(8 / C @8% / " /$A C)"G /" % "D% $ " /% / / ! 8/"G$ /"$,% "$$$ ) @$ /" %$G 8""8$% , +)+ ,$ !%)C /" /"AH$G!%)CD$ " /$/) $ % /%E? $ /F 8""8$% ,%$/"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;/"% G$%%$ $/,/)A $/,/) $/, # H8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.*
*' ; )C ,%$ / !88$) C /", $/ / /% 8) /%A ) / "G/ / /% "GA = $8/ "$8 $$ /!%)//%) )!88"")$ 8!/$% @$8$ C8$ )$$ ) /$A /$ $ ")$$ $ !C AC/" )$,% / 8""$ %I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
* ;$ % ) AH) ,$ !$/$)!%%$ 8 /")$ / $ A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
. ;(8 8%% /$)$8A0%G$ , !8"%% )$ $$A
! "
#$ % & #$##! *#8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' '
& ;" % ) '*>4 /$ ) $"A 8$%%8%$% / $$ /A/$G$K" / %) " / G$8/ ) /$8 / /% 8KA $ "!G !%% " , %%A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
* ; ) /% ,$%$)$% $ / 8/"% )%$ $) %8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
& ;" $ %)8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4
.&;8 -$ + ) 2% $ 8""8$% 8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
.1;=+,>8/"%$G% 8$ $ / $)8 $ ,$ ) % / $" ) / !$ $ / //$"A /$ $ $$$8 )$$8$%$ %)A8 " )8)1>' >'.''
* ;(8$)$% $ $"8!G$ %!/ )$)K /$ 8$$ %% / $ /$$/,/)A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' '
*& ;/ )$8 !$/ / $"$%$$A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.
* ;(8 %% / /$ ) ,8 " )8)1>'4>'.''.
'.;H) $" G8 " )8)1>'4>'.''.
'* ;#$$!/ 8/ $ /+"% %% "$%$!$/G$)!/!>) "%$% ,)" $ $ ) % /$%$$" %@A % " "$%$ ) G$8/ )! /,$%$ 8G// "%A %) 8!)) / ) /)$ $$$ $ 8) ) / / / ))) ,$ +$$ A
! "
#$ % & #$##!#*#272
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #244APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>' >'.''.&
.1;2% ) %) ") / / 8 /$8!$/ /"A @ $)$% %$G /% $?$)$8% 8$)$ / %" $$8 " )8)1>' >'.''.&
' ; )>/% $%% ")A $)$% $ B")B , %!/ %% )C8 , /$$/,A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;)$8 $-$ ) $ @A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5
; $8%) )$$8$ "G A )$ / $ $>)$$ !%% G$ $ $/,/) ! 8$ "@$"" 888 ",A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1
& ;%)E8) /%F" %% ) / " / 1,)"A $ /" 8 , %@)) "$%%AH) )$ /" 8)% %% /" ) 8 , $8/) $%A $ /" 8 /B)B / "$%$ A % $ / %/" ,$" $ 8""$ A / ) "$8 ) /)8$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ;$)$% $ 8""8$% ,$ ) /%) ,A /! ,$% ) )$) $/,G!8/ /A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.'
1.;/ ! )$ / 8$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
14 ; ) /% / "" $ %% '*>4 " /$"A $)$% $ %% / "" / 8 , A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ;$"8 / $$)$% $/,/) ) "G $ %$,%%% $"$)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.*
;$)$% $ -) 8""8$% $ )8 8 /8 $/,8 " )8) ) /% %% ") ")A = "
! "
#$ % & #$##!9*#1>1.>'.''.4
;)$!/ ;) " $ / 8@ /D$A 8)% $%% ") ) A /$ $ /,%"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;0! %) $ 8 %)A8 " )8)1>1 >'.'' '
;/$D$ $ )",A /$H6= )$$8$ ,!%) $ )% $ )!$%% H0= ,A % / % ,%% $ $8)$,% $88AAA B )8%$ /D$" %) / /$ $) D%$ $$@$8 ) 8$, K 8$%$ 8$$ 8" ) "$$ $,% " $8 $$$8% "$/ /D$) 8$%AB /$ " $ 0 M#8$% 8$, ) 8$%$ 8$$ 8"A /$% ) /!$ / %)$$B$$$8% "$ / /D$) 8$%AB2 (MM A0/ $"8 / /"% $"8/ %%!$ $-$ / 8$,$ ) 8$%$$ $,% 8"
+/G+;?$ /G/ " ) /$! 8"A +" 8%+;A#8 /P 8A A + "+ % / " %!G$ / ; 8" +!%!$ $8 +/ $8 +/ , $8 8" +%8% 8/ ) 8 +%$ +88$ 8" / %$ ) M8 " )8)*>. >'.''
'.;$ ) /%) $ %)>8)>/% $/,/)A ; @$8 $ / / @ )!%8" %!/ % ) %) )$8 / %8% )8,)!$/)A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
' ;H) ) /% $ ""8$%- , $) $88"")$ ) $8 $8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
*.;/ , / )$8 /! / ,$/$- ) /$// 888 C/" /",% %) ", A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;$)$% $/,/) ) / 8$ ) !%% ,$ /$% % " $/,8) , $" /$ )/"%A
! "
#$ % & #$##!!*#273
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #245APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
.4; ) + /% /$$8%% /"%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
1 ; !$/ )$8% $ )!! $ /% %) $ ) $ %%% 8A = "$%$ ) / $ / "%% %) ) G!/%) ! %$ 8""$A /$G/$)$%% 8 $) / 8""$ / $$!/%$G8D$ /"%!$/ " %8%$)A /"% /%) )$$% ))$$% 8$ 8 @E@ 8% $) $ " $8F) %%!%$!$/)G$ $ ) $/,/)%A 2! $/ %$8$ ) @ ,8" /$/ / $ $,)" $!$%%)/ /% " A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.
'4 ; " + $%I/$C /$"8 $)$%!/// !$ 88$ / A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;(8 %) $ ,$% / $ 8/ /" "8/ !A )K /%) , 8$)) %)A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
.1; $/,/)!$)) 8$ ) /%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.'
* ;(8 /H)E ) 2%F ) $)$% $ /)$ $"8A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;" ! $ $ D$M8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
&* ;H) $ ") , $$!$/ "")$$$A ;$)$%% ") ,% ,G!/ ) "A/$$!//$%$+!"$8$)$% /+"%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' .
.&; $ $ ,$ %) $ /%) , @) 88)$%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;!!$/$% " , ,% 8"%!$/ /D$"A
! "
#$ % & #$##!7*#8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
& ;$$)$% $ )$ $"% / 8""8$% A/ /%) , 8$)) )$% $$!/ $ 8"%$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
; 8/" $ /% ) $))% //A( $ % 8""8$% 8$$8 , % $ " A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
*.;H) $!-) ) "$) /"%A/ /%) 8$ $ / "!$/ %$"$$ D8 %A " , /$8$ $)$%$ " , $A <@"% %$"$$ / ",!G$)$% 8 ,) /" " ,$A %$ /%) , )$) )/"% " / % "% %A 8) /" , )$$$ /%"% %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
*1 ;/% )$ / $% !) $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
& ;/ $)) )$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
*& ;<" @ 8$ /$G$ / $"$%%)$ ,$ !//8) /% $)$% $ /%) 8/ " @ ,)A <" ) $/,/) $"88$ $)$% $ / %$/% )$ $"8 )@8$ ! ) ) , " 8)%$ )$)$$)% $ $ $/,/)A <@"% D )G$ $"8 8 , )! /%) 8$)% /D$ %%/ %$"$ % $ $) D$+$ + G$A0 /%) "G! %$,% )$$ 8) $/,/),EAA $8G "/ %$8 @8 $ 8$ /%) , 8-@$FA / //) $ $ $"8$8% $% $ / %%+$" $%,% '*>4A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
.*; ""8$% %)$ $)$% %)$ $"$%, )$A(/ )%) )$% , $"$%%A)K /$/@ $)$% %)$ $ , / @ )/%) , "G) !G8 /$ )A /
! "
#$ % & #$##!%*#274
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #246APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 8%) , ) ,$)$- !G8A %" $8$$-! /!G8 8 , ))" /$/@A ""8$% %)$ )$)$% %)$/%) / $ "$$$ )! 8% ")%$GA $$) ) 8 , $$/%) ,$,% ) /%) $8$ $! "$$$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;</ ) $ /D$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;H) " $ 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
14 ;H) ) /% 8""8$% A / )$) % )A $ /" ) 8) / " 8""8$% A %% / $)) ) ) ) %),/!A / / %8/) / $ $ /!8/)!$/ / $ " $8$% /% / 8 !/$A 8// 8!!%) , )$ " $ $!A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
*' ; $ ,$) " / '!G /$/%) , 8$)) 8""8$% A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
;)$$)% /"! /%) , ,?8 8""8$%%$ ) @$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;(8 / $"8 /"% $ /$)$% 8 / %$ $/,A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' .
&' ;= 8 "G )$$8$ ) ,/ 8 8+@$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
.&; " / % , % / "G 8) /% ) /"% $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
. ;U $)$% D$ $ ,$ %) )/%!/ ) / $8 ) $
! "
#$ % & #$##!4*#8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
&4 ;= /!-)H) / $)) $) /+" /%) / ))$$% $) / @ A1O%) $ %8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' '
'* ;/ $%% )$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
.; ) /% )$ "8/ )" / 8""$ $)$% $ ) $A ) /% / %! ,/+"% $ / /$%$ $)8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
1' ;$-8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1
& ;(8$)$% $ 8$ "$$+%) $ ,8 /$$- ) / /%) , ) 88)$%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.;/%$!$/H)A C//+"% $/" 8A / "?,%"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;H "$) %$ $$)$% $ ) $"8) ,/"% / /%) , 8)A % /% 8""8$%!/$%$)$% !$ /$$) / / 8/8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
.*; ""8$% %) $) $8 ,) / $)$% 8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
;(8 / )$ ) / /%) , ) )$%M" $$!/ 8" ) 8/ 8$% " %G$ )$G$) @$8//$ $8% /%A /! % B /"B// 8""8$%% /%!$/ , %,, ) '*+/$%%8A/!/ $ /$/" /%) ,$% /$)%$ %%! / %) )!$/ #( ) / %$G , ))$$% $8 $>"%$A ; 8$% ") , /$%8% !!/G!/$! $/, ) $/,/) ,M0//$/% 8$ %% " $!$%% )$ ) )A0/// $ $ %$E@$ < , ,F , 8 %% 8$$$ 8$,$ 8$$ 8"
! "
#$ % & #$##!8*#275
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #247APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2$ %% ,$ $ !M @ /$//$ "$ / OD$) , #( ) / /*A*O/8$A;!%$ ? "G ) " "$ $ ) "% / ))$$%$8" 88$% $%A ""8$% ,$ 8$% $ @ @"$M8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
&.;/$G$)8 / " / "O/%) , )")%) 8""8$% 8$$$ / /$,$) $$)$%-)8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
. ;)$8% , !+88$) $ ))$8) ,$)) / % $"8 / %8% $8A 8/ / /%) , ) )$% 8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
'& ;2 /%) , @) / ) %) /%) , @) 8""8$% $AH) ) ) $ / "/$A 2 " , %) $" A %%8$ % ) %)$ @ % / $ /A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .
* ;H)$ /%) , %8) $% $ -) 8/ $8%)$ )!! A $)$% $/,/) / C-) %)$ 8""8$% $ $$ %)$A C)$ $/,/) "%$ "!A0/! %$ @ /!/ $ )$ /!%%,$ / $/,/)I/ G%% / $)!%G )C/%8$ $ 8A / 8A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
.';(8 $ /) $) %8 %$ $ %A "$ /A0",,%$,,8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'' ;=A / )$ , +$8%%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.1
&.;= 8C 8/ / %8$ $)$% /"% $/!) G /" / $/,/) ) 8%$)/" $ !A / $ / ,$ /% $ / /%%G / $!/! 8""$! /" ,$ $)$% $/,/)A
! "
#$ % & #$##!**#8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
1* ; / <2 / 8% $" A / "$ )"(GE%%$"F / 8$ / @E A1OF8%%8)"%A <2 / /) 8"%$ " /$/, " $ " /$ A 8)!/$8/ /8"" A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
4 ;/ )$8 $ "" 8 @$ )-$ 8,$)$$8$//%),8G!%))!$/$ / @8$)D$" $ ,/ A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''
*.;2% B%)B "8/%$ + ,/ $ ,$ )$ /$8% $-> A = 8 $% @8"%%$)$% /" /%)/ B"B%$ / B%)AB "$% & 8/8G$$$/!// " B $ $"8B / 8""$ )/ 2 66E/)F % 8/8G$ $> /%) 8/ ) )A/C/%$8 , ))A / $"% 8 , $!) D% 8""8$%%$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.'
' ;H) $ / ,%$8 )"$ $%,% % ,%$88"$ 1 & ) AA $)$% /$) , !$) / !C)$8$ ) $ $%,% 1 & ) A8 " )8)*> >'.'' .
&1 ;; ! ' ,A ) /% 8% $!/$8/ )$ / $8 8) )A %% )C! "/% $ A0/ $)!$/ / A / %% /"%AA / $ )!AA!/ ) % )/!) )$$$/ /AHG %% ) 8 $),% /$ ) " $ ; 2 ,A=C),, !8) /% %$"$$ / " !G / 8 , /%) /"%8 " )8)'>'4>'.''.'
4 ;/D$! "$%)$L!! $/,/)!/$% $)$% %%G$) ,G$) )8% $/,L/D$ $% $$ )$$8$
>
E ''EF '1G$)F+
) $+% =
! "
#$ % & #$##7$*#276
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #248APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,! ) %)$!/$8/ ) ?$$)8 " )8)'>' >'.''.
'.;/ ,?8$ / $$!/$8) )) )$ /$ ) / " 8%% $ 8 $ $ ) $)A 2! $ , /$ /!! ) "G$ "! "$A <$% + % /%/ B%)C$ ! ) / '* /)G$8 + "%) / )$"+% A /%$ %! , 8)$$ + $
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
1 ;$)$% $ ) /"% /%) $ % / 8"%!$/ / "% 8) /%A / " ," )$8 8/ +$ $ "$)$%$ 8 , / 8 , )%!$/ !$/%$ / $ ) 8/$,%A 6K/! / ,,!$/ / ,/!A8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ;<$$ $A" %$8"" !%) %G / ",)) / "$ $8G++$A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.4
*.;/ $"$ , $ ..O88 ) ) %8 / / $$A
! "
#$ % & #$##7 *#8 " )8)1>.4>'.''
'' ;/+"% $8$ )A " "$/! "$8 % "$$ ) / % 8A C$/ /8$ )"$!/C,/ % ,%$8A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.'
*4 ;;G$ )$$8$ ,! %) )$)$%!%) , %%,% %) !/$8/ $ 8"%% $$)$% !!/ /%$) /$ $8" /%$%% 8/ @"% /$/ 8 !/$ $ / 8$A8$ / " %)$ ) 8$ @ )D$$,$ %$8 ,/$)$% !P%) $ 88,%)!%8"A $"8 / 8$$8 $/,/) $ / 88 8$)% %%!$ "$ /$)$%$ %8) $ 8""8$%- "$@) - ) %)$-A 6 $% $/ !!/! , ,% ? /$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% )/8 /$A 6$%%!$$)$% $ / ,$%$ / $8) /"%!$%% % ) 8$ !!$/ /%>%) "% )$$" G/$/P!$%% $%8 " % $" !!%% $$!// 8" $)$% A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.1
&* ; ,8 /$!%) , $%% ,$8$% %) ) $)$% !/% /$ $8" $%% 8/ 8 !/$ $ A $ %)$ ) 8$ @ ),$ %$8 ,/ %) )$)$% $ $)),%A -$ $ / "$ 88 / / %$"$$ "$ $)$% $ $ "$@) ) %)$-!%) $8A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
.5;/ %$"$) %) ) 8) $ / 8 88"")% "$% !A(G$ ! /% /" " %!$%% /G$A /$G!$/ / / !!$%% $""%A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
' ;=" , 88 88$ /"%A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
'* ; ,) $ ,))% !/ / !$A8 " )8)/$!/% $8 $$)$8%A(!!! $ !
! "
#$ % & #$##7#*#277
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #249APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21> .>'.''.*
&* ;$$) % $" 8/ !) 8%!G$"A /$ $ ! !$/ / 8 %% / %!/! $$ $ $ $A0)/$)$ 8$ ) %% / /$ / "G %8 %! $) /+" A "$" %! /%" ) "$" / "! " 8$ $ 8)A % / " $$$ ))$ !/// 88/ $8%$$ ,
G$+$>L%8$ $/"" 8AC ? 8$ $"8 ! )%8"$!$/ /G$) )$$8$ / )C " $$A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.5
*.;6 $% $/ !!/! , ,% ?/$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% ) / 8 /$A8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
1 ;)8$ / $%,$%$ % $!$%% 8,$"/ $% $"8$ ,$ // / 8""$!/% ++!$$ $ /$$A0 $%% $/ $"8 "% / ,$!/!%) , 8) % / /$$8"!A8 " )8)1> >'.''.&
.';H) @$ / % 8 $8/ %A /8""$ ) , ? / $8/ / $ ! G$%% / 8""$A % %%!% " )$ 8"$8,8G) 8" "G$$8/ ) )$8""$A % /"% "G!" ,) ) /$" / $ 8" , $%%$ %8% ,%$/" !/$8/ @ ) $8" %8%A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
1.;%%% /%) ,,% , $ / " @A( $C/ 8""$E/ 8) 8$$ 8F$ /! %%!% ) /%)%A ) / "G )$8 / $8$))A8 " )8)1> >'.'' .
. ;$)$% 8$ $ $!) ) ) , $ /" /%>%)A8 " )8)1> '>'.''.4
'.;/ %) / "8/ /$/)$ % ) / 6 , @) /$/ ) / "8//$/E8""8$%F,$%)$ ))A / 8$%!88$) , ! ' "/ / / $"8 $/,/)!%) , )$ / $ / $!
! "
#$ % & #$##79*#)A < % / G$ ) $ $ $$8$ / $ $ % %$A 6$%%!$%!$%% % / ,%"AH$G!$ ) GA8 " )8)1> >'.''.1
'4 ;; /R$)$%S$! ,$% , /"%A <@"% / % / A / /$" ,8" "$)8 % "%A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
;0%$$)/8/$%)A0/ 8$$ ! %"%! /"A /$ %%!%%%@ ) ) ?"$% $" /%$ ,) " 8G$ / )"A 2% ) %%!/$ ) 8$8% 8$$"$%$A ; "$%$ ?$ /" $ !/ 8"$ $$ A /%) 8 /$ $ "$%$ ? /$8$ $ A0 %$ "H ) / 8/%%!$/ $/,!/ /$/" /" ,$A G$ 88 " %) $ ) $) G$ /$A 8 !/)$) / D ) /!%) B$) / /$8AB8 " )8)1> >'.'' .
