HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19981103AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
4:45-5:15A. Code Amendment, Section 26.36 (related to Security Company
Signage), Mitch Haas (continued from 10/6) ,Appr'a v�o( -/
5:15-5:45B. Smuggler Hunter Trust (Aley Property), Subdivision and
Rezoning, Chris Bendon (continued from 10/20),.A ro Vo d 4 --�
V. WORK SESSION
5:45-6:15A. Truscott Place Affordable Housing, Bob Nevins
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Long Range Planning Survey, 7th & Main Work Session
VI. ADJOURN
NOTE: These times are approximate, and applicants should plan to be present approximately 1/2 hour prior to their
case time estimated
CITY AGENDAS
1113 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/13
Small Lodge Change -In -Use Applications Due (Lottery November 17 P&Z Meeting), (BN)
Truscott Place AH Work Session (BN)
Code Amendment, Security Company Signage, (continued from 10/6), (MH)
Smuggler Hunter Trust Subdivision and Rezoning, Public Hearing, (continued from 10/20), (CB)
Long Range Planning Survey
1115 DRAC (4:00)
1365 Mayflower Court (MH)
1203 E. Hopkins Ave. (MH)
610 South Original (CB)
11/9 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/20
7th & Main AH Work Session (BN)
"Kathryn's Way" Street Name for Snyder AH Project, Resolution Consent (CB)
"Meadows Trustee" Street Name, Resolution Consent (SO)
MAA Banner Reso (AG)
Smuggler Hunter Trust Subdivision and Rezoning, 1 st Reading (CB)
Amendments to the Tipple Lodge Subdivision Exemption Agreement, 2d Reading Public
Hearing, (continued from 10/26) (MH)
11/11 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/20
Survey for Goals and Outcome Measures
134 W. Hopkins, Work Session
117 N. 6th Street, Conceptual and Landmark
7th & Main, Work Session
920 E. Hyman, Work Session
135 W. Hopkins, Work Session
11112 BOA
Staff Effectiveness Survey
11/17 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/27
Small Lodge Change -In -Use Lottery (BN)
117 N. 6th Street, Landmark, Public Hearing (AG)
Elden Stream Margin Review, 727 Bay Street (CB)
Land Use Code Streamlining, Work Session
AACP Draft Statements (SM)
11/18 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11/3
11/23 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/3
735 W. Bleeker, Landmark, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
Truscott Place AH Work Session (BN)
Smuggler Hunter Trust, Subdivision & Rezoning, 2d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
117 N. 6th Street, Landmark, 1 st Reading (AG)
11/25 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /3
Canceled due to holiday
IYloved up to 11118
12/1 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11/10
USFS 8th Street AH Work Session (BN)
126 Park Avenue, Conditional Use and Residential Design, Public Hearing, (continued from
10/6), (CB)
Castle Creek Condos (Hallam House) Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB)
12/7 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/17
12/9 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11/17
117 N. 6th, Final
12/14 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/24
USFS 8th Street AH Work Session (BN)
Castle Creek Condos (Hallam House) Rezoning, 2d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
Code Amendment HPC, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG) i
117 N. 6th, Landmark, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
12/15 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11/24
Joint Meeting with City Council
Small Lodge (LP) Program, Work Session
12/23 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/1
Tentatively canceled
Fa
12/28 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/8
Tentatively canceled
cc: P&Z Packet
Community Development Admin. Staff
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
g:/pl annin g/aspen/agendas/comingup. doc/
10/28/98
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
DATE: November 3, 1998
RE: Follow-up and Up -coming
l . Legal Notices. Staff has initiated a new internal policy. Effective immediately, staff
is required to have the proof of notice, affidavit and notice to neighbors list in their
hands and reviewed prior to opening the hearing. If the notice is not proper, the
hearing will not be opened, and a new hearing will need to be renoticed.
_2 -Waterplace Mousing --reflective vent pipes. Completed.
3. AutoTech Parking Area. The Parking and Transportation Dept. has been working
on this issue. I will keep you updated as issues are decided.
4. Construction parking in general. Staff has forwarded an e-mail to the city
transportation planner asking him to follow-up with his AACP committee to discuss
how the plan cold address this issue.
5. Isis 'Theater and parking across the street. The city has striped Hopkins St. to
better define the travel lanes. Diagonal parking is still present
6. Worksession on LP Program. City council has suggested a joint work session with
the P&Z to discuss changes to the small lodge program. This has been scheduled for
December 15, 1998 @ 5 PM
7. Cover Letter to Permits. Idea was to note to contractors that parking is at a
premium and they should have their employees carpool if possible. Staff has
included a small notice in the contractor newsletter going out this month addressing
this issue.
8. Lunch with City Council. this Friday, November 6 @ 12 noon. Please let us know
what you'd like to specifically discuss with them.
9. Boards and Commissions Reception. December 3, Wheeler Opera House. More
info to follow.
10. DEPP and IPP Closeout Reports. Staff is Working to complete these reports and
forward them to council and other appropriate boards. Upon completion, staff will
distribute to the P&Z
11. Land Use Code Work Session. Scheduled for a briefing by the city attorney on
November 17th. This will just be an introduction to the streamlining of the code.
c:/home/j uli ew/p&z/ 110398,doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director U
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
RE: Sign Code Amendments --- Security Signs
DATE: November 3, 1998 (continued from October 6, 1998)
SUMMARY: Chapter 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code does not permit the
security company signs commonly seen throughout the City. As the sign code is
currently written, only temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and
home occupation signs are permitted within residential zone districts. Further, off -site
signs (i.e., signs which identify a business, but are not located at the place of business) are
prohibited in all zone districts. Staff received complaints about the security signs and
commenced enforcement of the sign code when Apex Security requested that City
Council direct staff to initiate a code amendment process where the proposed
amendments would allow for security signs. Council then directed staff to carry out this
request.
Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to suggest an amendment to Chapter 26.36 that
would allow but regulate the siting and design of security signs in the City of Aspen
while eliminating the advertising element of such signs and prohibiting off -site security
company signage from anywhere within the City of Aspen. One issue that will need to be
decided is whether security company names should be included in security signs, or to
eliminate the advertising element of the signs. The proposed amendments attempt to
provide a reasonable and sound balance between the need or perceived need for the signs
and the character -related impacts associated with the signs.
Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission advise City Council to approve the proposed code amendments.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: Following up on citizen complaints, the City contacted Apex
Security in October of 1997 to inform the company that a number of their security signs
were in violation of Section 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code, which prohibits
signs from being located in the public rights -of -way and requires that all signs comply
with the setback requirements of the zone district in which said signs are located. A
follow-up letter was sent to Apex on April 15, 1998, to inform the company that many of
its signs were still in violation of the aforementioned regulation, and to request that all
signs be brought into compliance by June 15, 1998.
In a more general manner, at the July 6, 1998 City Council Brown -Bag session, Council
requested that staff look into the overall legality of the Apex signs, which seemed to have
become more prevalent. In response, City staff sent another letter to Apex Security on
July 14, 1998 stating that Section 26.36 (Signs) of the Aspen Municipal Code only
permits temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and home
occupation signs within residential zone districts. The letter went on to further state that
off -site signs (i.e., signs identifying a business in the area, but not displayed at the
identified business's location) are prohibited in all zone districts. The July 14th letter
concluded by stating that the Apex Security signs which are currently located at private
residences and commercial locations within City limits are therefore not permitted, and
requested that the company remove all such signs by no later than August 15, 1998.
Finally, the letter suggested that Apex consider pursuing a code amendment aimed at
allowing their signs.
At a subsequent City Council Brown -Bag session, it was agreed that the City would
initiate the code amendment process on behalf of Apex Security. While some members
of Council felt that smaller signs of a different design would be acceptable, other
members of Council clearly expressed a desire to eliminate the advertising element of the
signs. For instance, an article in the Aspen Daily News (See Exhibit B) quoted one
member of Council as saying the signs "were an atrocious form of advertisement," and
also asked if there is an international symbol for security that could eliminate the
advertising element of the signs.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing. Therefore, the Commission is functioning in an advisory capacity with
final decision -making authority resting with the City Council.
DISCUSSION: Proponents of security company signs explain that the signs perform the
comforting functions of theft deterrence and making it easier for police or fire department
personnel to find their property in case of emergency. Others feel that the signs are out of
character with the small town, Victorian mountain resort village charm of Aspen. They
point out that the concept of security company signage is an import from other
communities in the country where it represents a solution to a set of problems that do not
exist in our community, and that the crime rates in Aspen do not justify the perception apt
to be created, nor the impression apt to be made on new residents and tourists. For
instance, one Councilman stated at a Brown -Bag Session that, based on comments from
citizens, the signs in front of properties reflect that Aspen is crime infested (See Exhibit
2
B). Still other critics of security company signage believe the signs serve little purpose
outside of advertising, and that they have the cumulative affect of a Main Street billboard.
After asking police and fire department personnel whether the presence of a security
company sign helps them respond to a call or alarm, staff learned that the average
response time in the city limits is between three (3) and five (5) minutes, depending on
location, for both-Ahe police and the fire department, and that the presence or lack of a
security company sign is not believed to have any affect on this margin. Staff also
learned that the police respond to all alarms, and that the adopted Fire Code requires that
every residence be clearly and noticeably addressed (identified), as further explained
below. Because the Apex guards are located at the Aspen Airport Business Center, it
usually takes them anywhere from ten (10) to twenty (20) minutes to arrive at the scene
of an alarm. One can conclude, then, that the signs are not needed for the Apex guards to
locate the scene of an alarm since, first, the Fire Code requires that houses be clearly and
noticeably addressed, and second, the guards need only look for the property with police
and/or fire department vehicles in front of it.
Staff recognizes that there are many people to which the signs provide a sort of security
blanket and in no way intends to belittle this feeling, but lacks a better way of describing
it. However, given the relative infrequency of crimes in Aspen and the apparent lack of
affect on emergency response times in the event of criminal activity, staff feels that the
significant community character issues associated with the proliferation of security
company signs and the perception of a need for deterrence the signs potentially create
outweighs the importance of the "security blanket" effect some community members
prefer. Nevertheless, in appreciation of the desire to maintain the security blanket effect
but still desiring to address the character -related issues and eliminate the advertising
element of security signs, staff is proposing a code amendment that involves permitting
one (1) six inch by six inch (6" x 6 ") security sign as part -of the total allowable two (2)
square feet of residential name and address signs per residence, provided that if the
residential name and address sign is to include security signage, it be placed on the
building or mailbox and be non -company specific. The proposed amendment would also
clearly prohibit off -site security signage that includes advertising or identification of a
specific business. This proposal explicitly distinguishes between security signs and
security company signs.
The Aspen Daily News article attached as Exhibit B, shows that in response to comments
about the advertising element of the signs,. Apex Security's Executive Director stated that
the signs are "not about advertising," but that their clients "have a legitimate expectation
to have some sort of signage," and that the signs actually serve the purpose of deterring
burglars. Staff believes the proposed amendments would allow for meeting the
expectations of clients "to have some sort of signage" that would serve the purpose of
deterring burglars, and that if the signs really are "not about advertising," then there
should be no objection to removing the company name and logo.
3
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: In accord with the "Purpose" of the City Sign Code, as
described in Section 26.36.010 of the Municipal Code, the intent of the proposed
amendment is to regulate the design, size, and placement of security signs in an effort to:
• "Preserve and maintain the City of Aspen as a pleasing,, visually attractive
environment," (26.36.010(A));
• "Enhance the attractiveness ... of the City of Aspen as a place to live, vacation and
conduct business," (26.36.010(C));
• "Enable the identification of places of residence and business," (26.36.010(E));
• "Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zone district in which they are located
and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain," (26.36.010(G));
• "Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably
necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such
business," (26.36.010(J));
• "Lessen ... confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement ...
of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,"
(26.36.010(M)); and, to
• "Regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with ... or distract motorists,
bicyclists or pedestrians," (26.36.010(N)).