1& ;)% /-$ !/ 8/ !$/ /$ /%) ,$ %$8 ) %)$ @88)$%A ;$"% !!/ "% ,G) " /% /%) ,D$) %8% ""E"$ "% ,) $$G$>$%)>% $F //PC/2> %%!) 88)$%A8 " )8)1> >'.''.1
.5; /$G/$)$% $ ) , $ / " %% 8)>/% $ / "$) , + 8""$ $"8A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.1
&1 ; )) /D$ 88%A /$G$)$% $,$ ) %%+$" C /%) , ) 8""8$%$ ) @) )%) 8/A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
.;H) $ $)$% $ ) /"% $/%) %% , 8$)) / " ) %% )/ "%$ ,8 B %) $ )$$B )/%) , ) 8/A
! "
#$ % & #$##7!*#278
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #250APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;/+"% ,8"$ "?,$ $ /$ !A% ,$ $ ? / $ ) / $$ %$$ %% $" $ /"A / /%) %% )/ "%$ ) 8""8$% @A / /%) ,D$) / /$ $) D%$ $$@$8 ) 8$, K 8$%$ 8$$8" ) "$$ $,% " $8A < ) %$ /"% /%) $) /$"8 8""8$% 8/ $ ) G$ )"$$ / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,K$8A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.
*& ; /C)/ " /$ @ /%) ,$ / 8$ )) 88)$%A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.4
.&; / ,$ ,%" /"% $ $8) $8 8""8$% 8"$ ) 88,% ,/$A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ;/C ,/ 8""8$% $ ) /%) ,/ , ) 8/A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ;$)$% $!/ ,)" /!/% / $) $ /%) , ) / " %)A G! /$ %!/ %$ )!G/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
..;@ ,) !// "! A ;G /%"$ " @$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
; $)E1 : F)% ,GE : F) /"!E1.:F / /)8$8"8!/! BB !$BD%$ $$@$8B ) / $8 8$, B8$$8"A /) " /" > " $/,E)%@F88$%% /$ /" + ) 8 $/,/) ) /"%E "HFA/$ ; %8% 8"E"% $8%))F!/$8/%$/$8" " /% %$%$/)A 2$ $ " / !! $ / !/ / ) ! $,% %$ /%$%$/)!/$8/ "G %$$ $ /$@$ ! > %% $,%A ; = < AAAA# (U
! "
#$ % & #$##77*#8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.'
*.;%% ! /%) / D%$/ )%$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;% %M8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5
. ;!/ %$- % "A 8" $ $8"AAAA "G / @ / "A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
& ;/$ $ % $ ) $ $ ,$A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;/$ $ /)D$ !,8 $%% )) !//%$!$%% , !/ $ $ 8$) /$"$%$$ )$8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1
1& ;/$G/ /D$$ )!/!/ $ ") 8$% /!$ $-)A (G!/!G!$/ %!8%$ ) / ", % $ $/ /"A0 ) 8G/"!$/ % ,G $ ' % "A0$/ / "%$ "$%%$ )%%/" 8$G "G/!%% / $G $ )8)$$ !)$%!%G// ) G// )8" / 8)$$A %% % D$) / ") $ 8 "8 )/ 88 $"$ ! $%,% '* /)$/$ ,$A !%) % / / $8$/ $ "8/ $)D /)% / ! G88$ 8"%% $ $ /!%G$ "%%!/ / !" $ @)A % /$)$% / $ +8G) / /%) , $!$/ / @$$ $8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;!$ !A " $ " % ,$8 )$$ / !/ ! ) %8% !GA8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.&
1 ;K%% " /" 88$%%!/ " $ ! 8$) % %$G ,$ ,?8 / "%$ %)!%)"G / $8$% ,$ $ " %8A "% / "$$ ) % !/ //$8 ) $)$$)%$ / /"% /" A8 " )8) 8) B/"B $ / "!$/ / " %$8$ $ /$
! "
#$ % & #$##7%*#279
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #251APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>' >'.'' '
'4 ; %" $8" $) ) "$% $ !A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.'
&' ;$$)8 /$ /"% 8 %$G %)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4
4 ;$ / "G!$%% 8/M8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
* ;/$G%% $>/" ,$ ) $)$% )!%%$ !// $$$ $ /" !$ $ /" $) !$ $ / $ / %%D$ $"$%" $8A )C ,%$ ') /"!%$ "8/ )$% / !%) $ / " A ! $%%D$"" $ G$ $ / %$ $) / 8 %8 /G 8% 8A $ /$G/%$ /%) ) / %% ,) 8" %% )$ $//AH8% %$ $ / 8 /! ) ) , "% $% % $$8%% $" //$G/%$ /%) / B $8<$ ) $/"AB ,%$ ! /%) , ) )/$8 $ "?$ " % 8 /8) /% ) /" / !$/A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
& ; ,%$$)$% $ ) $ /%) , /%) / "))D$) %)8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
11 ;$8!/ )$)$%% $) D%$ $$@$8 + % 8) /% 8/$ /$II/ ,/ )%!$/ /" $ ) "" " / 8) ) ">,G>!!$%% $) $!$/ %/$ $ $"8 / 8""$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;(8$) / ,/ /$/" ) /%) , ,% $A 6 / / /%" ) / $8$ $ /$/8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5
* ; %) 8$, R8$$ 8"S$ $$A $ % "A $)$%% ,$ $ !A K/ $ /G 8$$ )G)/!G8%,%A
! "
#$ % & #$##74*#8 " )8)1>1 >'.''.&
.;0/$$8%% / /) "%% /% ) %) $ $/,/) %% $) ,%8G $8%)$ / /)!;$H) ;%% $, ) A ;$- "!A$/,/) $ "$@) 8) $ /% $ "% /$ ) $%+"$%$)$%A /!$/,/) $-) %% / I8 " )8)1>1 >'.''.5
* ;$ ! /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$$$$8 $" $ 8$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''
&.;!/$/ ) /%) 8$ / / $ )!/ /!A ! %)$ @A % $$%$G/ $ ,) /% !/$8/ %% $8AH$"$$$!$%% "G % 88$,% / %!%//%!$%% 8$%$ $ % 8"$$ $"A % /% > %) 8 88"") % "$% !/! $ / %% /A!%) , /" 8 /$ $"$%$!/! /$ A !%) $%% %$"$ /@$8 /!/ 8 ),/"/ !/$8/ $ "%% %$8 / %$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'* ;/"$)$%% /%) , ) / "! %) $A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;/ ,/ % %% $" / / $" )!/ /)$% $8%)$ A "$ $)$%%!$/"G8, "@$) )8I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
.'; / @) / " ) / ,$) , / " G$)) )>2%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
..;/ "$8$ / % )$,% $$ $ % ,8"A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
;/!%) " %$G)$8$"$$ ?)$ 8/ A/$G/ 2 8/ ,$%)$ /%) / /$% % $ /$ 8 / A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''
*.;(8 % / / ,%!,8G /"% $ ,$ )$, %) ) / ) % , / "%A
! "
#$ % & #$##78*#280
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #252APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ; / , -$ ,) & ) )) /8 8"%%A ! 8% $ $ %$,$%$ $ ) , ) ,% )%$ %%%!//$ , /% $,,%A ; % ) ! /% $$$8%% $ C8"$!$/ 8/$%) ) ) /%$C ? !G,%A / $$ $ $) $ $ / 8 , ") %8% %% ) ,%" 8 , "), $"$ %$ / "" !A % %$$ $/,/) / C" / "% ) / ,%" $ / $/,/)A / %) ! "//$/8/%)$ / !8/$%)A($)%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.
.4;(8 / ,/ %)$ / 8$ 8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
. ; ! " $ /%% $" ,$ ) ! /$ $8 " 8$% 8$ $8"8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.
' ;8) ) /%$A ) ) /% / " )/%) , ) /A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.&
&& ; % 888 @ ,$ $) ,/ /%) A/ $%% )$ ) %A ; B$)$%B $%%/ 8) /%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.
*5 ;(8!8$))$ "88 ) %% /%), $%,% A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' '
1 ; /%) , 8$!/!G$8$%$$88""$ $ )$ $8$ )) % A C!//$ 8 $ ,) A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
' ;U "8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
&& ; )K"G)$8 / /"!$ " )$K/ "8 " )8)" %8) $ / 8)) , /
! "
#$ % & #$##7**#*>.*>'.''.*
. ;) /,$D% $A0%%$$ D%$ @$8 ) G!%),% 8 %!)$ /$A0%$) '*>4 $8 ) / $"E) +$ F G8$ $ /%) /$A K /") $ '& ) / /) $ 8" /! $"")$ 88A / "$ $ $ %! /! /A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
' ; % / 88) / / ,) /+" . &.%$ A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ;/ ,/ $) )) $8 / $ ) $$%$AH) ) !G!%% "$%$!$/ 8/$%)!/) ) ! / "$$ @)) '!GE:>+F) ,$%% " 8%A / %$ $) 8$ %! / "$$ ) , %) ) !$%%$ /"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;/ " ", % 8 $ $!//$ $ / !A2!) /$ 8/ $8 $"8I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
&& ; ) !/ / $% "$% / ) 8) /%) ,) )$%AH / 8) 8$$ $" /$!%8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
' ;/ /%) , 8$)) / " + )8$% 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
&' ;2% / "8/ )$>,) ) / ) G$>8%A ; $8% / G$$8$ )8$ 8 $ $ !%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
&4 ;$ /$G/ )$$8$ /%) , ,! $% "$%$)8 )"%$ $ $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1
'* ;6$$ $ $" / 8/8) 8%/! )8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;(8 $K)$8$"$
! "
#$ % & #$##%$*#281
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #253APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.4;(8 "! ) 2 /%!/$8/ $ )$ $ ) /%) ,) 8/8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
1& ;)8"") /! )$$ ,! 8""8$%%8$ )E@ %8) $ ;( #$%% ;)FA( #$%% $ G$ % 8"$ )$ )% G$ ) ,$88%% 8A "%% 8$ / 8$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.*
&1 ; / $ 8 %$G %)>/% / ) %%!/ "%% ) %!//%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
* ;!%) , %" $"$,% % /$A ))$$ 8$%!/$ / " !$ ) " $" % )"!GA=!%) ) /) ,$%$8V8/ A /$!%) , $,% $ " $$A% / 8)% ) ,$ %$G%/%A ) %$-!/ ! G$/8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
&& ;) /"% $ ? /A0//$C )%"$% /" 8) $ ,$%)$ + $C 8""8$% "C /"A @ $ %$G//"8""8$%%)$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;(8 !/%),,%! /$ ) / $ 8%%) , A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
&' ; ) , /"! 88) 8""8$%$ ) $% )$ )$"$ 88$ )"" / 8)+/% $A 2" %% )K ? 8"$ 8% 8$%8)A %$G %) $$ %$,%W,$K! /$/" ) 88)D$ "$$$ )) $$) ) $)$ @8%% $D %$$ @$8 ) $8 )>"$A 2$ 8""8$% 8$$!%) $ " $! G8G ", $%,% /" %!%) ,8"8"$8A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1
* ;/ , ) )$8 $/)$$ ? %$$88A )!%%$ $ )!%%$ $ )!%%$A "$ !
! "
#$ % & #$##% *#$ $ $ ) !>% / " " $8 )$8$D$)A 8 $$$ "$/ 8% !8A / % )$8 %$) , $ $"% A/! %) $ " "D%$ @$8 )8$%$$ 8$$ 8"A / %% "!)A8 " )8)*> >'.'' '
1 ;/+"% /%) , 8$)) ,$ ) 8"%!$// "%$ ,$A !$ ,$ /" ) 8%$"$ $ ,$ !%) / 8"%!$/ 8$%$E@"%
88!G$" /$/" %8 ,$!%) / 8 @"%FA $"$%% 8" /%) / /8$ G!$ / / )$))!$/ / "$8 /+" $ $ %) / $/+" %)$A
>
E *EF G$)F+
) $+4
. -
- ; <
; ;
,
1 ? @ -
2
; 1
?4@ ;
2 ; / 0 &:/ & A$)$% $/,/) $) / ),'A 1 "H $)$% $/,/)1A. ) $)$% $/,/)1A&*0 ) $)$% $/,/)1A&5;$@)+ 6$$8E@
;$ F*A1 H) 6$$8*A4*6!! &A .
!"
! "
#$ % & #$##%#*#282
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #254APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+8 . - 2
2
2
&
$8 ) G$/ )0$%)%$ $/,/) "8E@
$ !)$F$"@ <$E@A
@ 8 % )H)$ @ "$8FH H8% 2$ "$$ )$$%H)$ $ !/E% 8$F+
$#$9$!$7$%$4$8$*$ $$ $8#!7*7784 ** 4%8
"
!
#$ % &'
! "
#$ % & #$##%9*#+* = < 2 ;
- -
;
&
@)) ) 6$$$)H)$()( !8) @ 8) 8"$8 8$$; #$$!/E% 8$F+
#$!$%$8$ $$ #$ !$ %$ ! 9 * 9 # 7
!
#$ % &'
! "
#$ % & #$##%!*#283
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #255APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)'>'4>'.''.
* ;0/!%) %%!8%%) /"% $ 8""$III 0/!$%%)8 8""$II" ) $HH C /%) , %%!) 8/$ $" /"%A % $" $ ? %$G / 8G"G + $G !$/ $"A , %)%) $) $ /!%% ,$ / 8""$ % /$$" $ A / /8 8/ / /"% !$%% ,,% ,) , / $! /$$G GA 2$ $8 "$/ 8%%)!/$8/ 8%) , ,%8% ,A % !/ / ,$ / ,$ 8%%) /"%$" %!$%% ), , /A /!$%% )A C$" G!,8G) "G $ 8""$A8 " )8)'>'4>'.''.'
4 ; A 2!) / $/, % , $I'A 2!" ,) ")$%,% / , ", $$,) 88"")$ $ ) !/ 8I1A 6 / !>)D$8G% 8"%$L8! /$% )$,$ ,/$,$)$$)%// /$,$$ ,) !/ %!% 8$$I*A2!8!D$ / 8""$ ,$ ) ,)I&A 2!"8/ $" )$)$% /"! ) $ /$ /") /!"8/ $" $) I A 2!" /"! $$ $ )" 8/ / /$8 ) ;$8"I4A0/ $ / @ ,$ / $ ) I A / $ %!8"D$ / ,)%$ $$)$) %%I5A / ,$ , $)$% /" "$%$I .A0/ % !/8/$8 )!/8/ / % !/ $ / 8 8/8/$8 )!/ /%) , G) / 8I/G 6$$)8 " )8)'>' >'.''.
'.; / %$8 $ %8I / $ /$@I /)IE$
!/ $ / 88,%$ /%I /$)$% $%,% %$,% )$IFA ; ;;
= / )8%) $ $ & / B/%$ $ / )$!//+"% 8 @$AB /$ $ $% 88A /9 8) HH= )$ -$ $ /$ !!// /"% "$)A 2!, $/I+ $ 0- ; - &
' '
1 >
. ;
! "
#$ % & #$##%7*#8 " )8)'>' >'.''.'
' ;$ /! D$ /!" /" ) %%$" $"%!$/ ! % / / ) /!"$" /") 88$%%I8 " )8)'>' >'.'' .
14 ;0/ 8 8% %$8) /"% /)$ 6 $ $ /" @8)$ 1 &..D I8 " )8)1>.'>'.''.
1 ;0/!%) , / % $ @ )$% $ /"%$8) 8/ / !% ,% $$ I)/!) / % $"8 K ,) ) )%" %I8 " )8)1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;02 ;U 2 ;H 2 $ % $"% $% / # 26A 2!8! /% /"+", %$%% % / %% /"! " %%!!$/G$ $ 8A8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;0/ /$ )!/ /%$I0$%% @$ " " ),% /$I ) /M8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ; $) !/!$%% %$"% , /% 8$IC)% / 8/$ 8 !"$/!%%% $ G$ !/$8/ 8%) @$ / 8$A @ C"%$$) , /!/% /$A0/ / /$ ),!$/ /"$"I0/ ) ) /@/)) / 8$!/!/ $ / ) $ $)$,%I8 " )8)1>.&>'.''
1 ; / % / 8"%$$ $) I8 " )8)1>.&>'.''.
. ;!/ / %!/G! %$% , / ,$8 !/") $ /
/ %% " , "$$(,(!)8 " )8)1>. >'.''.'
*& ;!%) / %%$)$% /"% /%) % ,$,% )/ %%!$%
A $)$% )1.) $ %/A 'A $)$% $ 8 % ,) 8 $ $ %/ ,! 1.)) '"/A1A%$"$/!" 88 $ 8/) $ 8 //"$" ))$ / $- /$)$% $A8 " )8) A0/ /%)C / ,$ /$$/)) /
! "
#$ % & #$##%%*#284
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #256APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>. >'.''.*
4 ;,%" / 8I'A0/)G )8 /$ , $ ) /I1A0/%% ,$I8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.4
*.;!%) G )$%% )! / ", ) 8%$8/!" !/ $/,/) )!/ $ "$ ) /!A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''
'' ; %$8)A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.1
.;9A K / ,$!/ "! )!$//% A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.*
* ;!%)! )) /!/"% / $"8)/)$$A C /) @"% / % (8% / , B/%%!) B , )$%8$ %8%$) / $!/ ,) %$ $ " $/,/)A /$G$!%) ,!/!/$% )) / $"%$8$ /,$ $ %8!///,"%A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.5
&5 ;2!$W%$8KK/ %$8$ $ %8I D$/! $ " $ "$$"" / $ 8""$ $8!$/$ / !A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.'
*4 ; A0/ / )$$P$8$ 8%% /$P/%$I'A 2! / )$$ $ $"8 /%8% 8">,$I1A 2!8! /% "@$"$-8$%)$ @ $8"!/$% 8$ / %$%$/) ) % =$)I*A /%)! 8$)8$)$8$"$ $8 % !!/ / $8""8$%-E H P + F ;$@) -E; F)H)$-EHFI&A /%)!8$))/$$%% ! '>1 >' ,@"" $,%$$ $% $"8 % $"$)>!I A 2!8! )8$) " %)$@/%)) ),% /$I8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.1
&* ;+/%) "$ , $) % !!// $ 8""8$%- %)$- ) "$@) I+2!8$ %)$ @ , "@$"$-)!/$% 8$ $)%$%$/) ) %I+0/ @8% ,$ //%), / )$$ ) !/ )I+2!8!8$$8%% $%$- ) ) , %)$ @ )
! "
#$ % & #$##%4*#,$ %$8 )% % " ) ),% /$%$I+/%) ! '>1 >' , )/)$ , @" " $$ 8 ) 8%+$"$)>!I+2!!$%% /$$ 8 %% %8%,$ ) / 8" $ I8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
.5;0/ % , /$MI %!) %$G /$ $!%) 8 " /" ! %% /$/"A /$!$%% % % ! 8/$ >!" "$% 8$A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
' ;! $ @ " %% /% $" ) " !!/ /$$ /$!A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
'* ;0/ $ $IH8% $$A G/ G$ 8 /% ,$%)$ " ),% /$A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.*
&* ; /$ %%A 8C$ !/ /$ / ))% ,8" ,$)%A $ @$A +$">G$ %$>/%!G/ %! 8"%$) / /$ $ ),%A %$) !" "!G !/ ! !%% ,8 $! "),%A /$G/ $ 8$% /%) , 8) //$A8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
4 ;$ !/ ,%" $%I$ ! ))$8 ) G$ / )C %%8 "8/ / 8G$ $8G %A </" $ ! @!/ "$ $8 ) G$ / 8/ /" "%$+) $/ G$ A( // /$ $ /% )C / ,%"
$C , $ @ $)!$/ $ /!C$8" E8/%$ %F ) $ 8$%G)/,8GAAA!%) / ) " /M8 " )8)1> .>'.''.&
* ;/!8!"G $ E$F / @$$ %)$>/$%$$)/$$ ,$ /$8%$%!$/ )$/ 8"%"/"% $) / ,$ "$$ " "%" ,$ A ) /!8)/!$/ 8/$ )"$8%% / 8/8) % / 88""$I0)C! " /% 8$%% ,$ /% %$G 8/$/% $ A / /+" %$ $) % $, / 8"A8 " )8)0/ 8/ " / D %% /
! "
#$ % & #$##%8*#285
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #257APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21> .>'.''.
;8 " )8)1> .>'.''.4
&* ;2!)! / $ %% %$ $ %$) 8 !%8"$P !/ $$!%% $/" !!/% / $8" 8 /$8"$8!%% ,$I8 " )8)1> .>'.''.
& ;0/)/!G%$/G8%I8 " )8)1> .>'.''.5
*.;2! / )$$ $ $"8 / %8%8"I0/ $ 8) $% ) $$% , /)$$I8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
1 ;0/ $) $ $$$ %$8$ /!$%% /$G/ %8%8" ) / "$) // /$ G%%!/% ++! $$$) /$"$%$I8 " )8)1> >'.''.&
.';2 )$) / % ) /!/ / 88%)) /"% GD$" D%$ G$!I8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
1.;2! 8 / %! / %) $ %8A / "$%! %$G)%/%!A ) ?, 8") /8$$A8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
* ;/$ ) %$G" /% D/ 8"$$ /8$"A /$%$%/$$%,%$! / $)!/ !%) , %G$ %$"$ A /%,%" $ ! $ / )%2!/ $ $$) %% /),% ) %8 )%8$ /"!$/ $8"%88$ $A % $" $) $ $ /" /!/$ / , %%!) /A ",)/$) 8") $$!$/ /$ ,$ /% $ / ) ) % ! /) % N ..GA8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
&& ;2!8 / 8$ ) 8""$!G/ )$$,! / !!/ ,/ %% "G$!$/ $$ )$ / %8%% )$ $"/I% !$/ "% /$ / /!8 / 8$ $ "% /$ % ,$I!%) 8$% 8$))$ /$ %$ $8G $8
! "
#$ % & #$##%**#/8) " /% )G$$E$ !/" / 8",$) ..$8FA0/ /%8 , )) /$ ,%"!$/ $%,% I2!8/ 8$!G !$/ /" ,/ %% "G$ "G/ $ / 8""$I2$/@ /!/C!) , "!/ ) $" $ / 8""$I2$/@ /!/!C$) / 6 $%% ) $" /!/ ,%I / ,$)$- "% /$ $ 8/% 8A8 " )8)1> >'.'' .
. ;!/ $ $ G8 %% / 8$%IBH8%B"% / / %$ )!$%!) /I8 " )8)1> '>'.''.4
'.;0/ $ ,/$) /$ / ) /!"8/ " ) / ) $A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.
;!%)
AHG / ,$ /"% $ ))$$ /8/%%A "$) "$% %$ /"!/!8$A0 ? $" "8/ " $ /"!$/ %%$$ G$8/ ) "%$% ,)"A $ % "8/ "),% ) , ,% 8G"% ) $A0 % ?%$$ %8% %$ $ /" ) $ /%>%)A 'A )) /8/%% /"%!$/
A <$@A ,A 888%$"$$ ,) / ", ,)"A 8A )D G$$E/! /$!%) % ) , 8)!$/ %) $!!/$8/ ) %% $) G$ %% /$FA)AD$$'*>4 "" $8 $ )") 8A/)$% )!$%)%$ ! " %% $$ $8%)$ ,/ /%>%) ) /"% A8 " )8)1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;0/ ))$$% $"8 ) / 8%% 8 8$ 8I0/)$8 ) $ "G$/!$ %$ //"$$I8 " )8)1> >'.''.4
..;//%$ !/ )$ /$I / $ $)G! / /"% $8$ $8E/ $!G 8"$ ! ) %$ / ) / )F/$ "%A =!$%% / 8 " )8)1> >'.'' '
'.; ) ) /$ $8M
! "
#$ % & #$##4$*#286
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #258APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1> >'.'' '
' ;2!/ /8""$$ )%!$/ /$ )!/ %$ /, 88%A8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
1& ;+0%) / /$ 8$$ !/ )!! 8$ $$8$%% $% % ))8 / ","$) $ $/,/)I2!"8/ $ $%%$"%$ 8"I $!/ )$%8$ 8""$I+0$%%/D%$%$,$"8)$ " " )$$%R%) S$)$% $/,/)I+0$%% $ "$$8""$ $IE/$ $ $8 / /%%+$"$) %G$ ,F+0/!$%% $ 8 / 8$ "/+"%) 8)$8%) /+"%EAA $8) $8 $ + G$ %$$ !$%)%$ 8FI+0/ ,%$8 $ ) $ I+2!)!G /+"R88,%SI8 " )8)1> >'.''.'
*4 ;/%)!$ 8 )$ / ,$8!%% , $ $ //$8 " )8)1> >'.''.1
.5;0/ $ / $$ $ !/$8/ " $%$"8 8""$ 8/8// $)$ " ,$I8% % $%$-$ / ,$%$ /$/" 8)$8" / /$/ )C $ " "/I / !) ,HH ) $8/ % 8 $8/ /@ / 8""$A8 " )8)1> >'.''.
1 ;!%) "$ /+"%8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.5
. ;0/ ! 8$ %$G / 8%%I/ $/ !$8/8) $8A = ,$ /"8"%%!%),)$8% " , $ ! "$%$ /$ %8 $ " G " 8"$8 ) 8%%)$$A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
** ;0/!%)! %%!!G$ 8% "$%!/ 8/ , "G /" /E/, G$ 8) "%/$ $F @ $8" ,$ /$ $ /$I8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.
&' ;!/ $ ) ,%$ ") "$88/ %$"$I
! "
#$ % & #$##4 *#8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
.;!%)! %$ ,%$/) "/ $ / %8% ! %% / !%%/+"% $ ) /)) / $A !%) "G $8%) %% /! " 88)!$/ 8/ / / 8 /$),/$) ,$ "A !%) %! %$ / " @ /! $) , %% / ! 8/ /"%A$ !%) %$ 8/ ! " / / 8 /$),/$) ,$ "A8 " )8)1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;0/ $/ 8 , %$) /+"% / / /%) $ 8"%$8!$/%$ % "$) ) /$/ @A % !/ 8% 8 , $ %8 "$$ / $"% $"8!/$8/ $8%) G$ $ G$ )! $ %%AH$,$%$ $ ) ,)))!/>$ $ )")A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1
& ;/"% @) $ / "! %)$ $8%)$88"")$ @I2!$ /"% @ $%$-) /8$) $"8I8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.
*& ; /! $8 /$ %8% $) ))$ "% $$I8 " )8)1>' >'.''.
'& ; $ $ 8$))$ " /$$/I8 " )8)1>' >'.''.'
'' ;6 / 8$, / 8""$ ) / )$"% /8""$ ) / / %$ / %% $"A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.*
' ; $ %) ,$% ) $ $ " %$% /" /" /$)!$)/8""$A / % ") $ / G$ %% + A " ..O% $/!$/ $%)%$A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.4
.&; / $ $ $/,/) -) %)$I8 " )8)0/!$%% , ) , / % /$ %8% $8!G
! "
#$ % & #$##4#*#287
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #259APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>' >'.''.4
*.;, $ ) 8$$ $$)$% $/,/) ,$8) $8 $"8 ) , / 8$ , ) /!$%)%$I8 " )8)1>''>'.'' '
1 ;0/ ,$ ) $ / 8""$P,)$$$ %$ $I0/ ) ) /% $/,!$/ $PG$ $8I%$$ 2!) $/,/) ) /% ) 8 / 8$$8 " )8)1>''>'.''.*
11 ;0/ / $ $ 88$ $ / , !/!%) 88 " $8 $ %",$ /$8 8"A / !$ !%)C , ,% % " / 8"$ / %% ,A $)/) %$ $ / 8%) 1 ) $ $% )$$ $) " / 8%)C $) $@ //A0 / ,$% 8""$ !/! )C / / ,$ $8 8 %% $ % % / ! .. ...D ) /)%"A0!$/ $% / ) ,G@)$ )G ,$%)$ "!G8 $A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.
&5 ; $ %) !/%") + %)$ /$ "$"A0/!%)!"$ " ) )$%I8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ;2!8! / / /"% $%8$ / %) /$$8 %8% %% $" /$ "G $ " ,/ $%,$%$ ) 8I8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4
&* ;/%) / , 8 /!" /"% %%!) $I/%) /,8!//"% / % "$ $E%8"!$/ %8% / ) /") $ ) "8/F, / 8D%$ /"%I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ;8%) / % " $)$$)% !!/ /) /$%8 AH$"$ %$"$ /HH 8!)8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
5 ;6 ""G / %$ / " 8"$8%% ) 8$%%%,% "",8""$ ,!8 " )8)1>'1>'.''
.'; )$" 8$ ) !$ / / ,/$ )!% /A!$/ /!G / ,$ $8)
! "
#$ % & #$##49*# / %% " / ,$ /!$%% A /$ $ ,$ %)!$/ /$ / ) %8G A //$% $ )) ) / /)$"$)$!G // / $ ,/ A / $ ,8 /%8G ),% /$A % G$8 $ %$ /$ $ G!$$ ,% )$ / G$ %$ / "/$" , )A %$ / / $ ,$ %% /$ ?$ "G ) " , % /$%%!$ $ ! / ", ? ", /$%) ) "/$ )) / ,%"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
..;0/ !$ 88"%$/ $ )$% )!/ 8$ "$/!G /!$%% /% 88"%$/ / %I8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
;0/ /8) > %%/8%$") ,%" / )!$%) %$ 8A C"/8$$%) $!/$8/ 8%) ,,% , %)!$/ "$8"!/$8/ ) $8%) 8/ !$) G/" ,/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;/; ,8" "8/$" /!$%%G / /"% "$ " $ / 8$ )$ /$$/, ) $/,/)A / %$8 6A 8 , /)% " % ") /"%$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
&5 ; /$G$ $ $" 8%% )$ / ,%" )K/$G/88$% / )D% $8%) / 8% ,%" !/$8/ $ ) $$!/ $ $) 8%%) %$A /88$% $ %$G% / "$% 8/ // /$8 ,!$%% " %$G% 8 %/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.'
*.;!/ 8"%$ ) "I!/ $ /$% 8 ?, $ %$"$) /"I/!" )!/8%$%!%) % $ %$"$)$)$%%I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.*
*' ;0/ $ ",%$/I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;0/ $ /$ 88!/ / ! /$,%$/" $ $ $M
! "
#$ % & #$##4!*#288
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #260APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>'1>'.''.
* ; %%) /$ <( " /8"")/2%$% $ / )TR"?$ D$ )!$/ $%%$ )%% )""!$%% , $ / $/ >#8$ /" "G $ / %) 8""$$A/$@$ $ $"%A /$ $ %A 8$$A ""$$ %$G ", $ )(8G$)!$%% $$ $ % @$%%A / % ) )) $8"A /!$%% / "$$"" @ ) ,$8 "$8A )!/ / 8""$$ /$/) /$ $) /" / ,$ / ")% $ %A $% / / $!$%%,$%,% // 8" /$HC )$)A " %) / / % $ ,$%%$ )%%$ %)S/$ $ / / /$ 8" $ /$ $ ) G / /,$8A2!)! "$$/ / R/ H$%S!/! $ $ %% //$/ ,$))I 0/ ) / ) I0/ /%)! %% ?%%+) %%!,8"/"G/!%/I/ $ / %!" /$ / ) ) ,8" %$A 6 8 , /$ ,) " $ )@ $ /$ ! "I0/ ,D%$ %$ ) ? / /$/ ,$))IK,8"$D$ T8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5
. ; /! %$"$ C ,$ "", )HH 8A "/!$)$ !/ / "",/HH !/$8/!%) , / " A ", " 8 % !1% $A /$ $,$%$I8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
. ;;D$ $ )!/ /$G//$/ )$8!/ " 8 8 )!$/ /$/"A @ / 8$$88% / 8 8!/))$$% 8 $8)"$$ !$/ / ) !/@$8 "$/ ,))A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
& ;6 / $/ $$ $ )/8$$I8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;!%) % G8$ 88$% 8$)!/$/" $ ) /!" %$8 /%) , %%!) $ /$- ) $/,/) 8 /%/ ,%8 /8""$A8 " )8)0/!$%%! 8/ " $" ,8G
! "
#$ % & #$##47*#1>'*>'.'' '
& ;)$$I%!/ / , /,$8) % ,$ ') ) 1) /" / )K %$ /%%$") 8$, / %8% 8" %% $"A " / /$/$) , ,8 )%" ) ) 8)%%,8 / !8K )/$ @A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1
1& ; ! "", 8$ 88$% !%) $ GD$ "$)$% ) %8% ,%$8 ,$ "$" "8 ,$A /$"$) "!/ %%$) %$"$ <!$/ ,%$8 $$/ $ / "$))% / $/ $%/ ,%$/) / $8% ) %G!$ , $A $)$ )$,$!/ %8) / ,%$8 ) !$/ %% 8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;/!)!"G $ $!/$ CA/!8!8 "?,)G 8" $A!/!%) , $ /"I;G A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.&
1 ; %$"$$ %8)/"% "G$ $ )$,% $,% ! 8$$ /" /!) % 88"") / )") %)$ ) $"!/$8/"G8/$% / %8% 8"I2!!$%% / 8$ ,,% 88"") "$%$ %$ // 8 $)) /%"!$/ G$)I8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
* ;2!)!! 8%%8$ @ " %% /"I2!)! ,%8 / ) 8""$!$/ / )$ $ 8) /"A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
& ;+!!/! / "$ /%) / 8!$/ $$ ) , / $ A +!/%)/ 8$% , $8 / 8" /$ / ,) )'* /A +! /%) / % "!G ) $ $ $8 $ $ $ HH2 ;M!$/ "$) $ 8AAA 8"$ A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4
.&;6$" + ,$AHG "% ) @"% ,) 8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.
.1; ,%$ / $ /%)D$%%!!/! /$/" E/%+"F % %$$A /
! "
#$ % & #$##4%*#289
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #261APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 /%) , @) /%A / $ /%) %$"$ /%$$ $ $/",$ 8 8$$8$/,/)A8 " )8)1>' >'.''
* ;!$%%$ )!/ $ 88 / %$% )+)$)$% $/,/) )!$%)%$I8 " )8)1>' >'.'' '
'4 ;2! "@$"$- / ,$ / 8$ CA8 " )8)1>' >'.'' '
*& ;$8 / )"$8 / /$ "G / , 8-)! / / $"8 %8 , ) %8 E/ ),%FA / ),$%$ /$ / %!,$+!/$8/ $!/ "% /$ 8" ,A / %$ ,$%)"),% /$ $ $C)! %%IC"/%$ /"% $ / %$A " 8/ "G / /%) , ,% $ / %!$/$8$A8 " )8)1>'4>'.''.
'* ; $% / 88$ /!/+"% G$ $! " ),% /$A / $8!$)8) $8"%% ),% / !GA $ 8$%)% ) 8 % /$ %!GA/ / ) )$$8% $)!G $ / / ) / G$/$%%$)$8%8$ / %8G $,%%$ $ %$ % "%A % /$ +% /$ !$%% , % /$ / ) /% $8 ) G$,%"A8 " )8)1>' >'.''.&
' ;6 / / ,$ /$$/,I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;/!)!D$ $ 8$)) $ /$ 8I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5
;0/ / 8$$8 88 $"$))I2!8% ) / 88I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1
& ; %/ , )$% $ & / /)B B 8"%$ , " A ,%$ / ", B$$8B 8"%$ "$$"%A/% /%) % ,) , %!$) ) / 8) 8)8!
! "
#$ % & #$##44*#" ,$) ,A $,, ) #(!$%% G/8$!/ / / / $ /"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4
4 ; $) /"% !/ $)%% /% /!G/"AA 8%$ $8 "$8 " " ,) 8A($!$%% /)! ,8 / " % $$$!%) ) ,$%%M8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ;2!! )$$ !I2!"8/ $8 "G, / 8/8) "G$C! )$)EH>%FA / / $)$$)% / 8$,/%/$, / ! /%) / / $>)%/ ?! /$$" )!$%% "$ / 88$%/$ $ ) !/ /! ) )%$ $A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
* ;!%) G !/ ,%" !$ % 8""$) !IMI)/8 '1,%" $)$$) / !%) // )M "% )A !%) %GB$!)$)XXXXXX$ %$AAAA /!) / 8)$ /$>% 8/ $% ! ! "G ! "% /$ ! %% $"$) $"$) G$$ " / $8 8$ $8 ) , )) /!8$$8%$!$%% 8G) 8 ) $!AB8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' '
& ;!/ ) /$G/%),@"" $ "$ )2 % $$)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.
&& ;0/,$$/! 8" !/ 8K )/ 8 /%I%% $8" /%) / 88 /$ ! ) %% ! "!//%$/%),,% / /$/ 8 %$$ /,$ /$8) /" $/ )$A $ !$ , /$8/ % / )K!/!$/%$8" %% 8" A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.'
' ;2!" /"% 8%% 88$ /0 )A /!" / %$8 , /!" 8%% ) @A 2!" / !/") % / 1.) $"I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.'