In consideration of the Sign Code's purpose and the concerns described in the
"Discussion" section of this memorandum, staff proposes amending Section 26.36.030,
Procedure for Sign Permit Approval, subsection (B)(17), Residential Name and Address
Signs, and Section 26.36.040, Prohibited Signs, subsection (B), Billboards and Other Off -
Premise Signs, as follows, where language str-ie en is proposed for removal and
language in bold is proposed to augment the existing regulation. Prior to reviewing the
proposed changes, it is worth noting that the adopted provisions of the Uniform Fire
Code, under Article 9, Section 901.4.4, Premises Identification, mandate that "Approved
numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
contrast with their background." The proposed amendments include the added benefit of
making the Sign Code provisions for residential name and address signs consistent with
the adopted "Premises Identification" rules of the Fire Code. It is also worth noting that
the existing security company signs throughout town are in violation of the code and are
currently prohibited. If approved, the proposed amendments would grant rights that do
not currently exist, which may be some consolation to the security companies and their
clients.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36.030(B)(17):
17. Residential name and address signs. One (1) mailbox fFeest „dii or wall sign per
detached residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2)
square feet which identifies the name of eeeuppant and the street address of the
dwelling unit. Within this two (2) square foot limitation, it is also acceptable to
include the name of the occupant and/or an area of up to six inches by six inches
(6" x 6") for a message alerting the general public of the presence of a security
n
system, provided the message is not specifically identifying or otherwise
advertising a particular business. Approved numbers or addresses shall be
placed on all new and existing buildings or mailboxes, whichever . is more
visible, in such a position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting
the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36.040(B):
B. Billboards and other off -premise signs. Billboards and other off -premise signs,
including security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set
forth in Section 26.36.030(B)(17), are prohibited, except as temporary signs as
provided for in Section 26.36.120.
The amendments proposed above have received the full endorsement of the Aspen Area
Community Plan update's "Character Focus Area Committee."
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed
amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staff s evaluation of
the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics
followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The proposed amendments are consistent
with the "Purpose" and other provisions of the existing sign code since no business in the
City of Aspen, regardless of type or message, is permitted to display off -site advertising
on anything other than a temporary basis.
B. I Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not in conflict with any elements of the
AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of the
Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan (page 54 of the AACP).
Furthermore, the amendments proposed above have received the full endorsement of the
"Character Focus Area Committee" of the Aspen Area Community Plan update.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Considering land uses and neighborhood characteristics, staff believes the
amendments, as proposed, would result in allowing signage that is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses while precluding signs that would be
incompatible with the same.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation, but could improve road safety by mandating clear and noticeable
premises identification for all residences while lessening confusion, distraction, and
visual clutter caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs which compete
for the attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, above, for a
full review of character -related issues associated with the proposed amendments. Staff
believes the proposed amendments present a reasonable and sound balance between the
concerns of security sign proponents and those related to the preservation of Aspen's
small town, Victorian mountain village character and charm.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character, nor has
there been significant change in local crime rates. However, the amount, visibility and
prominence of security company signage throughout the City of Aspen has risen
dramatically in the last year and even in recent months. These increases are believed to
be negatively impacting and/or hold the potential of adversely affecting Aspen's
community character.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the public's interest with regard to security signage is in the
ability to maintain a means of theft/crime deterrence and to make properties easily
identifiable, while not unduly permitting off -site advertising or degradation of the
community's character and image. Staff further believes the proposed amendments would
6
not be in conflict with this interest, and that the proposed amendments are in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the Sign Code and the Land Use Code, in general. .
STAFF FINDINGS: Please refer to the "Review Standards" section of this
memorandum, above.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the code amendments proposed
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:. "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
code amendments related to security signs as proposed in the Community Development
Department staff memorandum prepared by Mitch Haas and dated November 3, 1998, as
memorialized in Resolution Number 98-29."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Letter from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
Exhibit B - Aspen Daily News Article by Carolyn Sackariason (date not known)
7
P&Z Resolution 98-29
Page 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 26.929 AMENDMENTS TO THE
LAND USE REGULATIONS AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
SECTIONS 26.36.030(B)(17), RESIDENTIAL NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNS, AND
26.36.040(B), BILLBOARDS AND OTHER OFF -PREMISE SIGNS, OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE
Resolution No. 9&29
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the procedures and provisions set forth in Chapter 26.92 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, the Community Development Department has formally proposed
amending Sections 26.36.030(B)(17) and 26.36.040(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code in an effort
to provide a means and parameters for allowing security signs in the City of Aspen while
regulating the off -site placement of security company signage; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, of the Aspen
Municipal Code, a development application for amendment to the text of the Municipal Code
shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by
the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and
then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing;
and,
. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared the proposed
amendments and recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments
and did conduct a properly noticed public hearing on October 6, 1998, and then continued to
November 3, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the proposed text amendments, agency
and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code, to wit, Division 92 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning Commission
has, by vote of to (-), recommended that City Council adopt the
amendments related to security signs proposed in the Community Development Department staff
memorandum prepared by Mitch Haas and dated November 3, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1:
That the Commission formally recommends that City Council amend Section 26.36.030(B)(17),
Residential Name and Address Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as follows:
17. Residential name and address signs. One (1) mailbox or wall sign per detached residential
dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2) square feet which identifies
the street address of the dwelling unit. Within this two (2) square foot limitation, it is also
acceptable to include the name of the occupant and/or an area of up to six inches by six
inches (6" x 6") for a message alerting the general public of the presence of a security
system, provided the message is not specifically identifying or otherwise advertising a
P&Z Resolution 98-29
Page 2
particular business. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings or mailboxes, whichever is more visible, in such a position as to be plainly visible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Section 2:
That the Commission formally recommends that City Council amend Section 26.36.040(B),
Billboards and Other Off -Premise Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as follows:
B. Billboards and other off -premise signs. Billboards and other off -premise signs, including
security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set forth in Section
26.36.030(B)(17), are prohibited, except temporary signs as provided for in Section
26.36.120.