1.; /! $8$ ! 8/$ %8%!G8 /"%I
! "
#$ % & #$##48*#290
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #262APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
11 ;0/ $ 8 / $ $$I0/$ "$ / $!// $I $8) , !I0/ "G /$G%! ) / 8$ )!$/ $%$ !GI8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
14 ;<" / $8% C) ) / "$ / %$) $ "/ $ 8$% $ "!$) , /"% ) / % "% /$A 2!$%$ /"% $ )) $ $%,% "% ) / /$8$$I / %$ /$/$/ /",$ / /$/%% $ "% $ / %%!) /" ,$I%% )C/$GA %% /" / 8C /" , 8 1.)E%" $N.$ @F/!"8/%@$8"!$%% / 8$%I0/ $ / ", /"% $/ $ I $C '% $ !!!%) ? ) '+ "/% ) @A 2!8! / @ $)" /"% /%!$/ / /$ 8$$I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;/" /$ /%) , $8% 1.) "$$""8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ; $
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
! "
#$ % & #$##4**#8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.*
;2!) $8) /+"% "G/! ,%8 %$I/ / /%" ) 8) 8%$%,%I2!" "$$ 8 %8% $8E$AA G$ ! %8$8 $) 8 $8 8IF8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4
;0/ $ )$$$ R")S/" 8$%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;2!8!,$ ! 8$%% /!/ )$% $8"I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5
* ;/"$ " %$G%!$%% ")/$; ) "D$8G% )!$%% %%!"$ 8" $ !/!$%% , " $ !/8"AH "$!$%% 8 /$)$ ) /$ /K/% G$ ,))$ $ /$8K8"!A8 " )8)1>1 >'.'' '
;/$ G) /!D$ ) 8%% /- $$ G$ %$ / ,%"A ) %% ?! $/ 8""$ $ / 8$ ) 8$ /$ ),8%A % + ) /$G/ 8$ /%) $8G% -$ $/,/)A ;8 $ / ",4 %% / $/,/) $ A8 " )8)1>1 >'.''.&
.; " )$) , $ ) %$"$ /" "8$ " %$$ !%/ 8%+)$ 8""$ $I%$"$ !$%% / %) "$))% 8% ,,% ) / /$/ /%" 8" G$ )8 $ I%$"$/ !$%% / /"%$+$ "$%$!/ / )!! 8) )) ) / 8%$ 8 8$ /$"$%$I0/ " ?)$!/ /%! )!$/ /$% % / 8"%$!$/ ) %8%%!I0/ ! )$8$ /$ $!/ / / " "";$8"I8 " )8)1>1 >'.''.5
* ;/$!$%% % ),% /$ $$A %$ $%%$) ) $"$%" / /%) ,$A ) $ /8) ,%$,% $ $, $ / 8""$A ,) $ %% ))$ /$8) /" .O+'&O /$%% !/$% ,$ ,% /" ,8 /
! "
#$ % & #$##8$*#291
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #263APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2%$A /$ $ $%% 88$) $ 8A ;G "G )I/ 8""$$ )% ) /$ !)/"I/" A 8) /"!!/ 8%% /$$ ) "$" /"E%$G" " 8) /" !$ ) )D$ ,$ $" $F %% )) $ /" ' "/ N' ... "/E!/$8/ "! 8 /"FA! ) % ),% /$ $ , ,$%)$ "/$ $8G$ 8) /"! ) $" !A /$ $ G$ $ 8 /$ %! ) !%) @8$ %% 8$ " % $ /$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
&& ; " $ %% /"%8 " )8)*>. >'.''
'.;6 / !K/8>"/ %%+$"$) $ / $/,/)I0/ ,$) / %$8!$%% 8% @$$ 2I8 " )8)*>. >'.''
' ; %$" ) / G$$!$%% )"$8%% 8 88" /!$I8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'* ;2!8! 8 / ) %$8$ /"% / D% %)$%I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;!%)! G!/!/8""$$ ))$ /$,%" ) %G 0 0HHA8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
.';0/ ) / ) , %$"$)I% / $/ )!/ /!!$/ /$A / 2 %%! /" !/ /%) / $$8 /"AI8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
*.;$" / /%)C , %%!) !/A / ,$D$ $,%8$ /" III8$% %$"$!%) $"@ , $,% / $ 8D8 A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;2!"8/ $8 )!/ $ $ 88,%I!%) / /%!/ $$ ) G/"% 8 % !$8 "8/ %%$ /!/ $ /% %) %% / $8% % $ ) /$)$% $/,/) " / "$)!G) "$8 $ /$8%A /%)
! "
#$ % & #$##8 *#"" 8"$ ,D$) " $8$ /$8% % 8%$ %I/%) /,$8 %$"$ $ "), 8" %)8$ ) 8$ D$"I /$8 , ") / /% )$ 8G" )$ 8"$ $$$ /!$D$ $/,/)"$" / " )I / 8G , "%%)D$) 8%I8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
..; AH /" ) $8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
.4; !8 " $8 ,D$$ $/,$$ / %%!8"$8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' .
;6 ,$ !!/ / $) /$$) /$%$ ) $8 $G$ /$,$ ! / @$$ / ,$ $I8 " )8)*>.'>'.''
*.;0/ 8$ ) @)$ / $,$@$ / )$$ /0 )A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ;/!"% ) , )$)A /! $8,8%%) $ / $ /$A 6CG$) %/ / $ $ $ /% %A(!))$/$ $$!/// 8"$!GA$" / 8/) )!%%!G "%A )C! /8$ %) ,8 / 8$ $ G$ // 8 , ") $))%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' '
1 ;!%) )$$%! G!/!8 /"% % $"8$ / 8$ ) 8A0/ % /"$I /$%% / / $ % "% /$I " / @ "$ " , ) $) ""% /$I0/ / /8""$$ )I/$%%D$ , !) ) )%@$8 )$%%$8!$/$ / 8$% ) ,) $) 8$ %$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.
.4;;G / $ / /"% $ $)!$/ / 8$P/ "$8 " )8) !!/ 88$%% / $ $ /"!/
! "
#$ % & #$##8#*#292
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #264APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2*>.'>'.''.
'4 ;!/ !%)! / 8$ 88$% G"!/ $ /" ) $ // / ! G$ ,$! " /%I!%) @%$ / " 8/ $ /% ,8 "$% )"$8A <@"% %)8%!$/ /$8/$%) ) $,% )8/$%) !A /" / 8 $ ) %$$ / /$G+ "% ) 8",% /!$/!$ , 8/$%)C ,/$+%//%8"$),,!$/ / )$,$ % 8A0//)"$%$!$/"",!/ $ % /)$8) +!/ /%!%) , $,% /$)) )$8/$%A 2% / "!/ /""8$ $$AE2! G!" %!/"8// $ /% / $ B" %C /"BF )!G,/!A / ," %$ // $ ! "", / !%)D$ /!!%) / ! 8%!/ " % )!$/ /$!A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;/ 88$% /%) 8$)$$ @ /"%A /!%%$ $ 8/ ,) /$ // ,%8)$$!/$%!G8!)A $ ! ,$$" ? ,$ $ / /%) /$$/A /@ 8 $,% /$A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
. ;0/ )!)/$G, /$ !/ )!)"" 8% ) ""I8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' '
.1;6 C)) /D%$ %$ %8%I /%) /,D / 8 /" ",/ 8$$8% " /$8 8""$I8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.
' ;0/ / ) / 8""$I8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;2!)$ $ $ %+"$)8%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.&
&& ;C $ @$A CH0= @$)A ,) ) /8A ;$/%A / @A ) /! / "8/ /$) 8AAAA8 " )8)0/ ! @$% 1.) "I %)!
! "
#$ % & #$##89*#*>.*>'.''.
&* ;@ %!$/ " )1+ "/I8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' '
1 ;2!$ /$ $% $"8$ 8""$I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
' ;0/ !$ % 8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;2! / 8"%!$/R) $/,S))8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
&& ;$ $$,%I$ %)$ @ 8I2 8" /) $!$/ $ 8 K // 8) / 8""$ $%I2 8""$"", > /"!G 8" 8"%$$, /$ K $"8$ /$/" $%I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1
& ; A / $)$$)%% !)>"$% ,$I'A 6 / / $ "I1A / G ) I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
. ;= %%!% /% 8" $ ) %G$ $8 !"$ /$/"!/ / ) )8)A / / ) 8G$/%A0$) $8 / $ ) / 8$ )$ / $8A =$8 ,) ) $8 "A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
; ,%$ /$ $ $ 8)"$$" 8$$ $ $ 8$ 88$%A !)/"),%/$ %8%!G /%) / "@) 88$ !/! / ) 8)% 8 $8$ $ %$$ $"% /$ " A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
' ;!%) G, $"8 $ 8$$8 $/,/) AA /!!%) $) %$"$ %$,$%$ $ - + !%)! /!8",%$) !$/ $/,$ /$/" /+">!/ / %G%$GA8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.*
*.;2!8! "$$"$-/"% % "% /$ 8G) !$/ $/$ %$$" 8) /" !!/88$%% /$/" @A
! "
#$ % & #$##8!*#293
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #265APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ;0$ ,) 8" ) ! !/ ) ! G$%%/ / $ %$ / %) I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
& ;0/!%)E!$ 8) ) ,%) ""F ($%% $%$)I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
*& ;0/$%%$ /"% "G % /!)!8 $$ $8$ ! %+" ,$ %8%$)I %! , %/ $"% $8$%$ %$"$$ % $ %$G% "$%", $ / %8%$) /$ %A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
.*;0/ "G /$G/ /R8$%S$!%) ,) )$8) % " //!G8 !/ %!/ 8%)K )"GI / ,?8$ 8 / /% $)" %$ IK @$ ) "$%%$ %! "8$ / /$,$$I! 8$% $ /8)) $8G$ / 8$% $) 8 )8) %) ,%" /! $) "$") ? %I /$ G ?G 8$ %8"$8 /$ /!K),,) )? // / )!I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ; A0/ K!E F8$ ) 8 )!/ )! %/ ) 8/ / " ) , $$ !,$ ,R$"% "8S8%%"// !$/!$/ 8%$ $68A'.' I'A 2!$ $ $,%/ 8""8$% 88$ $"% "8 ,$)$% $I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;0/ 8" $ )$ , $ )%%)!! 8 $ , % /!/8/ %%)!! ")$ I%!/ ,G!G) $((%%"8/"%,% 8%$% / /!/ ,G/$/) /% !/ 8 ) ) "/ /%$)%A/ 8$% $ $ ,%8G$$!/ / 8" G$,8 / $8$ /" A %$"$$ !$%% 8"% /$A ! " "% /$ $$ / /$ / %) @$ ,) "%A /"" " / -) "% ,8 / !!8) ,$%) /" , / ) / %%
! "
#$ % & #$##87*#$8"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;0/ )!)%8)/"!IR!G$ 8%S) $ /$A($8$ /"%!!$%% $8 / /$ 8GA(/ / "G% %$)$ .!/ $ ") / , 8) 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4
&& ; /%/ ) ,$ )))I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
' ; /$ )8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
14 ;0/ $ ,%" !$ 88 ) /) 88$ 8$$8%% ))$ / ,%"I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
&' ;$ / " !! ? / /$// / )!%) $ %8%!G !/!%) / $ % ) %)$ @ $ 8$$$ ,)I)!/ $ / $"8 %8% ,$!/% $" $%I2% $ %) $8)$,% @$$ !/!%) / / $8 $ %)$ %$")I/$ $ %) $8)$,% @$ 8""$ ))8$ %!$%% %$G% !)$8 /A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
;2!!$%% 8 $ ) G$ )$8I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;206 ( < = 2 2 2 0 I8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' .
&' ;! %$"$ /"% !K /$ % %$"$ ,) )8 8"$8)8$ %8% ,$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
.&;H / /"!)!/ / ) ) "$$ /$$>/"A0/ ) $ 8$% ) )8$)!/ ) 88 /$/"I0/! /$ )8$$ ) /)// "8I/ 8""$! % $$)) /! ) "G /$ "8A
! "
#$ % & #$##8%*#294
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #266APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.''
. ;2!$ /$ 8$ /$ %8% "% ) %8%,$I "%! / $8)$,% )$$8% $"$)$ /$ " )!G!! % / %A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
&4 ;!/ $ %I!/ / %I" /"I!/$/>$,$%$$ ) 2 / $%$>$8$ ) / %$G$/$8$$8 8""$$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''
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
'* ;2!8!,"%@$,%$/"%%$// $ $$ /$ $-$%%%$ / /,!$, / 88$%AI
! "
#$ % & #$##84*#8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
.;2!!$%% ")$ 8%% /% / %8% /$ 8$$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.'
1' ; " /$ ,$ 8$$8) I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1
'* ;2!" $!$%% $ 8 " / !$$ /$!%/ ! 88$%% $$ )!/!$%% , / 8%%) 8"$8 $"8 /$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
.*;2 // , / $"8 /$!$%%//"!L "" ,$ /!$%% / % "% ,8 /!$%% % $8"L%8% ,$ )I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;0/ "$)8 !" ,) ) / ,$%$ % "$%$ /) / / ,$%$ ""%/"I0/ /!$ ! %% /$ % ) @I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.4;0/ $ $ @ ),%/$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
.;/+"% "$% )8 $%,%% $ /!/! %$ / %%+$" ) )C! %$ $ $%A0/%),%G$ / %!/ %$ / %%+$"A%!/! $$ 8 $ /$ /$ 8%%) /%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;/"% , $) ! /%) 8 " 8/ $) ! ) %% ,$ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.
1& ;$8% 8 " 88"")$ @A %% %$8 $$ $$ 8$$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
;
0/ ! ,$$ 8$%% " %8% /"! ) /$)8$$ /+" % $,% ,8 / / %" /$$8"E" !/" !$)F)!/!"G$ $ /)!$/ %% /%>%$>"$"8AAA / %8% "$$/$!MI
%$
;, @"$ $ /"!)/%$)C6$/
! "
#$ % & #$##88*#295
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #267APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28$ M8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
&.; ,%$ / ) , %$"$ ,8 /!$ $K8""8$%8$$ ) /K $ $$)$%-$A K,)!$%)%$ ) / $"A / 8/8 $/,/) 8/$A K!/%"$ ) ) "8)A$)$%-$ $ $)$A 8$ /% " %/"A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
. ;!/!%) , / $"8 !88$)H H $ /$,$%$ )$8%% /$! G !I; // $/ "!%) , 8)%/$2;A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
'& ;!/ $ /!%) $ / 8$ ,/$!$/ /$I/)$8% "$$ /$$ @ 8A % /$ ) / 8$ /%) $!$/ $ $/A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .
.5;0/$/%8"$8$"8 )!/!%) ?)$- / !/!/ )$ /! / "$$"%$"8 ),$%$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .
* ;$8!C%) $ $" % @ )% 8) !/C/%)$8 C ) @ ,I6 /,$E+$)F%% !$/ / 8/%% ))" $/,/)I6 %8% % )!$) ,% $)!$/ CI$8 C)8 /$ $) /! / /%$!G$$)I$/,/)/%/$!$/ CI8 " )8)*>. >'.''
.'; %%!% / / / $$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' '
'' ;2!) /"% $"8 / 8" ) 8$ $8E@FI /%$G,! %$8 ) $%,$%$ ),%!G/$I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.1
&.;/!/ " / ) 8 $ %"E) /"/ "F$ / & A/ 8 / )!$/ / ",$ /!$ 8%)$% %A / )C)$8 8%$) $) "$8 %$ / / /%) , )
! "
#$ % & #$##8**#"$" $% "$8 %$ 8 , $)) , /A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.*
&1 ;2!, @ )G 8G!/ )!/ / $8 " )8)*>. >'.''.&
* ;($ %" %$%$/) )) /"%A % /$ $8"A ? ,/ " 8) /$ %% ) $ /%$/ ) /"/@A $!%) ,/ $G!$ /$! $ /A ) G!/!/ 8$ 8 G! /"!$/A !8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
&& ;2!8 ")$ /$ ,$ / %8%!G$ 8%/$ $$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;6 $ $8 8"$8 8$$I $ ) ,$ $ !I $ ) /"+!I6 $ $8 %I!%)8"") %G$$ G$ $%% 8/ H8/ A / ,%$ $ /$ 8%)E"F,)A $ $ % 8) $ / $%% ,D$) $ ) ! $ " / !/$ 8"%@A )8$ /"% $ >!"!$%% / / %8% ,8 $!$%% )8%$/ "8/ )) 8%$%A "$ /+"% ,$ %/ ,+!%/ ) ) G $ 8$)$ / ) / A6!! "G >!" " %$$ ) $+%8% !I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.
1* ;! / "$ $/ ) 8%) )$8!/ / ,%"$
%AH)$ $ "$8%% /$/ $ ) %/ 8/$8!/ / G/$"$% /$/%$)A00 /" 8/ ) %% / %8% ,$A )/"!%$G"/ $@E,N'.UF% ""A / $ 8 / 8""$A$ /$ ) $"" 8A /) / <2 "$/ %+" %8% $ / )C//" $A /$ $ ,)A <2C/,N .;)% ),% /$A 6 " $"% "/ !/ N .; !%) ) "/% $"% 8/A 6 %8% N ..U>"/ % %A 8 +<2C% !) ,! ) %%!$ $$ /!$/ /$!/% "$%!/$8/ $ / $8$% ,$ A $/ 8C$)"$%/7; $ / 8 G/$" %%$)A
! "
#$ % & #$##*$*#296
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #268APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>. >'.''.5
4 ;/%) /,%$"$%$8IH$"$) )$ $->% 88"")$IH$"$) 8 / % /$$ !I !$)$8 @ C / ) ),%/$I8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
'4 ;"$ !%) )$$% / / %8% 8"A0//$K !$ $ /$>/8)>/" /"% /$8 %$ 8 $ %% / " $A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
&' ;)% !/"% / 8" $/ "A ,$ / 8$8 " )8)*>.4>'.''
*.; !$8)E$"$% $ F /!!%)! / / /"!%) / ,) %8% $ %+"%I2!" / /" / %) %+"%8% ,I))$$%% + $ )$) @$ "+/!!%)! / %% %+" % $ >!"!$)% , %8%!G$>8$,$ / %8% 8"AE# B)$$% ")B "!G 8A!$%%$>,% /$/$8 %$ /FA0/)!)!/ %$ %$>88/$<"G /$%$A $%$ 8$ /!$%%%! , $ / /$/ ,$))A/$!/ / 8 ) , )%$ " ))$8) /$ %8%"%A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.
&' ;! )$8 /"%!K!,/$8$ /)$$ ) 88$,$%$ $$ A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.'
' ;0%%G!/! $ "%8G "% /$ +!/ @$ /!$/ /"% "% G$/$!%) , ,% ,$I8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1
* ;2!8!"G/"% %%) ) %8"%$8)IA "@ ", ) $ 8 , ")+,8 / ,)A8 " )8)*> >'.'' .
&1 ;0/ $C/ / ),% /$ /!8!,$%)") /!8! "!/! / ,I 0%) @8%$ /"% 8 %) / $/,/) ,8"8"%% 8E%$!) )$ /!$
! "
#$ % & #$##* *#$) / ) $ % $ $ ))AAF!$%% /$ , /% $% 0/! $ / %% / %G/ / 8" ) ) %@ /$ $%,% $)/ )!! )!%%! " ) ,$/% ?8C/8/" %!/ 8" / / ) ? !G)!$/ /$"$% , 8"") $/%"I6! ) / @$80/ $ / 8 %$"$$ /"% $ , $ $ %$ " 8,%" $ / ," /$ $ ,)%$ "/)$ /$ )!%8 " )8)*> >'.'' '
1 ; / 8$8"$8 ,8" % /!$ %8% "$ $$) )!G8E/ / %$ $) 8$%$"$F$,$,%,8$$8$ $ /$8""$$E $%) %$ / / % / / /FI/$!G8 $8%) %% 8$8"$8 8%E%! "$))% /$/ )/$ $ ,!FA
>
E 5&EF &.G$)F+
) $
! "
#$ % & #$##*#*#297
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #269APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "#$ %
$ &'#$## "( )&*
!"#$ %$ &'#$## +298
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #270APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, -'
.
/ ' %%0!$1234#! 0561#34 ! " # !" " #$ $ ! ! "% ! " # # %
! " $ $ " $! ! "# ! !$ !&! !& %,
! "#$ %$ &'#$###+,#7
/ 8'
. 9 /
: 9 ;
; ' ;
5%0<21234#!%0% 1#34'(!! ,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##<+299
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #271APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,< 7
9
; 1
8 '
.
( '/ )
' ' '
0118 4
!+0<%1 34#<$05%1534<$0+1!34
" ) &,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##!+,!7
9
; 1
8 '
.
( '/ )
' ' '
66 0!21234 6!0!+1534 5 0<1+34
" ) &,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##5+300
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #272APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,5
) ( ' ( .) ; ;
/ : 9 / ' ; #!5 0561634 %!0!$1 34 ,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##%+,%=/' 8
'/
: ;/("# *! + ! (&! , "+ ! !&!
& + ! " ""&! - &!., #$!$%$2$ $$ #$ !$ %$ 2$#$$ 6$%2!6 $$5% %
!
"# $%&
!"#$ %$ &'#$##++301
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #273APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2I. OPEN ENDED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 6• We need specifi c City personnel that can address the impacts to the immediate neighbors of STR’s and the neighborhoods they impact. Parking, Parties and Pets!! THERE MUST BE A MECHANISM TO DENY AND REVOKE STR PERMITS FROM REPEAT OFFENDERS. The Aspen Police Department should not be the default manager of STR units. • Enforcing rules for STR’s to minimize neighborhood impact. • Pay raises for Aspen Police offi cers, child care facilities, increase Aspen food rebate amount.• Better public transport• The owners of STR properties do not care if you tax them, so just tax them. The revenue could be used for multiple programs.• General expenses• Remove funding towards destination marketing- that only makes the problem worse. The fee/tax should only go to relieving impacts.• Noise and Light Pollution abatement. Traffi c. Landfi ll. • What is the city’s/community’s greatest need? Where are we falling short in funding? If STRs are causing “problems” then the funds should be geared towards solving the issues/problems. This is something that I don’t the the general public should be weighing in one because we don’t have enough knowledge to know what areas the city needs more funding for.• We need a designated City personnel to address neighborhood impacts. Parking, Parties, Pets are a PROBLEM.• The round-about and TRAFFIC!!!! There should be stop signs on every corner in this town!• turning appropriate places toward long term rentals should be a primary goal. If there are far fewer STR allowed- far fewer- then those owners could see the value of long term renting.• Raising money for the city isn’t the point of this exercise. It’s about not ruining neighborhoods by this impacts of essentially living next to a hotel• The city should identify what impacts short term rental cause that need to be mitigated. The tax revenue should address those issues, • Entrance To Aspen solution• A subsidized hotel/hostel. 302
74APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWII. STR HEAT MAPI. SHORT TERM RENTAL TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDER DATA OVERVIEWA. City of Aspen STR Data Points:• There are 1,319 current active vacation rental permits (VRPs) through the City of Aspen.• 280 VRPs were issued on or after 12/8/2021, the date the emergency moratorium was announced with 78 still waiting on review or additional information from the customer.• There were only 70 VRPs issued before the City increased compliance and oversight with Council actions around business licensing requirements.• 57 properties have multiple VRPs. The top two properties are The Gant which holds 123 VRPs, and Aspen Square, which holds 106 VRPs. This means 1,262 properties have just one VRP.• The Lodge Zone District holds 316 VRPs, this is the greatest number of VRPs per Zone District. Second, is the Residential/Multi-family Zone District with 255 VRPs. R- 15 Zone District holds 186 VRPs, this is the greatest number for the residential-only districts. Second is R-6 which holds 108 VRPs. The Commercial Core holds 45 VRPs, and Commercial Lodge holds 132 VRPs.• *The Short Term Rentals by Zone District Map provides full details on the amount of VRPs for every Zone District in the COA.B. Attachments:• Short Term Rental Heat Map• Short Term Rental Density by Address• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (East Aspen to Cemetery Lane)• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (Cemetery Lane to Burlingame)• Short Term Rental by Parcel Number• Finance Summary Data – VRP Properties by Address• CAST Survey - Lodging and STR Taxes303
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW75APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWIII. STR DENSITY BY ADDRESSIV. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTsdc304
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW76APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWV. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTVI. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTsdc305
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW77APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVII. PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE VACATION RENTAL PERMITSPROPERTY NAMEADDRESSCOUNT OF VRPSThe Gant610 S West End St123Aspen Square 617 E Cooper Ave106Aspen Alps 700 S Ute Ave49Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St39North of Nell 555 E Durant Ave32Chateau Roaring Fork 1039 E Cooper Ave30Lift One 131 E Durant Ave27Durant Condos 718 & 728 & 738 & 748 S Galena St23Independence Square 404 S Galena St21Chateau Chaumont 731 E Durant Ave20Chateau Du Mont 725 E Durant Ave18Chateau Eau Claire 1034 E Cooper Ave18Riverside 1024 E Cooper Ave17Fifth Avenue Condos 800 S Mill St16Fasching Haus East 747 S Galena St15Silverglo 940 Waters Ave15Chateau Aspen 630 E Cooper Ave14Fasching Haus 718 S Mill St11Cottonwoods 124 W Hyman Ave10Obermeyer Place 101 N Spring St & 501 Rio Grande Pl10South Point 205 E Durant Ave10Chateau Blanc 901 E Hyman Ave9Christiana Condominiums 501 W Main St9Cooper Condominiums 210 E Cooper Ave9Concept 600 600 E Main St8Le Clairvaux 803 E Durant Ave8Park Central West 210 E Hyman Ave8Timber Ridge 100 E Dean St8Ute Condominiums 1020 E Durant Ave8Dolomite 650 S Monarch St7Original Curve 725 E Main St7Clarendon 625 S West End St6306
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW78APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWLittle Nell611 S West End St6Monarch Condos700 Monarch6Old Hundred900 E Durant Ave6Alpenblick630 & 710 S Mill St5Galena Lofts434 E Main St5Shadow Mountain Condos809 S Aspen St5Silverbell805 E Cooper Ave5St. Regis315 E Dean St5Villas of Aspen100 N Eighth St5Aspen Townhouse East835 E Durant Ave4[No Name]250 S Original St4Der Berghof100 E Cooper Ave4Mittendorf450 S Original St4Mountain Chalet711 S Galena St4Aspen Edge1235 E Cooper Ave3Aspen Townhouses108 W Hyman Ave3Black Swan Hall851 S Ute Ave3Cooper Aspen Victorian1012 E Cooper Ave3Hy-West B835 E Hyman Ave3Larkspur800 E Hopkins Ave3Monarch on the Park233 E Cooper Ave3Ritz-Carlton75 Prospector Rd3Winfi eld Arms119 E Cooper Ave3Riverview1028 E Hopkins Ave2Villager Townhomes1001 E Cooper Ave2Subtotal0307
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW79APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVIII. PROPERTIES WITH ONE VACATION RENTAL PERMITBIZ ADDRESSBIZ ADDRESS 2STREET #STREET NAME100 E Durant Ave1D100E Durant Ave100 E Durant Ave2A100E Durant Ave100 Park Ave100Park Ave1001 S Ute Ave1001S Ute Ave1004 E Durant Ave11004E Durant Ave1006 E Cooper Ave1006E Cooper Ave101 Park Ave101Park Ave1011 S Ute Ave1011S Ute Ave1015 E Hyman Ave21015E Hyman Ave1016 E Hyman Ave1016E Hyman Ave1022 E Hyman Ave11022E Hyman Ave1024 Vine StHunter Creek 10241024Vine St1035 E Durant Ave41035E Durant Ave1039 E Durant Ave111039E Durant Ave104 Northway Dr104Northway Dr104 W Cooper Ave2104W Cooper Ave105 E Hopkins Ave105E Hopkins Ave105 Exhibition Ln105Exhibition Ln105 Thunderbowl Ln4105Thunderbowl Ln105 W Hyman Ave105W Hyman Ave107 Aspen Mountain Rd2107Aspen Mountain Rd107 Aspen Mountain Rd9107Aspen Mountain Rd107 Park Ave107Park Ave107 S Seventh St107S Seventh St1087 Cemetery Ln1087Cemetery Ln1097 Cemetery LnB1097Cemetery Ln1098 Cemetery Ln1098Cemetery Ln1098 Waters Ave1098Waters Ave110 E Bleeker St110E Bleeker St308
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW80APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW110 Meadows Rd111110Meadows Rd1109 Waters Ave1109Waters Ave111 Neale Ave111Neale Ave111 Park Ave111Park Ave111 Stein Way111Stein Way111 W Francis St111W Francis St111 W Hyman Ave111W Hyman Ave1112 Waters Ave1112Waters Ave1115 Waters Ave1115Waters Ave1118 Waters Ave1118Waters Ave1120 Dale Ave1120Dale Ave1145 Black Birch Dr1145Black Birch Dr117 N Monarch St2117N Monarch St117 Westview Dr117Westview Dr118 E Bleeker StLower118E Bleeker St118 E Bleeker StUpper118E Bleeker St118 E Cooper Ave118E Cooper Ave1180 Dale Ave1180Dale Ave119 S Hunter St119S Hunter St1195 E Cooper AveA1195E Cooper Ave1195 E Cooper AveB1195E Cooper Ave120 E Hyman Ave3120E Hyman Ave120 S Spring St120S Spring St1205 Tiehack Rd1205Tiehack Rd1208 E Hopkins Ave1208E Hopkins Ave121 Robinson Rd121Robinson Rd1210 Snowbunny Ln1210Snowbunny Ln1215 Riverside DrA1215Riverside Dr1215 Riverside DrB1215Riverside Dr122 Eastwood Rd122Eastwood Rd122 Northway Dr122Northway Dr122 W Main St122W Main St123 E Hallam St123E Hallam St309
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW81APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW123 E Hyman Ave123 E Hyman Ave123 W Hyman Ave A 123 W Hyman Ave1230 Snowbunny Ln 1230 Snowbunny Ln1232 Mountain View Dr 1232 Mountain View Dr124 E Durant Ave 7 124 E Durant Ave124 E Durant Ave 10 124 E Durant Ave1240 Riverside Dr1240 Riverside Dr1242 Snowbunny Ln B 1242 Snowbunny Ln1245 Riverside Dr1245 Riverside Dr126 Park Ave126 Park Ave127 E Hallam St127 E Hallam St127 Powder Bowl Tr 127 Powder Bowl Tr127 Robinson Rd127 Robinson Rd1271 S Ute Ave1271 S Ute Ave1286 Snowbunny Ln 1286 Snowbunny Ln129 E Hopkins Ave129 E Hopkins Ave1291 Riverside Dr B 1291 Riverside Dr1300 Red Butte Dr1300 Red Butte Dr1305 Red Butte Dr1305 Red Butte Dr131 W Bleeker St131 W Bleeker St1335 Snowbunny Ln 1335 Snowbunny Ln1345 Sierra Vista Dr 1345 Sierra Vista Dr135 W Francis St135 W Francis St135 W Hopkins Ave 135 W Hopkins Ave1350 Mountain View Dr 1350 Mountain View Dr1350 Sierra Vista Dr 1350 Sierra Vista Dr136 Northway Dr The Reliant Group 136 Northway Dr1395 Snowbunny Ln 1395 Snowbunny Ln1412 Sierra Vista Dr 1412 Sierra Vista Dr1417 Crystal Lake Rd 1417 Crystal Lake Rd1423 Silver King Dr1423 Silver King Dr1430 Silver King Dr1430 Silver King Dr
310
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW82APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW1439 Crystal Lake Rd1439Crystal Lake Rd1445 Red Butte Dr1445Red Butte Dr145 Miners Trail Rd145Miners Trail Rd1450 Silver King Dr1450Silver King Dr1465 Red Butte1465Red Butte1470 Sierra Vista Dr1470Sierra Vista Dr1490 S Ute Ave1490S Ute Ave1495 Homestake Dr21495Homestake Dr15 Westview Dr15Westview Dr150 E Durant Ave150E Durant Ave150 N Eighth St150N Eighth St1530 Silver King Dr1530Silver King Dr155 Exhibition Ln155Exhibition Ln1564 Silver King Dr1564Silver King Dr1635 Silver King Dr1635Silver King Dr164 Eastwood Rd164Eastwood Rd171 Cascade Ln171Cascade Ln173 Skimming Ln173Skimming Ln18 Roaring Fork Dr18Roaring Fork Dr200 Prospector Rd200200Prospector Rd200 W Hopkins Ave200W Hopkins Ave201 Silverlode Dr201Silverlode Dr204 E Durant Ave204E Durant Ave205 Roaring Fork Dr205Roaring Fork Dr205 S Galena St11205S Galena St205 S Galena St12205S Galena St205 W Hopkins Ave205W Hopkins Ave205 W Main St205W Main St207 N Second St207N Second St211 W Hopkins Ave211W Hopkins Ave212 S Cleveland StUpper Unit212S Cleveland St214 E Hopkins Ave214E Hopkins Ave215 Midland Ave215Midland Ave311
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW83APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW215 W Hallam St215 W Hallam St217 E Bleeker St217 E Bleeker St217 S Third St217 S Third St217 Silverlode Dr217 Silverlode Dr219 N Monarch St219 N Monarch St220 W Main St 210 220 W Main St222 W Hopkins Ave 3 222 W Hopkins Ave222 W Hopkins Ave 4 222 W Hopkins Ave23 Smuggler Grove Rd 23 Smuggler Grove Rd233 W Bleeker St233 W Bleeker St234 E Hopkins Ave234 E Hopkins Ave234 Vine St 234 234 Vine St234 W Hallam St234 W Hallam St235 Exhibition Ln235 Exhibition Ln237 Gilbert St237 Gilbert St237 W Hopkins Ave 237 W Hopkins Ave267 Roaring Fork Dr 267 Roaring Fork Dr269 Park Ave269 Park Ave276 Coach Rd276 Coach Rd28 Maroon Dr28 Maroon Dr30 S Willow Ct30 S Willow Ct300 Lake Ave300 Lake Ave302 N Second St302 N Second St303 1/2 E Main St303 1/2 E Main St307 W Francis St307 W Francis St308 E Hopkins Ave 201 308 E Hopkins Ave310 N Sixth St310 N Sixth St311 S Aspen St 2 311 S Aspen St311 S Aspen St 5 311 S Aspen St311 S Aspen St 6 311 S Aspen St311 S First St A 311 S First St233 W Bleeker St D 233 W Bleeker St
312
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW84APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW312 W Hyman AveB105312W Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave102314E Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave200314E Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave300314E Hyman Ave315 Park Ave315315Park Ave316 S West End St316S West End St32 Prospector Rd32Prospector Rd320 N Seventh St2320N Seventh St320 W Main StA320W Main St322 Coach Rd322Coach Rd322 E Bleeker St322E Bleeker St322 Park Ave1322Park Ave322 Park Ave2322Park Ave324 E Bleeker St324E Bleeker St326 Oak Ln326Oak Ln326 W Hopkins AveA326W Hopkins Ave330 W Bleeker St330W Bleeker St332 W Main StC332W Main St333 Vine St333333Vine St333 Vine St333333Vine St333 W Main St1A333W Main St337 Silverlode Dr337Silverlode Dr340 Eastwood Rd340Eastwood Rd342 Summit StB342Summit St345 Park Ave2345Park Ave350 E Summit StC350E Summit St350 E Summit StC350E Summit St353 Pfister Dr353Pfister Dr355 Pfister Dr355Pfister Dr36 Roaring Fork Dr36Roaring Fork Dr387 Silverlode Dr387Silverlode Dr313
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW85APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW388 Exhibition Ln388 Exhibition Ln395 Silverlode Dr395 Silverlode Dr400 E Main St 101 400 E Main St400 W Hopkins Ave 2 400 W Hopkins Ave401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Francis St401 W Francis St406 Aspen St 101 406 Aspen St406 E Hopkins Ave Penthouse 406 E Hopkins Ave407 N Third St407 N Third St407 Park Ave C 407 Park Ave407 S Aspen St 104 407 S Aspen St409 S Aspen St 105 409 S Aspen St410 S West End St 101 410 S West End St411 Pearl Ct411 Pearl Ct411 W Francis St411 W Francis St415 S Aspen St 202 415 S Aspen St415 S Aspen St415 S Aspen St415 W North St415 W North St419 E Hyman Ave Penthouse 419 E Hyman Ave419 S Aspen St 102 419 S Aspen St420 W Francis St420 W Francis St420 W North St420 W North St421 Aabc G 421 Aabc421 S Aspen St 101 421 S Aspen St421 S West End St421 S West End St424 Park Cir TH-3 424 Park Cir424 Park Cir TH-5 424 Park Cir425 Park Cir B4 425 Park Cir426 E Hyman Ave426 E Hyman Ave426 E Main St426 E Main St427 Silverlode Dr427 Silverlode Dr
314
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW86APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW428 E Hyman AveA428E Hyman Ave43 Smuggler St43Smuggler St437 W Smuggler St437W Smuggler St437 W Smuggler St437W Smuggler St447 E Cooper Ave447E Cooper Ave449 Mountain Laurel Dr2449Mountain Laurel Dr450 S Riverside AveB450S Riverside Ave501 W Hopkins Ave501W Hopkins Ave503 W Main StB101503W Main St505 Park CirB505Park Cir505 Park CirB505Park Cir508 E Cooper Ave201508E Cooper Ave509 Race StB509Race St509 W Hopkins Ave509W Hopkins Ave509 W Main St509W Main St51 Thunderbowl Ln1251Thunderbowl Ln511 Walnut StO511Walnut St513 W Bleeker St513W Bleeker St513 W Main StE201513W Main St515 Park Cir515Park Cir520 E Cooper Ave305520E Cooper Ave520 W Main St23520W Main St521 N Seventh StA521N Seventh St525 S Original StGlory Hole C525S Original St525 S Original StGlory Hole D525S Original St530 W Hallam St530W Hallam St532 Walnut St100532Walnut St532 Walnut StB532Walnut St537 Race St537Race St546 Walnut St546Walnut St55 Overlook Dr55Overlook Dr550 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd550Lazy Chair Ranch Rd315
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW87APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW566 Race StB566Race St570 S Riverside Ave570S Riverside Ave570 Spruce St570Spruce St575 Sneaky Ln575Sneaky Ln58 Exhibition Ln58Exhibition Ln60 Northway Dr60Northway Dr601 S Monarch St1601S Monarch St601 S Monarch St2601S Monarch St601 S West End St1601S West End St601 S West End St6601S West End St601 S West End St8601S West End St601 S West End St5601S West End St601 W North St601W North St602 E Hyman Ave201602E Hyman Ave603 S Garmisch603S Garmisch603 S Garmisch603S Garmisch604 N Eighth St604N Eighth St605 E Main St301605E Main St611 S Monarch St2611S Monarch St611 S Monarch St5611S Monarch St612 W Main St612W Main St615 W Smuggler St615W Smuggler St616 S Galena St616S Galena St616 W Main St616W Main St616.5 W Main St6165 W Main St620 E Hyman Ave1620E Hyman Ave623 S MonarchA623S Monarch623 S MonarchC623S Monarch624 W Francis St624W Francis St625 E Main St201 Penthouse C625E Main St625 S West End St15625S West End St316
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW88APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW626 W Francis StA626W Francis St626 W Francis St626W Francis St627 E Hopkins Ave627E Hopkins Ave627 S Original St627S Original St630 E Hyman Ave301630E Hyman Ave631 S Galena St11631S Galena St631 S Galena St13631S Galena St633 W Francis St633W Francis St635 Sneaky Ln635Sneaky Ln64 Prospector Rd64Prospector Rd651 Pfister Dr651Pfister Dr655 Gibson Ave655Gibson Ave660 S Galena St660S Galena St670 Moore Dr670Moore Dr675 Meadows Rd675Meadows Rd701 S MonarchCaribou Club #4701S Monarch702 E Hyman Ave702E Hyman Ave702 W Main St702W Main St704 E Cooper Ave3704E Cooper Ave704 E Hyman Ave704E Hyman Ave704 S Galena St704S Galena St705 W Main St705W Main St706 E Cooper Ave4706E Cooper Ave708 E Cooper Ave708E Cooper Ave708 E Hyman Ave708E Hyman Ave708 W Bleeker St708W Bleeker St709 E Main St303709E Main St710 N Third St710N Third St711 W Bleeker St711W Bleeker St711 W Bleeker St711W Bleeker St712 S Galena StA712S Galena St715 E Hopkins Ave2715E Hopkins Ave317
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW89APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW715 W North StCenter715W North St716 W Francis St716W Francis St717 Aspen StB717Aspen St717 W Francis StA717W Francis St720 W Bleeker St720W Bleeker St725 Cemetery LnUnits 721, 723, 725, 727725Cemetery Ln727 E Hopkins AveA727E Hopkins Ave728 E Hopkins Ave728728E Hopkins Ave730 Bay St730Bay St731 Cemetery Ln731Cemetery Ln731 S Mill St1A731S Mill St731 S Mill St1B731S Mill St731 S Mill St2A731S Mill St733 W Francis St1733W Francis St735 E Bleeker StCreektree 735735E Bleeker St735 E Francis St735E Francis St736 W Smuggler StB736W Smuggler St745 Castle Creek Dr745Castle Creek Dr75 Overlook Dr75Overlook Dr76 Exhibition Ln76Exhibition Ln77 Westview Dr77Westview Dr790 W Hallam St3790W Hallam St793 Cemetery Ln1793Cemetery Ln800 Roaring Fork Rd800Roaring Fork Rd800 S Monarch St1800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St5800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St9800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St13800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St14800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St#4800S Monarch St800 W Smuggler St800W Smuggler St801 E Hopkins Ave2801E Hopkins Ave318
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW90APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW802 E Cooper Ave2802E Cooper Ave802 E Cooper Ave3802E Cooper Ave809 S Aspen St3809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St11809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St15809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St16809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St18809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St19809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#1809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#2809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#20809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#5809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#7809S Aspen St81 Thunderbowl Ln1681Thunderbowl Ln810 E Cooper Ave810E Cooper Ave812 E Cooper Ave812E Cooper Ave814 E Cooper Ave814814E Cooper Ave814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas C3814W Bleeker St814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas C4814W Bleeker St814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas E6814W Bleeker St815 Bonita Dr815Bonita Dr815 Roaring Fork Rd815Roaring Fork Rd816 E Cooper Ave816E Cooper Ave816 E Hyman Ave816E Hyman Ave817 W North St817W North St818 E Hyman Ave818E Hyman Ave819 E Hyman Ave2819E Hyman Ave82 Westview Dr82Westview Dr820 E Cooper Ave820E Cooper Ave820 E Hyman AveA820E Hyman Ave825 Cemetery Ln1825Cemetery Ln825 E Hopkins Ave1N825E Hopkins Ave825 E Hopkins Ave2S825E Hopkins Ave319