APPROVED by the Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing on November 3; 1998.
Attest:
Planning and Zoning Commission:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
cAhome\mitchh\p&zmemos.apexreso.doe
ASPEN
ALPS
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
UAW T "A" Z3456,
89
00
ICE 0
� �V
2ZizoZ
DISTRIBUTED TO.
August 11 1998
City Council of Aspen Response By: UaT64
130 S. Galena By Date,
Aspen, CO 81611 For;
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing in regard to the recent decision to remove all
security signs within the city limits of Aspen. The Aspen Alps
Condominium Association would like it to be known that they feel
the signs are an integral part of the security system offered by
Apex. The signs provide our property with theft deterrence and
aides the police department and fire department in finding our
property. For these and other reasons it is our request that the
decision to -remove the signs be reversed.
Sincerely yours,
Aspen Alps Condominium Association
700 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-7820 Fax (970) 920-2528
� cc,.obi)
a.00 a � u 1
,,•y��� N�
0
� vcai c�
r., O p +-+ p • y CIS
b4 y C
«i N cn 44.) �1 .. 4.� > «! .."
�
•C13.r Q ate+
'G
ci •b r''",
.ram, .yc.$o �yvc
H v v rA C
N O O �� •-�
,� C 4L�
4.. p .SC �j :+ �y Q
cc :4 .�4.o�.t1.
czEo
'
�E 60c�i.D =C '.y�
Co
Ca Q
.C..3vs• _fcncS
v>c •
�c0 aCcE
U..,�;�voo.,voE vvN -va�o�0o'
t.to �c•
�'c,,r,,.
cV U c Ea,��Z
Qoop� `c
ENw1. cz
o.. a
cvU�.
cc�a
c0•G v �� co4.. cdt
o�+.0 ws� c ....,.., ..,c,o o c:.
�yv -vvv Nov v. a, c'�_x:.
N
�C"b a
p
C"
v V C v tw conv v N N^
3.. vs•v� r'N U 1U. �.'=r C U�= ... c V
o'er
`
`��^,� olu
cn
..
0�'
C v it
v y .c �
� > N v
. � '� u C4 ?' � s � --� u c cl CZ
...� w 0p ' cis v1 3 U ce
> wN
Uv
Q v t o
Ev
a� v o c 42 N E .8
E
3a^ UcaUc�,� -�c0 o vU
�, bq
•� 1..
w rA v bA G. c �
r..� .0
.0 c..� Z
" to ..� y.r
N
O CQ v «� N C t^+ Q •..+ N c� >
CD v
Nca•vv
�v
aN ^v. —AE .�E.r�v�..
4.
ECp3
.0Ciwa
.acIa.
`oz.>ui y
v
E ~v .•-�
EaoU
a
o cc o ,ccE
c o oc Z. E
S E C U R I T Y
Date: November 3, 1998
To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Committee
From: Marc Powell, Apex Security Group
RE: Sign Code Amendments —Security Signs
Apex Security Group
1429 Grand Avenue, Suite D
Glenwood Springs
Colorado 81601
Corporate Office: (970) 945-2152
Facsimile: (970) 945-7922
As you may be aware, Apex Security Group provides home and commercial security services in Aspen.
Apex is the successor organization to Westec Fire & Safety Systems of Aspen, Sopris Security Systems,
and Robertson Security, Inc. Each of these organizations had security signage at residential properties
within the town limits for at least 18 years, and possibly much longer. The consolidation within the local
markets, and our distinctive logo has created the impression that more signs are in existence today than in
the past, leading to complaints regarding the visual impact of the signage in Aspen's neighborhoods.
Apex has worked diligently to ensure that our signage met both the spirit and letter of the city's requests for
moving the signs within acceptable setbacks, and making other changes as requested, and will continue to
do so. On July 61h, we met with the Aspen City Council in an attempt to work with the city to balance the
legitimate security concerns of our clients with the concerns regarding the visual impact of the signage.
We came away from that meeting believing that an appropriate balance between those two needs had been
met.
For some unknown reason, the city's planning staff has decided to fight what seemed to everyone present
an appropriate resolution to the quandary. In the October 6th memo from Mitch Haas, the city staff spent
much of its space arguing that signs in yards are unnecessary since Aspen has no significant crime problem.
Of course, this ignores the fact that security signs have been in the yards for many years, sending the clear
message to would-be robbers that this is a town that takes security seriously.
Other legal issues also seem to apply to this situation, including the First Amendment rights of our clients,
grandfathering issues given the long tenure of the existing signs in the yards, and good faith reliance on the
city's numerous directions over the years regarding sign placement, size, etc. In addition, statistics clearly
show that a home is substantially less likely to be burglarized if a security sign can be seen from the
street. It is this statistic upon which much of the insurance rate reductions for our clients are predicated.
Apex's position is that small (6"x6"), low -impact color signs in yards are a much more appropriate balance
between our client's legitimate security needs and the concerns about visual impact.
Finally, staff states in their October 6th memorandum that security signs are also not allowed for
commercial properties, although it has been represented to us consistently to date that commercial
properties clearly are allowed to protect their properties with signage.
We look forward to working with the Planning and Zoning Commission to reach a solution that is fair and
equitable to both sides of the iss
Very Truly Yours,
Marc P. Powell
Chief Executive Officer
ASPEN: (970) 920-6538; DILLON: (970) 468-8264; EAGLE: (970) 328-0165; VAIL: (970) 949-6677
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, PlannerAm
RE: Smuggler Hunter Trust -- 2 Williams Way
Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Review
Public Hearing -- (continued from October 20, 1998)
DATE: November 3, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Smuggler Hunter Trust represented by Maxwell Aley, is proposing
a Subdivision and Rezoning of his property located at 2 Williams Way. The
property is currently a 43,560 square foot tract within the RMF-A Zone District.
The applicant has entered into an agreement with the City of Aspen to convey Lot
42 of the Subdivision to the City for the purpose of providing a municipal park.
The proposed Subdivision boundary has been designed to preserve the
conforming status of Lot #1. There is a minimum lot size of 27,001 square feet in
the RMF-A Zone District which prescribes this line.
The remaining parcel, Lot #2, is less than this minimum lot size and requires
rezoning to remain a conforming parcel. The Park Zone District is the most
compatible with the expected land use of the property.
Parking requirements for the Park Zone are established through the Special
Review process. The Parks Department has no immediate plans to develop this
park but does expect to provide no more than four parking spaces.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Special
Review for Parking and pass forward a recommendation of approval to City
Council for this Subdivision and Rezoning, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Smuggler Hunter Trust, owner.
Represented by Maxwell Aley.
LOCATION:
2 Williams Way.
ZONING:
Existing:
Proposed:
LOT SIZE:
Residential Multi -Family -A (RMF-A)
Lot 2 of the subdivision is proposed for Park (P) Zoning
Existing:
Proposed residential lot:
Proposed park lot sizes:
LOT AREA & FAR:
1.00 acre. 43,560 square feet.
27,001 square feet.
16,559 square feet.
Lot area for the residential parcel is reduced by the 5,500 square foot portion of
the property within the Williams Way R.O.W.
The Allowable Floor Area depends upon the Lot Area and the use.
Lot Area: Proposed 21,501 Existing; 38,060
FAR: Single -Family: 4,345 square feet. 5,173 square feet.
Duplex: 4,745 square feet. 5,573 square feet.
Multi -Family: 7,740 square feet. 13,700 square feet.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Residential with an open space easement encumbering the southern portion of the
parcel.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Residential for the portion of the parcel north of Williams Way. Park for lands
south of Williams Way.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Subdivision & Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
application at a hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to City Council.
Special Review for Parking. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny a Special Review at a public meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The portion of this property south of Williams Way is currently deed restricted to
open space uses and passive recreation with no development opportunities. This
restriction was placed on the property by the County in a land -swap arrangement
with the owner. The City has entered into a contract to purchase the southern
2
parcel and a surface easement for the remaining land south of Williams Way for
the purpose of providing a public park.
The subdivision will allow the transfer of the park parcel to the City. The
rezoning is necessary because the minimum lot size in the RMF-A Zone District
is 27,001 square feet. The City's contract is contingent upon subdivision and
rezoning approval.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been
included as Exhibit "C."
Staff has included conditions requiring certain actions before final approval by
City Council. This is different than most conditions that the P&Z reviews. The
purpose is to allow City Council to approve the Ordinance, final plat, and contract
all at once with all issues being resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval for this Subdivision and Rezoning and approve the
Special Review for Parking, with the following conditions.
1. Prior to final approval by City Council, a park easement shall be recorded for the portion of
Lot # 1 south of Williams Way and noted on the plat. The easement shall be approved by the
City Attorney prior to recordation.
2. Prior to final approval by City Council, the final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer. An easement shall be provided on Lot # 1 for electric equipment which is
currently in the Spruce Street R.O.W. Existing parking spaces for Lot #1 shall be depicted
on the final plat.
3. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant shall complete and record a sidewalk,
curb, and gutter construction agreement.
4. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement
to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula.
5. The applicant shall coordinate the placement of street trees with the City Forester to meet the
street tree requirement of Subdivision.
6. Prior to redevelopment of either Lot, the owner shall submit a drainage report and a drainage
plan, including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which
maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A
two year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
3
7. No more than four (4) parking spaces may be provided along Spruce Street for Lot #2. The
spaces shall be signed for two hour maximum parking.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve this Special Review for Parking and recommend City Council
approve the Smuggler Hunter Trust Subdivision, 2 Williams Way, and Rezoning
of proposed Lot #2 of the Subdivision, with the conditions outlined in the
Community Development Department memo dated November 3, 1998."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Application
M
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SMUGGLER HUNTER
TRUST SUBDIVISION AND REZONING OF LOT #2 OF THE SMUGGLER
HUNTER TRUST SUBDIVISION TO THE PARK (P) ZONE DISTRICT AND
APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT #2 OF THE SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST
SUBDIVISION, 2 WILLIAMS WAY, CITY OF ASPEN.
PARCEL NO.2737-074-00-030
Resolution #98 - 3-4
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Elizabeth Aley, sole trustee of the Smuggler Hunter Trust, owner, for a two lot
subdivision of a 43,560 square foot parcel of land located in the Residential Multi -
Family -A (RMF-A) Zone District at 2 Willaims Way, rezoning of proposed Lot #2 of the
subdivision to the Park (P) Zone District, and Special Review to establish the parking
requirements for proposed Lot 42; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve Special
Reviews in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.64; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Subdivisions and Amendments to the
Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) after taking and considering recommendations
from the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made
at a duly noticed public hearing, and taking and considering public testimony at a duly
noticed public hearing in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Sections 26.88
and 26.92; and,
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, Parks Department, and Community Development
Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 1998, the
Planning and Zoning Commission took and considered public testimony and approved by
a to vote the Special Review establishing the parking requirements for Lot #2 of
the proposed subdivision and recommended City Council approve the Smuggler Hunter
Trust Subdivision and Rezone Lot #2 of said Subdivision to the Park (P) Zone District,
with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Special Review to Establish the parking requirements for Lot #2 of the
Subdivision is approved and the City Council should approve the Smuggler Hunter Trust
Subdivision and Rezone Lot #2 of said Subdivision to the Park (P) Zone District, with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to final approval by City Council, a park easement shall be recorded for the portion of
Lot # 1 south of Williams Way and noted on the plat. The easement shall be approved by the
City Attorney prior to recordation.