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW91APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW825 S Ute AveA825S Ute Ave83 Exhibition Ln83Exhibition Ln83 Ute Pl83Ute Pl835 E Cooper Ave4835E Cooper Ave855 Roaring Fork Rd855Roaring Fork Rd857 Bonita Dr857Bonita Dr865 Roaring Fork Rd865Roaring Fork Rd900 Waters Ave900Waters Ave901 E Durant AveB901E Durant Ave901 S Ute Ave901S Ute Ave901 W Francis St901W Francis St907 Waters Ave907Waters Ave909 Vine St909Vine St91 Meadows Trustee Rd9191Meadows Trustee Rd910 Gibson AveB910Gibson Ave910 W Hallam St8910W Hallam St911 Waters Ave911Waters Ave914 Waters Ave1914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave4914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave5914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave19914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave20914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave21914Waters Ave916 E Hopkins Ave104916E Hopkins Ave916 E Hopkins Ave201916E Hopkins Ave918 S Mill StA918S Mill St924 W Hallam St924W Hallam St925 E Durant Ave2925E Durant Ave926 E Cooper Ave1926E Cooper Ave926 E Durant Ave3926E Durant Ave926 Waters Ave101926Waters Ave926 Waters Ave102926Waters Ave926 Waters Ave202926Waters Ave320
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW92APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW926 Waters Ave201926Waters Ave927 E Durant Ave3927E Durant Ave928 W Hallam St928W Hallam St929 E Durant Ave4929E Durant Ave930 W Francis St930W Francis St930 W Hallam St930W Hallam St934 S Mill St934S Mill St935 E Hopkins Ave2935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave6935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave9935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave10935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave11935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave12935E Hopkins Ave938 S Mill St938S Mill St940 Matchless Dr940Matchless Dr941 E Hyman Ave941E Hyman Ave945 E Cooper Ave945E Cooper Ave950 Cemetery Ln1950Cemetery Ln950 Cemetery Ln2950Cemetery Ln950 Matchless DrA950Matchless Dr979 Queen St979Queen St981 King St981King St99 Northway Dr99Northway Dr990 Gibson Ave990Gibson Ave991 Moore Dr991Moore Dr321
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW93APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVIII. CAST SURVEY - LODGING & STR TAXES322
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 1 of 7
RESOLUTION NO. 43
SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
POLICIES AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE IN
RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL’S SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required to
initiate amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), during a regular City Council
meeting on December 8, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2021 by
a unanimous affirmative vote placing a moratorium on the issuance of new short-term
rental permits and certain types of residential development until June 8, 2022; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), during a regular City Council
meeting on December 14, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2022
by a unanimous affirmative vote placing a moratorium on the issuance of new short-term
rental permits until September 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), during a regular City Council
meeting on March 15, 2022, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06, Series of 2022 by a
unanimous affirmative vote reestablishing a moratorium on certain types of residential
development until June 8, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, at the December 8, 2021 and March 15, 2022 Council meetings,
Community Development Department received direction from City Council to draft
targeted amendments to the Land Use Code related to short-term rentals, growth
management, affordable housing, and development review processes; and,
WHEREAS,the Land Use Code amendments requested by Council will advance
specific policy statements in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) related to affordable
housing, environmental protection, climate action, residential sector development, lodging,
community sustainability and character, and development review processes; and,
WHEREAS,the Land Use Code is an essential tool for City Council and the
community to ensure that Aspen’s built environment supports the vision and policy objectives
described in the AACP; and,
WHEREAS,the Land Use Code requires periodic amendments to ensure it supports
adopted City policy, is aligned with the community vision, and responds to changes in
community, economic, and environmental conditions; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure the Land Use Code supports AACP policies, delivers a built
environment which supports community policies, economic needs, environmental
323
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 2 of 7
stewardship obligations, responds to current community, economic, and environmental
conditions, and supports to objectives of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2021; Ordinance No.
27, Series of 2021; and Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, the Community Development
Director recommends Council consider amendments to Land Use Code sections including,
but not limited to:
26.104 Definitions,
26.200 Administration-Decision Making Bodies,
26.300 General Procedures and Regulations,
26.400 Development Review Standards and Procedures,
26.540 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit,
26.575 Miscellaneous Regulations,
26.610 Impact Fees,
26.710 Zone Districts; and,
WHEREAS,City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction described in this resolution and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section
26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS,amending the Land Use Code as described below will ensure the
ongoing effectiveness and viability of the regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code
to achieve City Council’s policy and regulatory goalsas described inOrdinance No. 26, Series
of 2021; Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2021; and Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022; and,
WHEREAS,the regulations and standards in the Land Use Code provide important
tools for the realization of Council’s policy and regulatory objectives in response to Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 2021; Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2021; and Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2022; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department, following approval of this Policy Resolution will conduct Public Outreach
with the public, property owners, and members of the development community; will
receive recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission in a public hearing;
and will propose an Ordinance to be considered at First and Second Reading; and,
WHEREAS,this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
324
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 3 of 7
Section 1: Overall Code Amendment Objectives
The objectives of these code amendments are to:
1. Align regulations in the Land Use Code with policies in the Aspen Area Community
Plan related to affordable housing, environmental protection, climate action, growth
management quota system, residential sector development, lodging, community
sustainability and character, and development review processes; and,
2. Amend the Land Use Code to support the development of more affordable housing in
the City of Aspen; and,
3. More directly recognize and ensure proper mitigation of the employee generation
impact of single family and duplex residential development; and,
4. More directly recognize and ensure proper mitigation of the employee generation
impact of short-term rental in residential property within the City of Aspen; and,
5. Align land use review processes with community development needs, including
affordable housing, and the mitigation of the community impacts from free-market
development; and,
6. Ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the Growth Management Quota System in
managing growth from residential development and redevelopment and mitigating the
community impacts from those activities; and
7. Leverage GMQS tools to better align land use regulations and policies with climate
action and environmental stewardship policies; and,
8. Adequatelymitigate for the impacts of short-term rentals to the community; and,
9. Support adopted community greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets through
responsible land use and development regulations; and,
10. Ensure future development and redevelopment mitigates for its climate, solid waste,
natural resource, and environmental impacts; and,
11. Ensure the pace and scale of residential sector development dose not unduly impact
the health, safety, peace, and sustainability of the community.
Section 2: Topics for Potential Code Amendments
A. Affordable Housing
The Aspen Area Community Plan includes policies directing the City of Aspen to address
affordable housing in the community, including:
1. VIII.1. Restore public confidence in the development process. (pg 27)
2. VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. (pg 27)
3. VIII.3. Ensure that the Planned Development process results in tangible, long-term
community befits and does not degrade the built or natural environment through
mass and scale that exceeds the Land Use Code standards. (pg 27)
4. II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. (pg 41)
5. II.2. Affordable housing should be prepared for the growing number of retiring
Aspenites. (pg 41)
6. IV.2. All affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary.
(pg 42)
7. IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred. (pg 42)
325
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 4 of 7
8. IV.5. The design of new affordable housing should optimize density while
demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale, and character of the
neighborhood; (pg 42) and,
City Council provides the following direction to guide the development of LUC
amendments on this topic:
1. Analyze potential regulations to allow for the development of affordable housing
by right in appropriate zone districts and with dimensional standards which support
neighborhood character and the financial viability of private sector affordable
housing development; and,
2. Create more robust incentives for the development of affordable housing by the
private sector; and,
3. Provide a necessary foundation on which to base other, future Land Use Code
changes in the creation of additional opportunity for affordable housing
development.
B. Short-term Rentals
The Aspen Area Community Plan includes policies directing the City of Aspen to address
STRs in the community, including:
1. VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. (pg 27)
2. II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. (pg 41)
3. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
4. I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability
of our community and diverse visitor-based economy. (pg 24); and
5. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
6. IV.1 Minimize further loss of lodging inventory (pg 25); and
7. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is
compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to:
a. Create certainty in land development…
b. Protect small town character community character…
c. Limit consumption of energy and building materials,
d. Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating
costs,
e. Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic
congestion and affordable housing demand.
8. VII.1 Study and quantify all impacts that are directly related to all types of
development.
9. VII.2 Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable,
directly related impacts.
City Council provides the following direction to guide the development of LUC
amendments on this topic:
1. Define short-term rentals (STRs) as a land use distinct from residential,
commercial, and lodge uses; and,
326
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 5 of 7
2. Develop and implement a permitting and regulatory compliance system for STRs;
and,
3. Use permit types to distinguish between STR types including owner-occupied, non-
owner-occupied, and lodging-based STRs; and,
4. Use permit types to limit the duration (days per year) certain STR types may
operate; and,
5. Develop and implement a neighborhood noticing system for STR permit
applications; and,
6. Assess a permit fee on STR permits which mitigates the administrative and
community costs for the STR permit system; and,
7. Assess the appropriateness of an impact or other nexus-based fee on STRs to
mitigate the affordable housing demand, community infrastructure impacts, and
costs associated with STRs; and,
8. Quantify the affordable housing demand generated by STRs in residential
properties; and,
9. Use zone districts and concentration limits to limit the number of STRs in the
community and focus the use in appropriate districts; and,
10. Develop comprehensive life safety standards for STRs; and,
11. Develop public information and “good neighbor” policies to assist STR occupants
in supporting and following Aspen’s regulations and cultural norms; and,
12. Development a system of inspections, audits, and enforcement for STRs; and
C. Growth Management and Development Pace and Scale
The Aspen Area Community Plan includes policies directing the City of Aspen to address
growth management and development mitigation, including:
1. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
2. I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability
of our community and diverse visitor-based economy. (pg 24); and
3. V.1. Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the
needs of year-round residents and visitors. (pg 26); and
4. V.2. Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic
community needs. (pg 26); and
5. V.3. Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity
of heights, in order to:
a. Create certainty in land development.
b. Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
c. Protect our small-town community character and historical heritage.
d. Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
e. Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating
costs.
f. Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic
congestion and demand for affordable housing. (pg 26) and,
327
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 6 of 7
City Council provides the following direction to guide the development of LUC
amendments on this topic:
1. Conduct a generation and mitigation study to support updates to the employee
generation and mitigation rates for single-family, duplex and multi-family
residential uses within the City; and
2. Assess the adequacy of the current system of development allotments at managing
growth through controls on residential development; and,
3. Analyze the relationship between residential demolition, the allotment system, and
the pace and scale of residential development and redevelopment to determine
whether demolition constitutes residential development activity warranting and
allotment under the GMQS; and,
4. Analyze appropriate performance standards for residential development seeking an
allotment under the GMQS; and,
5. Analyze residential development standards to ensure the mass and scale of
residential development and redevelopment reinforces neighborhood and
community character; and,
6. Amend the standards for the calculation of development metrics to ensure
residential development and redevelopment mitigate for their community impacts.
D. Development Review Procedures
The Aspen Area Community Plan includes policies directing the City of Aspen to address
development review procedures, including:
1. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
2. I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability
of our community and diverse visitor-based economy. (pg 24); and
3. V.3. Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity
of heights, in order to:
a. Create certainty in land development.
b. Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
c. Protect our small-town community character and historical heritage.
d. Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
e. Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating
costs.
f. Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic
congestion and demand for affordable housing. (pg 26); and,
4. VIII.1. Restore public confidence in the development process. (pg 27)
5. VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. (pg 27)
6. IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred. (pg 42)
City Council provides the following direction to guide the development of LUC
amendments on this topic:
1. Ensure that review processed for residential development and redevelopment,
affordable and free market, support and deliver upon adopted City policies
including analysis of by-right, administrative, and board review processes and the
328
Resolution No. 43, Series of 2022
Moratorium Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 7 of 7
level of scrutiny and community involvement appropriate for different
development types; and,
2. Modify review standards and processes to promote the development of additional
affordable housing; and,
3. Modify review standards and procedures to better align the use of land,
infrastructure, and resources for residential land uses supports City policy and
economic, environmental, and community needs.
Section 3: Other Amendments as Necessary
Other amendments may be required to ensure coordination between the sections identified
above and other sections in the LUC which may not have been anticipated. The code sections
identified in this resolution is not an exhaustive list and may be modified to ensure
coordination between LUC sections and to follow subsequent Council direction on these
topics.
Section 4:
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 resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under
such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 5:
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.
FINALLY,adopted this 22nd day of March, 2022.
______________________________________
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________________
Nicole Henning,City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
329
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 1
T ECHNICAL M EMORANDUM
To: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director, City of
Aspen
From: Andrew Knudtsen and Rachel Shindman, Economic &
Planning Systems
Subject: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis; EPS #223033
Date: May 19, 2022
This technical memorandum summarizes the study supporting a
fee program to be applied to short term accommodation unit (short
term rental or “STR”) licensees in the City of Aspen. Economic &
Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the City to determine a
reasonable fee for this program. The analysis outlines two fee
components, demonstrating a reasonable relationship between
guest spending from STRs in the city and the demand for local
employees and the corresponding housing needs, as well as
administrative costs incurred by the City in regulating STRs. The
study uses economic impact techniques to quantify the
relationships between guest spending when staying in STRs and
the number of jobs and employee-households supported in the
local economy by that spending. For the administrative fee
component, the analysis is based on the City’s estimate of fully
loaded personnel costs and direct expenditures that are necessary
to manage STRs.
Guests staying in STRs spend money in the local economy, and that
spending in turn creates local jobs. The employees holding these
jobs then seek housing units. Many of the jobs created are at wage
levels that do not pay enough for employees to afford housing in the
city. The basis of this fee is therefore the gap between what
employees can afford and the cost to provide affordable housing in
the City of Aspen (using recently updated fee calculations to
determine the financial gaps by income category within the City’s
established fee program).
The calculation also accounts for the possibility that a home used as
an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee is further
differentiated based on this use. For this calculation, the fee reflects
the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local
economy and the baseline impact of local resident spending.