2. Prior to final approval by City Council, the final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer. An easement shall be provided on Lot 41 for electric equipment which is
currently in the Spruce Street R.O.W. Existing parking spaces for Lot #1 shall be depicted
on the final plat.
3. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant shall complete and record a sidewalk,
curb, and gutter construction agreement.
4. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant shall -complete and record an agreement
to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula.
5. The applicant shall coordinate the placement of street trees with the City Forester to meet the
street tree requirement of Subdivision.
6. Prior to redevelopment of either Lot, the owner shall submit a drainage report and a drainage
plan, including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which
maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility., A
two year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
7. No more than four (4) parking spaces may be provided along Spruce Street for Lot #2. The
spaces shall be signed for two hour maximum parking.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 3, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Sara Garton, Chair
Staff Comments: Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
l . General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed subdivision will allow.the City to purchase a property in a high density
residential area and provide a public park. This specific location was not considered
during the 1993 AACP. However, the property near Gibson and Lone Pine (Mocklin
Subdivision) was considered in `93 for a semi -active park.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
Staff Finding:
The area is typified by high density residential development. Hunter Creek
Condominiums are to the West with Centennial Condominiums to the East. The
subdivision will allow the sale of the open space parcel to the City for the future
development of a small neighborhood park. This proposed land use is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood character.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding area is essentially built -out.
parcel will be lower with the smaller lot size.
Potential development of the fathering
However, this smaller parcel will remain
zoned for high density residential with much higher density than is currently developed
on the site.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed subdivision will create a lot smaller than the minimum required for the
RMF-A Zone District. The applicant is proposing to rezone the smaller Lot #2 to Park.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
Staff Comments page 1
mudflow, rockslide, avalanch or snowslide, steep topography, or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Staff Finding:
There are no environmental constraints which affect this property.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding:
This subdivision will not create any inefficiencies for the City. The public costs are the
purchase of the property and easement to create the park and any capital improvements
which follow in the development of the park. These costs have been analyzed by the City
Parks Department and will be dependent upon approval by City Council.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed
subdivision.
1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins.
2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and
improvements of a collector street.
3. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4. Paved alleys.
5. Traffic -control signs, signals, or devices.
6. Street lights.
7. Street name signs.
8. Street trees or landscaping.
9.. Water lines and fire hydrants.
10. Sanitary sewer lines.
11. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
12. Bridges and culverts.
13. Electrical lines.
14. Telephone lines.
15. Natural gas lines.
16. Cable television lines.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence until on any of the
improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile,
and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and,
when appropriate, the relevant utility company.
C. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the
improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the
subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been
provided beyond the needs of the subdivision.
Staff Finding:
Staff Comments page 2
Most of these standards do not apply to this parcel because it is being subdivided for the
purpose of conveying a park parcel. The City Engineer will require the placement of
corners (for surveying) and curbs and gutters, especially if parking is provided.
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all
subdivisions.
a. Street and related improvements. The following standards shall apply to
streets regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with
paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
l . Conform to plan for street extension.
2. Right-of-way dedication.
3. Right-of-way width.
4. Half -street dedications.
5. Street ends at subdivision.
6. Cul-de-sacs.
7. Dead-end streets.
8. Centerline offset.
9. Reverse curves.
10. Changes in street grade.
11. Alleys.
12. Intersections.
13. Intersection grade.
14. Curb return radii.
15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes.
16. Street names and numbers.
17. Installation of curb, gutter sidewalks, or driveways. No finish paving;
curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveways shall be constructed until one year
after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements.
18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8) feet wide in the Commercial
Core (CC), Commercial (C 1), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5) feet wide in all
other zone districts where sidewalks are required. Consideration shall
be given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing
sidewalk locations.
19. City specifications for streets.
20. Range point monuments.
21. Street name signs.
22. Traffic control signs.
23. Street lights.
24. Street tree. One street tree of three-inch caliper for deciduous trees
measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot
height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone
districts for each lot of seventy (70) foot frontage or less, and at least
two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy
(70) feet frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one tree for each
street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at
driveways or corners. The City Parks and Recreation Department shall
Staff Comments page 3
furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage, and landscaping shall
be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the City in
accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan.
b. Easements.
1.
Utility easements.
2.
"T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20) feet in width
shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the
continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary.
3.
Potable water and sewer easements.
4.
Planned utility or drainage system.
5.
Irrigation ditch, channel natural creek.
6.
Fire lanes and emergency access easements.
7.
Planned street or transit alignment.
8.
Planned trail system.
C. Lots and blocks.
1.
General.
2.
Side lot lines.
3.
Reversed corner lot and through lots.
4.
Front and street.
5.
State Highway 82.
6.
Block lengths.
7.
Compatibility.
8.
Mid -Block pedestrian walkways.
d. Survey Monuments.
1. Location.
2. C.R.S. 1972 38-51-101.
3. Range points and boxes.
e. Utilities.
1.
Potable waterline and appurtenances.
2.
Size of waterlines.
3.
Fire hydrants.
4.
Sanitary sewer.
5.
Underground utilities.
6.
Other utilities.
7.
Utilities stubbed out.
f. Storm Drainage
1. Drainage plan.
2. Detention storage.
3. Maintain historical drainage flow.
4. Calculations and quantities of flow.
g. Flood hazard areas.
Staff Comments page 4
1. The proposed subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electricity, and potable water systems.
2. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for any proposed subdivision
of at least fifty (50) lot or five (5) acres, whichever is less.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope, road,
driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant
natural or scenic features of the site.
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this section,
"Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in
Chapter 26.64.