330
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 2
Rationale
This fee is needed to support the costs incurred by the City to manage STRs, as well as to
support the local labor force and City housing programs that sustain the tourism economy
in Aspen. Without an adequate supply of housing and housing support programs, the City
risks losing some of its labor supply that is essential to the quality of service and viability
of businesses in which STR guests spend money during their stay. This is important, as
tourism is a primary element of the City’s economic base. If businesses do not have an
adequate labor force and if workers do not have adequate housing, the guest experience
and the City’s economy are likely to degrade.
STR owners or hosts will pay an annual licensing fee under this program. The fee payers
receive benefits through investment by the City in housing for the workforce needed to
sustain the visitor economy. STR owners and operators are likely to benefit from the
supply of labor and from investments the City will make using the fee revenue on housing
for the local workforce. Having more housing options for the local workforce is also likely
to benefit the fee payers in better customer service through increased employee
retention and reduced employee turnover.
Administrative Fee
Methodology
The City of Aspen incurs costs to administer and regulate STRs beyond the standard costs
of government. Five departments in particular shoulder this cost: Police, Community
Development, Finance, Legal, and Administration. This analysis calculates a fee to be
charged to STRs to account for these costs.
Model inputs were provided by City of Aspen staff, reflecting current expenditures (staff
time and costs) associated with administering and regulating STRs. The new position
being added by Community Development to address STRs is also included in this
analysis. Given the increased level of cost associated with dispersed STR units compared
to developments that include a front desk and corresponding services (i.e., condo hotels),
costs are allocated proportionally.
Analysis and Fee Calculation
As shown in Table 1, the City of Aspen incurs $315,400 in annual costs associated with
STRs, including the new Community Development position. These include staffing costs
for enforcement, tax compliance, police calls (e.g., for trash, noise), and legal issues, as
well as software costs to manage licenses and revenue.
331
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 3
Table 1. City of Aspen STR Costs
The allocation of these costs is broken out between dispersed STRs and developments
with front desks that are fully staffed to service guests, shown in Table 2. As shown,
Condo Hotel units account for 34 percent of overall City costs, or $106,300 annually,
while dispersed STR units account for 66 percent of costs ($209,100 per year).
Table 2. STR Costs by Type
The last step in this analysis is to calculate the per-unit fee to be charged annually. As
shown in Table 3, Condo Hotel units account for approximately 40 percent of the City’s
STR inventory, or about 520 units. The total annual cost to the City of $106,300 results
in an annual per-unit fee of $204. Dispersed STR units account for approximately 60
percent of the City’s inventory, or 780 units. Annual costs of $209,100 result in an annual
fee of $268 per unit.
Description Total Annual Cost
Community Development
Enforcement $4,000
Non-enforcement $136,000
Police $10,900
Finance $102,200
Legal $50,000
Admin $12,300
Total STR Costs $315,400
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Description Share Cost Share Cost
Community Development
Enforcement 0% $0 100% $4,000
Non-enforcement 40% $54,400 60% $81,600
Police 10% $1,100 90% $9,800
Finance 40% $40,900 60% $61,300
Legal 10% $5,000 90% $45,000
Admin 40%$4,900 60%$7,400
Total STR Costs 34% $106,300 66% $209,100
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Condo Hotels Dispersed STRs
332
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 4
Table 3. STR Administrative Fee per Unit, by Type
Housing Fee
Methodology
This analysis uses a jobs-housing economic impact model to quantify the jobs supported
by guest spending in STRs. The analysis begins by quantifying the jobs supported by
spending. Next, several analytical steps are taken to translate the supported jobs to
employees by income level.
The IMPLAN model (Impact Analysis for Planning) was used to estimate the relationships
between spending and jobs supported. IMPLAN was developed by the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the University of Minnesota and is widely used by
state and federal agencies, academic researchers, and local economic development
organizations to evaluate the economic impacts of proposed policies, new industries, and
land use changes.
Data Sources
Analysis inputs come from the following sources:
• Accommodation inventory: AirDNA (number of units, number of bedrooms, average
number of bedrooms per unit)
• STR occupancy rates: AirDNA
• Guest spending: Aspen Lodging Guest Survey, 2014-2016 (RRC Associates)
• Wages by Occupation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
• Median household income: U.S. Census (ACS 5-year estimates, City of Aspen)
• Jobs per employee: 2019 Aspen Community Survey Results (EPS and RRC Associates)
Description
Total
Cost
Cost per
Unit
Total
Cost
Cost per
Unit
520 units 780 units
Community Development
Enforcement $0 $0 $4,000 $5
Non-enforcement $54,400 $105 $81,600 $105
Police $1,100 $2 $9,800 $13
Finance $40,900 $79 $61,300 $79
Legal $5,000 $10 $45,000 $58
Admin $4,900 $9 $7,400 $9
Total STR Costs $106,300 $204 $209,100 $268
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Condo Hotels Dispersed STRs
333
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 5
Guest Spending Analysis
• Guest spending – Guest spending was modeled on the average daily expenditure
across various spending categories, as reported in Aspen Guest Surveys. Primary
data was available from 2014-2016 and was brought up to current levels in line with
escalations in STR rental rates (lodging spending). The survey data provides per unit
expenditures by type; based on this data, current expenditures average $1,337 per
unit per day, including $472 on food and beverage, $305 on retail/shopping, $407 on
entertainment and recreation, $34 on service, and $120 on transportation.
• Jobs supported by industry – The spending associated with guests is applied to the
IMPLAN model as an “industry output” event for the five affected industries (NAICS
72 – Accommodation and Food Services, NAICS 44-45 – Retail Trade, NAICS 71 –
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, NAICS 81 – Other Service, and NAICS 48-49 –
Transportation and Warehousing). IMPLAN applies industry expenditure flows through
its input-output model and estimates the spending and jobs supported in the 20
major industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
• Jobs to employees (multiple job holder adjustment) – An adjustment is made
to acknowledge that many employees have more than one job, such as two part time
jobs or a full time and a part time job. So as not to overestimate the number of
employees supported, the number of jobs is reduced using a factor of 1.40 jobs per
employee. This factor is specific to the City of Aspen, as reported by residents in the
2019 Aspen Community Survey (EPS and RRC Associates).
• Employees by industry to occupations and wages – A NAICS industry contains a
wide range of job types and wage ranges. For example, a worker in the retail NAICS
sector could be an accountant (for the retailer) or showroom employee (working the
retail floor). The range of wages and occupations supported is better represented by
the 21 Standard Occupational Classifications defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). The National Industry by Occupation Matrix published by the BLS provides the
estimated distribution of occupations and wages for each NAICS category. The results
from the IMPLAN analysis are applied to the Industry by Occupation Matrix to
estimate the number of jobs by wage level supported.
• Tabulation of employees by income range – The last step involves counting the
number of employees supported by income range, expressed as a percentage of Area
Median Income (AMI). Given the breadth of need addressed by housing programs and
policies in the City of Aspen, all households earning up to 240 percent of AMI are
included for this analysis. The AMI definitions are based on the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) 2021 income limits for the City of Aspen.
Local Resident Household Analysis
The last component of the analysis involves isolating the difference between guest
spending and local resident household spending. To do this, the same steps outlined
above are undertaken for a resident household earning the local median income of
$78,292 (as reported in the U.S. Census ACS 2019 data for Aspen) to document the jobs
supported from household spending in the economy.
334
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 6
This household income is input to the IMPLAN model, which applies an expenditure profile
(including savings) specific to the household income range. The model then estimates the
spending and jobs supported in the 20 major NAICS industries. The same steps to
determine need by AMI range are completed, and this housing need is then subtracted
from that of guest spending, resulting in the needs associated with guest spending above
those generated by a local resident household.
Analysis
Guest Spending
Guest spending was modeled on the average per-unit expenditure across food and
beverage, retail/shopping, entertainment and recreation, service, and transportation.
Within the IMPLAN model 1,000 accommodation units were modeled in order to establish
an appropriate scale of analysis. Per unit and per bedroom adjustments are made later in
the model to calibrate the fee.
As shown in Table 4, an average daily spending rate of $1,337 per unit per day results in
1,000 units’ total annual spending of $488 million. Note that at this point in the analysis
100 percent occupancy (365 days of spending) is used. The average annual occupancy
rate adjustment is applied later in the analysis.
335
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 7
Table 4. Guest Spending
Description Factors Guest Spending
Program
Units 1,000
Guest Spending (per unit per day)
Food & beverage $472
Retail/shopping $305
Entertainment/recreational activities $407
Services $34
Transportation $120
Total $1,337
Annual Guest Spending (per unit per year)
Food & beverage 365 days (100% occ.)$172,121
Retail/shopping 365 days (100% occ.)$111,209
Entertainment/recreational activities 365 days (100% occ.)$148,474
Services 365 days (100% occ.)$12,358
Transportation 365 days (100% occ.)$43,879
Total $488,042
Total Guest Spending
Food & beverage 1,000 units $172,121,492
Retail/shopping 1,000 units $111,208,817
Entertainment/recreational activities 1,000 units $148,474,421
Services 1,000 units $12,358,242
Transportation 1,000 units $43,879,342
Total $488,042,314
Source: RRC Associates; Economic & Planning Systems
336
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 8
Jobs, Employees, and Households
As shown in Table 5, the spending associated with 1,000 accommodation units supports
4,218.48 jobs. The industries with the most jobs are those with direct spending impacts –
specifically accommodation and food services; arts, entertainment and recreation; and
retail.
Following total jobs, the next step is to translate jobs to employees. In today’s economy
it is common for people to hold more than one job. To step down from jobs to employees,
jobs are divided by a factor of 1.40 jobs per employee. As shown in Table 5, the
4,218.48 jobs supported by 1,000 accommodation units results in 3,013.20 employees
after the adjustment for multiple job holders.
Table 5. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Guest Spending
Guest Spending
Description
Jobs by Industry
(IMPLAN Results)
Employees by
Category
Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.40
Industrial Sectors
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 11.28 8.06
21 Mining 1.57 1.12
22 Utilities 2.46 1.76
23 Construction 13.62 9.73
31-33 Manufacturing 4.00 2.86
42 Wholesale Trade 20.46 14.61
44-45 Retail trade 444.79 317.71
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 298.72 213.37
51 Information 16.86 12.04
52 Finance & insurance 57.54 41.10
53 Real estate & rental 117.05 83.61
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 99.97 71.41
55 Management of companies 38.30 27.36
56 Administrative & waste services 87.13 62.24
61 Educational svcs 11.29 8.06
62 Health & social services 38.40 27.43
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 989.28 706.63
72 Accomodation & food services 1,743.21 1,245.15
81 Other services 215.74 154.10
91-99 Government & non NAICs 6.81 4.86
Total 4,218.48 3,013.20
Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems
337
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 9
Employees by Income
To translate employees to occupations and their related income levels, the jobs by NAICS
classification are converted to more specific occupation categories to obtain a detailed
distribution of wage levels for the new jobs, since using the average wage for an industry
masks the upper and lower wage levels. The BLS National Industry by Occupation Matrix
provides the estimated distribution of occupations for each NAICS category. The wages
for each occupation in Pitkin County are estimated by indexing the national wages by
occupation and industry to the average wage in that industry for Pitkin County.
Target Income Ranges
The last step in the guest spending analysis is to tabulate the employees at income levels
of 240 percent of AMI or less. For guest spending in 1,000 accommodation units, there
are 3,007.3 employees generated below 240 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 6. Of the
3,013.2 total employees, 99.8 percent are at incomes of 240 percent of AMI or less; the
balance of 0.2 percent are compensated sufficiently to afford market rate housing. In
total, these are the employees needed to support spending in the economy from 1,000
STR units.
Table 6. Households by AMI Supported by Guest Spending
Guest Spending
Total Employees Generated per 1,000 Units 3,013.2
Employees by Income Range
50% of Median 589.7
85% of Median 2,121.8
130% of Median 181.8
205% of Median 109.7
240% of Median 4.3
Total - Target Income Ranges 3,007.3
Percent of Employees Generated 99.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
338
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 10
Employee Housing Needs
In 2021, the City of Aspen updated its Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu. This fee program
is calculated to account for the full costs of building employee housing, including land,
soft costs, hard (construction) costs, and employee ability to pay (as a revenue offset to
costs). These fees reflect the gap between the cost to provide housing and what
employees can afford to spend on housing, based on their income.
As shown in Table 7, fees range from $408,054 per employee earning up to 50 percent
AMI to $250,375 per employee earning between 205 and 240 percent AMI.
Table 7. Affordable Price and Gap by Income Range
Local Resident Spending
To isolate the effect of guest spending on housing need, a similar methodology was
followed to determine the relationship between a local resident household and housing
need. This was then subtracted from the guest impact.
Local resident spending was modeled based on the median household income in Aspen of
$78,292, as reported in the U.S. Census 2019 American Community Survey. As with
guest spending, 1,000 households were modeled and per household adjustment is made
to calculate the final fee. As shown in Table 8, a household income of $78,292 results in
a disposable income of $57,001 after accounting for payroll tax. Based on these figures,
the total disposable income for 1,000 households is $57.0 million.
Fee Category AMI Upper Bound Fee per FTE
Category 1 50% $408,054
Category 2 85% $376,475
Category 3 130% $345,691
Category 4 205% $302,879
Category 5 240% $250,375
Source: City of Aspen
339
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 11
Table 8. Local Resident Household Income
Description Factors Local Spending
Program
Units 1,000
HH Income [1] (Aspen median)ACS 2019 5-Yr Estimate $78,292
Minus Payroll Tax
Federal $12,104
FICA $4,854
Medicare $1,135
State $3,198
Total Deductions $21,291
Net Pay / Adjusted Household Income $57,001
Total Annual Household Income 100%$78,292,000
Total Annual Payroll Rax 27%-$21,291,000
Disposable Income 73%$57,001,000
Source:US Census; Economic & Planning Systems
340
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 12
This income was input to IMPLAN, which then calculates the jobs supported by household
spending. As shown in Table 9, 1,000 households earning the median income support
172.87 jobs. Applying the multiple jobholder factor of 1.40 jobs per employee, this
spending results in 123.48 employees.
Table 9. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Local Spending
Local Spending
Description
Jobs by Industry
(IMPLAN Results)
Employees by
Category
Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.40
Industrial Sectors
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1.71 1.22
21 Mining 0.15 0.11
22 Utilities 0.32 0.23
23 Construction 1.81 1.29
31-33 Manufacturing 0.62 0.44
42 Wholesale Trade 3.88 2.77
44-45 Retail trade 25.76 18.40
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 3.93 2.81
51 Information 3.13 2.24
52 Finance & insurance 12.84 9.17
53 Real estate & rental 25.56 18.26
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 8.27 5.91
55 Management of companies 1.49 1.06
56 Administrative & waste services 7.90 5.64
61 Educational svcs 3.37 2.41
62 Health & social services 25.21 18.01
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 5.76 4.11
72 Accomodation & food services 21.11 15.08
81 Other services 19.07 13.62
91-99 Government & non NAICs 0.98 0.70
Total 172.87 123.48
Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems
341
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 13
These employees were then categorized by occupation and wage following the same
methodology for guest spending. As shown in Table 10, local resident household
spending supports a total of 123.5 employees, 99.8 percent (123.3 households) of which
fall at or below 240 percent of AMI. The costs associated with providing affordable
housing for these employees are determined using the same methodology outlined for
guest spending.
Table 10. Households by AMI Supported by Local Spending
Local Spending
Total Employees Generated per 1,000 Units 123.5
Employees by Income Range
50% of Median 28.7
85% of Median 66.4
130% of Median 22.8
205% of Median 5.2
240% of Median 0.2
Total - Target Income Ranges 123.3
Percent of Employees Generated 99.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
342
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 14
Fee Calculation
This section outlines the calculation of the accommodation unit license fee. There are four
key components to the fee calculation:
• Employees Supported – The number of employees at or below 240 percent of AMI
supported by guest spending form the basis of the fee, as these represent employees
needed in the community who cannot otherwise afford housing.
• Occupancy Rate – The impacts of guest spending were determined assuming 100
percent occupancy (i.e., 365 days per year) for modeling purposes and needs to be
adjusted for annual occupancy rates. An occupancy rate of 37.7 percent is applied to
the housing demand, based on the occupancy data for properties in the city from 2019
through 2021.
• Affordability Needs – The housing gap per employee and AMI range described
earlier ranges from $408,054 for employees earning up to 50 percent of AMI to
$250,375 for employees earning between 205 and 240 percent of AMI. The number
of employees in each AMI category (after accounting for the occupancy rate) are
multiplied by the need per employee to calculate the total housing cost. This is
calculated for both guest spending and local spending. Based on this calculation,
taking the total housing cost divided by the 1,000 units modeled, the gap per
accommodation unit is $428,933 and the gap per local household/housing unit is
$46,202.
• Adjustment for Local Households – To isolate the impact of guest spending above
the impact of a local household, the gap associated with local household spending
($46,202) is subtracted from the gap associated with guest spending ($428,933).
This results in a net gap per accommodation unit of $382,731.
This fee is then adjusted to reflect a per-bedroom figure (rather than per unit). EPS’s
analysis of the City’s STR inventory indicates that STRs have an average of 2.48
bedrooms per unit. This is then annualized over 30 years (divided by 30), which is a typical
financing period for a long-term housing investment. Based on this analysis, the
maximum fee per bedroom is $5,139, as shown in Table 11. This maximum fee amount
is the annualized cost of providing housing to the local workforce supported by guest
spending.
343
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 15
Table 11. Fee Calculation
Local Spending Guest Spending
Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)A
50% of Median 28.7 589.7
85% of Median 66.4 2,121.8
130% of Median 22.8 181.8
205% of Median 5.2 109.7
240% of Median 0.2 4.3
Total per 1,000 Units 123.3 3,007.3
Per 1.0 Units 0.12 3.01
STR Occupancy Rate B 37.7%
Net Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)C
50% of Median A x B 28.7 222.6
85% of Median 66.4 800.7
130% of Median 22.8 68.6
205% of Median 5.2 41.4
240% of Median 0.2 1.6
Total per 1,000 Units 123.3 1,134.9
Per 1.0 Units 0.12 1.13
Fee per Employee by AMI Range D
50% of Median $408,054 $408,054
85% of Median $376,475 $376,475
130% of Median $345,691 $345,691
205% of Median $302,879 $302,879
240% of Median $250,375 $250,375
Total Fee E
50% of Median C x D $11,701,673 $90,818,313
85% of Median $25,008,937 $301,455,717
130% of Median $7,877,755 $23,716,677
205% of Median $1,571,697 $12,533,460
240% of Median $42,159 $408,972
Total $46,202,221 $428,933,138
Gap (Fee) per Unit F
E / 1000 -$46,202 -$428,933
Net STR Gap per Unit (minus local spend)-$382,731
Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.48
Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$154,165
Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $5,139
Source: Economic & Planning Systems 344
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 16
Final Fee
The fee outlined above represents the maximum reasonable fee to be charged under this
program. Communities will generally apply a mitigation rate to this fee to determine the
final fee to be charged.
As shown in Table 12, a mitigation rate of 30 percent (aligning with the City’s current
residential program) would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $1,540, while a 65
percent mitigation rate (aligning with the City’s current commercial/lodge program)
would result in a fee of $3,080 per bedroom annually.
Table 12. Mitigation Rates
Description Fee Per Bedroom
Maximum Annual Fee $5,139
Mitigation Rate
30%$1,540
65%$3,080
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
345
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 17
Owner-Occupied Short Term Rentals
There is a desire in the City to create a separate licensing program for owner-occupied
properties, with a limit to the number of short-term rental days allowed per year. A unit
rented for a maximum of up to 90 days per year represents a maximum occupancy rate
of 24.7 percent, and thus justifies a separate fee calculation.
Additionally, since these units are occupied by local residents the impact of guest
spending occurs in addition to the impact of local spending. Thus, the impact of local
household spending is not netted out of the guest spending impact attributed to the STR.
As shown in Table 14, this results in a maximum annual fee per bedroom range from
$1,254 (30 days per year) to $3,763 (90 days per year).
As with the standard fee, a mitigation rate would be applied to determine the final fee to
be charged. Examples of the per-bedroom fee at a range of mitigation rate levels and
rental night maximums are shown in Table 13. For example, a 30 percent rate (aligning
with the City’s current residential program) and a maximum of 30 rental days per year
would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $380, while a 65 percent mitigation rate
(aligning with the City’s current commercial/lodge program) and a maximum of 90 rental
days per year would result in a fee of $1,510 per bedroom annually.
Table 13. Mitigation Rates – Owner Occupied Units
Description
30 days/year 60 days/year 90 days/year
Maximum Annual Fee $1,254 $2,509 $3,763
Mitigation Rate
30%$380 $380 $750
65%$820 $820 $1,510
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Fee Per Bedroom
346
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 18
Table 14. Fee Calculation – Owner Occupied Units
30 days/year 60 days/year 90 days/year
Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)A
50% of Median 589.7 589.7 589.7
85% of Median 2,121.8 2,121.8 2,121.8
130% of Median 181.8 181.8 181.8
205% of Median 109.7 109.7 109.7
240% of Median 4.3 4.3 4.3
Total per 1,000 Units 3,007.3 3,007.3 3,007.3
Per 1.0 Units 3.01 3.01 3.01
STR Occupancy Rate B 8.2%16.4%24.7%
Net Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)C
50% of Median A x B 48.5 96.9 145.4
85% of Median 174.4 348.8 523.2
130% of Median 14.9 29.9 44.8
205% of Median 9.0 18.0 27.0
240% of Median 0.4 0.7 1.1
Total per 1,000 Units 247.2 494.3 741.5
Per 1.0 Units 0.25 0.49 0.74
Fee per Employee by AMI Range D
50% of Median $408,054 $408,054 $408,054
85% of Median $376,475 $376,475 $376,475
130% of Median $345,691 $345,691 $345,691
205% of Median $302,879 $302,879 $302,879
240% of Median $250,375 $250,375 $250,375
Total Fee E
50% of Median C x D $19,779,292 $39,558,584 $59,337,876
85% of Median $65,653,946 $131,307,893 $196,961,839
130% of Median $5,165,248 $10,330,495 $15,495,743
205% of Median $2,729,658 $5,459,317 $8,188,975
240% of Median $89,070 $178,140 $267,209
Total $93,417,214 $186,834,428 $280,251,642
Gap (Fee) per Unit F
E / 1000 -$93,417 -$186,834 -$280,252
Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.48 2.48 2.48
Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$37,629 -$75,257 -$112,886
Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $1,254 $2,509 $3,763
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Local Resident STR
347
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Brian Long, Trail System Manager
THROUGH:Matt Kuhn, Parks and Open Space Director
Austin Weiss, Parks and Recreation Director
MEMO DATE:May 17, 2022
MEETING DATE:May 24, 2022
RE:Ordinance #11 Municipal Code Revision - Trails
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Listed below are changes proposed to the Trails section of the
Municipal Code, Title 24, Chapter 12. Staff is requesting that City Council approve
Ordinance #11, Series of 2022.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:The Parks and Open Space Department has
prepared a slate of code revisions in the spirit of improving etiquette and safety on the
trail system and to keep ahead of trends in use on our trails. Some of these proposed
changes have been discussed for over a decade. Others are in response to recent
changes in trail use, notably the increasing use of ebikes, including trail users on rental
ebikes.
The City’s partner agencies in upper valley trail user management are also at work to
foster a trail environment that upholds etiquette. Future efforts will make use of media
campaigns and careful education of the public by ranger staff to grow the public
understanding of how we can better interact with each other on trails. Where technology
can be employed in preventing negative actions on fleet bikes, that will be explored.
The proposed changes and the issues behind them have been discussed at length by
staff within the Parks and Open Space Department, at meetings of the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Team, and with the City’s Open Space and Trails Board. The Open Space
and Trails Board has reviewed and approved the letter and intent of these changes. These
codes are also reflective of input by City and County Ranger staff and their experiences
and interaction with the public while observing dynamics of trail use in the field.
Following is the complete proposed code language of Aspen’s Municipal Code Chapter
24.12 – Trails. Each code is followed by a brief bulleted summary in italics of the changes
in this revision:
348
24.12.010. – Trail system
The Aspen Trail System is defined as those trails managed or owned by the City of
Aspen and inventoried by the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department. This
Chapter applies to all trails lying and being within the City and all other trails outside
the City limits over which the City has jurisdiction and control.
Sets trail system inventory definition.
Expands scope of this chapter to include City-owned trails beyond City
limits.
24.12.020. – Vehicles prohibited.
It shall be prohibited to operate any powered vehicle on the Aspen Trail System except
for the devices and conditions below.
a) Electronic assisted bicycles, referred to herein as E-bikes, conforming to one of the
three classes as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. section 42-1-104(28.5), as amended,
shall be allowed upon paved trails. E-bikes of any sort are prohibited upon natural
surface singletrack trails of width less than 5 feet.
b) Other powered devices such as one-wheels, electric skateboards and powered
scooters shall be allowed upon paved trails. Such devices must be powered by
electric motor not exceeding 750 Watts, have a width of no more than 30 inches, and
weigh no more than 65lbs. Powered devices of any sort are prohibited upon natural
surface singletrack trails.
c) Wheelchairs or any device designed to assist people with mobility impairments who
use pedestrian right of ways.
d) City maintenance, ranger, police, fire, ambulance and emergency vehicles are
permitted to operate necessary vehicles on the Aspen Trail System. In the event of
an emergency, officers and employees thereof are authorized to permit emergency
vehicles to enter upon the trails.
e) Special permission may be granted by the Parks and Recreation Director or the
Parks and Open Space Director for use of motorized vehicles on the trails for special
events, and for limited periods (to be specified on permits issued), provided,
however, that such special permits shall not conflict with provisions of trail
easements given across private property.
Edited to define ebike classes and set allowances and limits.
Defines other powered devices allowed or limited on trails.
Allows devices assisting impairments.
Tightens and modernizes agencies and City roles that have authority to
grant motorized access.
24.12.030. – Requirements of bicycle rental businesses and courtesy bicycle
fleets
a)Any bicycle or E-bike used on the Aspen trail system shall be sound and safe for
use and shall be equipped with a bell or other device for announcing on the trail
system. Rental businesses that offer bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any business
349
that offers bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall be responsible for
ensuring compliance with this requirement.
b)Rental businesses that offer five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any
business that offers five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall
ensure that all users of the fleet bicycles have watched an orientation video for
safe operation of bicycles and E-bikes in Aspen as prescribed by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
c)Rental businesses that offer five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any
business that offers five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall
adhere to any regional restrictions, conditions, or permit requirements placed upon
any route, trail or roadway and shall educate their users of the same.
Calls for sound and safe fleet maintenance and equipping bells or other.
Requires a standard video to be shown to rental customers.
Requires adherence to regional bike management policies.
Replaces previous code condensed into 24.12.040.
24.12.040. – Leaving trail right-of-way, special conditions
It shall be unlawful, in areas posted, to leave a trail right-of-way at such points as the
trail passes on or through private property. The City or County shall enforce and
prosecute any violation of this prohibition as a criminal action under this Chapter and, if
necessary, as a property trespass on behalf of both the City (as holder of the
easement) and the owner of the land trespassed upon. Special conditions and
provisions which constitute limitations on trail usage imposed by private landowners as
a condition for easements granted, shall be enforced, if posted, in the same manner as
the prohibitions contained in this Chapter.
Condenses previous sections 24.12.030 and 24.12.040, language
unchanged.
24.12.050. – Nordic trail system
The Aspen Nordic Trail System shall be defined as those winter trails maintained by
the Pitkin County Nordic Program that fall within the limits of the City of Aspen.
Users of the Aspen Nordic system shall obey all trail designations and signage posted
on the trails to express caution, to restrict use by type of travel, to prohibit pets, or to
denote a trail closure.
It shall be unlawful for anyone to operate a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or motorcycle
upon the Aspen Nordic System.
Establishes the City’s authority within the Pitkin County Nordic System.
Requires users obey posted signage.
Prohibits vehicles on the trail system
Deletes previous 24.12.050 – Dogs on Trails: Code was both
contradictory and redundant of dog policy elsewhere in the City’s
Municipal Code.
350
24.12.060. – Safe speed, announcing, yielding, crossings
Cyclists, users of other devices, and equestrians shall travel at a safe speed at all times
and abide by any speed limits posted on the trail system. All users of trails shall obey
any posted warning, caution, traffic control or other signs.
Trail users shall announce with an audible signal or voice before overtaking other trail
users. Users of paved trails shall keep to the right half of the pavement at all times.
Bicyclists, Skaters, Pedestrians and others shall yield to Equestrians. Bicyclists and
Skaters shall yield to Pedestrians. Bicyclists shall yield to Skaters. Downhill users yield
to Uphill users. Faster users yield to slower users. Trail users shall stop at all roads and
yield to any automobile traffic, unless the intersection is posted otherwise. Trail users
shall not be required to stop at each private driveway. At such intersections automobiles
shall yield to trail users. Horses are restricted to the unpaved portions of trails unless
otherwise posted as provided by law.
Edited to clarify and condense yielding and crossing language.
Requires announcing by cyclists and device users.
Establishes the authority of posted speed limits on the trail system.
24.12.070. – Prohibited activities
It shall be unlawful, on any trail right-of-way (or an adjacent property if access thereto
is achieved through the trail system) to create loud noises; to use firearms or fireworks;
to litter; to obstruct the trail system; to deface, cut, blaze or carve trees, fences,
vegetation, trail signs, markers, bridges or structures; to camp or ignite campfires
(except in designated areas); or to camp overnight. It shall be illegal to operate any
bicycle or other approved device upon the trail system in a careless manner.
Removes prohibition of horns and bells.
Prohibits careless operation of a bicycle or device.
24.12.080. – Use after dark
Users of the trail system after dark, on any type of bicycle or other allowed device shall
be required to use a light as to be clearly visible to other users.
Persons using the trail system, especially during the late night and early morning
hours, shall avoid the making of any noise such as to disturb residents within the area
of the trail right-of-way.
Requires use of a light by users of bicycles or devices.
24.12.090. – Enforcement by County officials
Whenever this Chapter shall allow for the management of trail use or enforcement of
these regulations by officials of the county, such reference shall be to officers of Pitkin
351
County, Colorado, and such rights shall accrue only if so provided by agreement
between the City and County, and if permitted by law.
Unchanged
24.12.100. – Penalties
The violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be punished by a fine, imprisonment
or both a fine and imprisonment, as set forth in Section 1.04.080 of this Code. Each day
any violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.
Unchanged
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Financial impacts are minimal for adoption of these code
changes. Indirect impacts include costs associated with producing speed signage,
revision and updates to ticket books, brochures, and websites.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The intent of these code changes is to address safety
issues seen on our trails system. The adoption of these changes will improve safety
conditions and the overall user experience throughout the trails network and as such will
help promote alternative transportation.
ALTERNATIVES:City Council could direct staff to change the proposed codes, or to
amend or delete certain conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends adoption of the proposed codes into the
City’s Municipal Code by Ordinance #11, Series of 2022, Municipal Code Revisions -
Trails.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
352
353
ORDINANCE #11
(Series of 2022)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 24, CHAPTER 12 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (“the City”) recognizes the importance of a safe and
enjoyable system of trails and has adopted rules and regulations contained with Title 24 of the
City of Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the rise of in use of bikes, electric assisted bikes, and other electric powered
devices on the City of Aspen trails system has increased concerns for the safety of pedestrians
and other users of the City trails system making it necessary to adopt rules and regulations to
address the risks posed by electric assisted bicycles and other devices used on the trails system;
and,
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the benefits of maintaining and operating a groomed
Nordic trail system and the need to regulate uses on the City’s Nordic trail system,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the proposed amendments to Title 24 of
the City of Aspen Municipal Code furthers and are necessary for the promotion of public health,
safety, and welfare, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO,
Section 1:
That Title 24, Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended as
follows:
Chapter 24.12. - ASPEN TRAIL SYSTEM
Sec. 24.12.010. – Trail system., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Sec. 24.12.010. - Trail system.
The Aspen Trail System is defined as those trails managed or owned by the City of
Aspen and inventoried by the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department. This
Chapter applies to all trails lying and being within the City and all other trails outside
the City limits over which the City has jurisdiction and control.
Section 24.12.030. Vehicles prohibited., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
354
24.12.030. Vehicles prohibited.,
It shall be prohibited to operate any powered vehicle on the Aspen Trail System except
for the devices:
a) Electronic assisted bicycles, referred to herein as E-bikes, conforming to one of the
three classes as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. section 42-1-102(28.5), as amended, shall
be allowed upon paved trails. E-bikes of any sort are prohibited upon natural surface
singletrack trails of width less than 5 feet.
b) Other powered devices such as one-wheels, electric skateboards and electric powered
scooters shall be allowed upon paved trails. Such devices must be powered by
electric motor not exceeding 750 Watts, have a width of no more than 30 inches, and
weigh no more than 65lbs. Powered devices of any sort are prohibited upon natural
surface singletrack trails.
c) Wheelchairs or any device designed to assist people with mobility impairments who
use pedestrian right of ways.
d) City maintenance, ranger, police, fire, ambulance and emergency vehicles are
permitted to operate necessary vehicles on the Aspen Trail System. In the event of an
emergency, officers and employees thereof are authorized to permit emergency
vehicles to enter upon the trails.
e) Special permission may be granted by the Parks and Recreation Director or the Parks
and Open Space Director for use of motorized vehicles on the trails for special events,
and for limited periods (to be specified on permits issued), provided, however, that
such special permits shall not conflict with provisions of trail easements given across
private property.
Sec. 24.12.030. -Special Provisions.shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
Sec. 24.12.030. -Requirements of bicycle rental businesses and courtesy
bicycle fleets.
a)Any bicycle or E-bike used on the Aspen Trail System shall be sound and safe
for use and shall be equipped with a bell or other device for announcing on the trail
system. Rental businesses that offer bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any business that
offers bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance with this requirement.
b)Rental businesses that offer five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any
business that offers five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall
ensure that all users of the fleet bicycle have watched an orientation video for safe
355
operation of bicycles and E-bikes in Aspen as prescribed by the Parks and Recreation
Director.
c)Rental businesses that offer five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for rent and any
business that offers five (5) or more bicycles or E-bikes for complimentary use shall
adhere to any regional restrictions, conditions, or permit requirements placed upon any
route, trail or roadway and shall educate their users of the same.
Section 24.12.040.Leaving trail right-of-way., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety
with the following:
Sec. 24.12.040. - Leaving trail right-of-way, special conditions.
It shall be unlawful, in areas posted, to leave a trail right-of-way at such points as the
trail passes on or through private property. The City or County shall enforce and
prosecute any violation of this prohibition as a criminal action under this Chapter and,
if necessary, as a property trespass on behalf of both the City (as holder of the
easement) and the owner of the land trespassed upon. Special conditions and
provisions which constitute limitations on trail usage imposed by private landowners as
a condition for easements granted, shall be enforced, if posted, in the same manner as
the prohibitions contained in this Chapter.
Section 24.12.050. Dogs on trail., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
Sec. 24.12.050. -Nordic trail system
The Aspen Nordic Trail System shall be defined as those winter trails maintained by
the Pitkin County Nordic Program that fall within the limits of the City of Aspen.
Users of the Aspen Nordic system shall obey all trail designations and signage posted
on the trails to express caution, to restrict use by type of travel, to prohibit pets, or to
denote a trail closure.
It shall be unlawful for anyone to operate a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or motorcycle
upon the Aspen Nordic System.
Section 24.12.060. Trail crossings, yielding, safe speed., shall be repealed and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
Sec. 24.12.060. -Safe speed, announcing, yielding, crossings.
Cyclists, users of other devices, and equestrians shall travel at a safe speed at all times
and abide by any speed limits posted on the trail system. All users of trails shall obey any
posted warning, caution, traffic control or other signs.
Trail users shall announce with an audible signal or voice before overtaking other trail
users. Users of paved trails shall keep to the right half of the pavement at all times.
356
Bicyclists, skaters, users of other devises, pedestrians and others shall yield to
equestrians. Bicyclists, skaters, and users of other devices shall yield to pedestrians.
Bicyclists shall yield to skaters. Downhill users yield to Uphill users. Faster users yield to
slower users. Trail users shall stop at all roads and yield to any automobile traffic, unless
the intersection is posted otherwise. Trail users shall not be required to stop at each
private driveway. At such intersections automobiles shall yield to trail users. Horses are
restricted to the unpaved portions of trails unless otherwise posted as provided by law.
Section 24.12.070. Prohibited activities., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
Sec. 24.12.070. - Prohibited activities.
It shall be unlawful, on any trail right-of-way (or an adjacent property if access thereto
is achieved through the trail system) to create loud noises; to use firearms or fireworks;
to litter; to obstruct the trail system; to deface, cut, blaze or carve trees, fences,
vegetation, trail signs, markers, bridges or structures; to camp or ignite campfires
(except in designated areas); or to camp overnight.It shall be illegal to operate any
bicycle or other approved device upon the trail system in a careless manner.
Section 24.12.080. Use after dark., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
Sec. 24.12.080. - Use after dark.
Users of the trail system after dark, on any type of bicycle or other allowed device shall
be required to use a light as to be clearly visible to other users.
Persons using the trail system, especially during the late night and early morning hours,
shall avoid the making of any noise such as to disturb residents within the area of the
trail right-of-way.
Section 2. Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
357
a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 9. Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 10
th day of May 2022.
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2022.
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
358
James True, City Attorney
359