Staff Finding:
a. Because this Subdivision is not creating any new streets, most of these design
standards do not apply. The City Engineer is requiring this installation of sidewalks,
curbs, and gutters. The Parks Department will be landscaping the "park" parcel in a
compatible manner. Both parcels are required to provide trees along Spruce Street
and Williams Way. Due to the density of trees on the residential parcel, the owner
will need to work with the Parks Department to determine appropriate locations for
these trees.
b. The City Engineer is requiring a new easement for a electric transformer which is
currently located within the Spruce Street R.O.W. .
c. This standards applies to Subdivisions where several lots are being created within
blocks. and does not apply to this subdivision.
d. The City Engineer is requiring the placement of additional survey monuments.
e. The City Engineer has not requested any additional utilities to be installed.
f. The City Engineer has requested a drainage report at the time of development of each
parcel.
g. This parcel is not within a flood hazard area.
h. There are no new structures proposed for either parcel.
I. No variations to these standards are being requested.
5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Title 20, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding:
Does not apply. There are no new residential units being created.
6. School land dedication standards.
C. Dedication Schedule.
1. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed according to
the following schedule:
Staff Comments page 5
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Dormitory
.0000 acres (0 sq, ft.)
Studio/One bedroom
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom
.0248 acres (1081 sq. ft.)
Five bedroom
.0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.)
2. Cash -in -lieu payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu
of dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in combination
with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this section.
Because of he high cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the
School District and Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash -in -
lieu amount which is less than the full market value of the land area.
The formula to determine the amount of cash -in -lieu payment for each
residential dwelling unit is as follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment.
Payment of cash -in -lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwellings.
Staff Finding:
There are no additional residential units proposed for either parcel. This standard does
not apply.
Staff Comments: Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning of the southern property is necessary to allow the creation of a lot which
conforms with the City's zoning requirements. The Park (P) Zone District will more
closely follow the uses that this property is intended for.
Staff Comments page 6
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The AACP does not refer to this parcel specifically. A park for passive and semi -active
recreation at this location, however, would serve a large population.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are generally high density residential. A passive and semi -
active park at this location would serve a large population. The proposed land use is
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
Due to its proximity to high density residential development, most potential users of the
park would probably walk or ride a bike to the proposed park. The zone change is not
expected to pose any traffic problems and is a reduction in the allowed density for the
existing "residential" parcel.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The parcel is currently deed restricted as open space and does not allow for development.
A zone change to park will not affect demands on community facilities. Development of
a passive or semi -active park on this site would address a lack of public recreational
facilities in the immediate vicinity.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The zone change is not expected to significantly affect the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
A public park in this area is compatible with the neighborhood. This expenditure of
public finds is consistent with other City expenditures.
Staff Comments page 7
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The high density residential developments of Hunter Creek and Centennial, which have
provided internal open space and recreational opportunities for their residents and which
are proximate to Hunter Creek and Smuggler Mountain, will benefit from a public park.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
This rezoning is not in conflict with the public interest.
Staff Comments: Special Review for Parking
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set
forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of
a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in
lieu by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met:
l . In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed
development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential
uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected
impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests, and employees.
Staff Finding:
The Park Zone Districts requires the parking requirements to be established by Special
Review. This is not a regional park and is not expected to attract many auto oriented
users. The park is relatively small and within walking distance to a high population.
Staff is more concerned about the potential for long-term parking than about the actual
number of spaces provided. Staff suggests that any parking provided for this park be
signed for a two hour maximum. This will ensure the parking availability for park users
and not for car storage for the nearby residential complexes. Staff is suggesting that the
provision of up to four (4) spaces would be appropriate for this neighborhood park.
Staff Comments page 8
•' • § ME
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Cyf,
Date: October 16, 1998
Re: Aley Subdivision & Rezoning
(2 Williams Way)
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their
September 30, 1998 meeting, and we have the 'following comments:
1. Draft Plat - The final plat must indicate a title commitment performed within the past 12 months
for easement information. A City park easement is not indicated. The property corners between the
two lots must be monumented and indicated.
2. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - The applicant should be required to construct sidewalk adjacent to
his Lot 1 frontage. Since it too late in the construction season to accomplish that this year, the
applicant should be required to sign a sidewalk construction agreement, with sidewalk to be
completed no later than June 30, 1999, and to replace any damaged sections of curb and gutter. The
development of Lot 2 should require construction of sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
3. Site Drainalle - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is sub -standard and
cannot adequately convey storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the
requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and
Engineering Department's interim design and construction standards. A drainage mitigation plan
(2411x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report must be signed and stamped by an
engineer registered in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well
as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. The existing
structure should be required to construct drainage improvements prior to signing the plat.
1
4. Parking - The final plat needs to show two existing 81/2'x 18' parking spaces.
5. Utility Easements - The plat indicates an electric transformer and two utility pedestals in the
public right-of-way at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant should be required to
dedicate an 8'x8' easement at the northeast corner of Lot 1 for such time as if is desirable to relocate
them out of the public right-of-way.
6. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be
'installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements
must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Meter
locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage.
7. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement
districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -
way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building
inspection.
8. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120)
for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -
way from the city community development department.
98M 182
2
O
U
to
O
N
a�
4,
N
W
N
c�
O
O
w
E
�w•I
H
O
CC
E
42)
.r-44
N
Cd
z
Attachment 8
0
i
Delta
County of ftitw AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I MAXWELL ALEY
being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the 9 t 1-day of o c t o b e r , 199 8 (which is 10 days prior to the public
hearing date of October t o t h).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 8 t h day
of October , 199 9 , to the 2 0 day of O c t o b e r , 199 8 . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
/Z"� 0,)- Ga,
I�Uxwell aley
Signature
Signed before me this day of c o b e r
199 g. by Maxwe 1 Al ey
w(vie A ied
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: c
Public
S
C009
�N1� �
0 Aft$ /,*
OF
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST SUBDIVISION AND REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October
20, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S.. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Smuggler Hunter Trust, 3937 P 10 Lane, Paonia,
CO 81428, requesting subdivision approval and rezoning of a portion of the property to
Park (P). The property is located at 2 Williams Way, and is legally described as a parcel
of land situated in the SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 S, Range 84. W of the 6th P.M.
For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 3, 1998
City of Aspen Account
WITZ EUGENE M
1920 N CLARK ST
CHICAGO, IL 60614
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN, CO 81611
WILLINGER CAROLINE I
WILLINGER EDWARD L AS JT
TENANTS
PO BOX 848
ASPEN, CO 81612
HOGUE CAROLINE
101 WILLIAMS WAY #C302
ASPEN, CO 81611
LINEHAN RAMONA J
PO BOX 11088
ASPEN, CO 81612
i LFE DANIEL G
50. vLLIAMS WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
MUHICH JOE ESTATE OF
C/O ANGELINE GRIFFITH
530 WALNUT ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WEISS RONALD K & JODI L
3000 TOWN CENTER STE 540
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
WOOLLEY SUSAN C
PO BOX 755
ASPEN, CO 81612
LEDDY THOMAS A
704 SPRUCE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GREENE JEFFREY E & KAREN
BLOMQUIST
PO BOX 152
ASPEN, CO 81612
KINSMAN DINAH LEE
101 WILLIAMS WY #204D
ASPEN, CO 8161'2
BIENKOWSKI ENRIQUE
ALBERS KATHLEEN AS JOINT
TENANTS
PO BOX 8094
ASPEN, CO 81612
KYZER E CARLYLE
402 WILLIAMS WAY #B-1
ASPEN, CO 81611
WILLIAMS WOODS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOC
C/O OATES 14UGHES & KNEZEVITCH
533 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
SANDBERG KATHARINE A
PO BOX 2702
ASPEN, CO 81612
MAC DONALD CHRISTOPHER H
PO BOX 495
ASPEN, CO 81612
IRELAND MOLLY F
BIRD DONALD L
PO BOX 8533 -
ASPEN, CO 81612
RYERSON LOREN & AMY
501 WILLIAMS WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
CLAYTON DOUGLAS W VERNIER JULIE & JOSEPH
MEDLIN MELINDA M AS JT TENANTS 504 WILLIAMS WAY
PO BOX 8813 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
SHOAF JEFFREY S
PO BOX 3123
ASPEN, CO 81612
MYERS ALBERT 50% INT
PO BOX 3095
ASPEN, CO 81612
PARK SUNG YOO & JANG LEE
360 W 36TH ST #7H
NEW YORK, NY 10018
MYERS ALBERT M 50% INT
PO BOX 3095
ASPEN, CO 81612
SHORE JILL
PO BOX 8673
ASPEN, CO 81612
PARIS JOHN H _
3200 SANTA MONICA BLVD #204
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
M- 'PECK CO BARRETT WILLIAM A COATES JOHN J JR & MARY ANN
EN RD 2029 CENTURY PARK E 408 PO BOX 25277
S, _ _.DALE, NY 10583 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73125
MIRIN BERNARD
HUNTTING STANLEY R. &
LARSON WENDY L
PO BOX 7681
MARGARET A
4655 PLEASANT RIDGE RD
98 GLENN DEE RD #9
ASPEN, CO 81612
BOULDER, CO 80301
ASPEN, CO 81611
KEMP CHARLOTTE LEIGH & FRED D
CARDER FAMILY INSURANCE
JR
PARTNERSHIP
LADIN LAWRENCE L
0272 BADGER RD
C/O WALTERS AMY CARDER
PO BOX 11630
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
40 MULE DEER TRL
ASPEN, CO 81612
LITTLETON, CO 80127
ROBINSON AUDREY K
BUNEVICH PETER & BRIGITTE
RIDLING JERRY B & MURIEL M
PO BOX 4413
5301 CRACHER BARREL
1110 STONYBROOK DR
ASPEN, CO 81612
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80917
NAPA, CA 94558
SANDERS RICHARD ALLEN DIXON DONA J HABBERSTAD PAUL
2041 BROOKHIGHLAND RIDGE 924 VINE ST PO BOX 8091
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
SPEER CHRISTINE NUGENT THOMAS A KERR MICHAEL K & CYNTHIA K
1400 VINE ST 5125 VALJEAN AVE 1066 LAUREN LN
ASPEN, CO 81611-3292 ENCINO, CA 91436 BASALT, CO 81621
E THOMAS P & TERRY L HUNTER CREEK LLC LAPIN RICHARD M
1 U, LAMA RD 2120 N SEDGWICK PO BOX 8313
BEAVER FALLS, PA 15010 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81612
HELLER PEGGY JO WIENER WILLIAM B JR CANTER JERRY & MARC E
201 OCEAN AVE APT 508P 333 TEXAS STE 2375 PO BOX 50443
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402-1408 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93150
WIENER WILLIAM B JR BITTNER SHIRLEY MARIE MAC GILL SUZANNE B
333 TEXAS STE 2375 945 VINE ST C/O ASPEN SKI TOURS
SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 ASPEN, CO 81611 300 S SPRING ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
SHIFRIN CAROLINE SHERMAN YONEKO SUZUKI SHERMAN YONEKO SUZUKI
PO BOX 4825 1001 VINE ST . 1001 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
LAT RICHARD TSENG-YU AND WENDLING NAN JEAN JENNINGS RICHARD M
'ARBARA ELLEN PO BOX 8834 1004. VINE ST
VOLTAIRE SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
ROSIN RICHARD & DRITA
28246 FRANKLIN RD
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034
BERNARD SUSAN
37 ALBERT RD
RICHMOND SURREY TW I O
ENGLAND,
CHRISTENSEN CAROLINE I
650 BELL AIR DR
VISTA, CA 92084
FREI MURIEL
PO BOX 2171
ASPEN, CO 81612
HORN MICHAEL A
C/O COATES REID & WALDRON
6DJ 720 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
RAUCHENBERGER CARL & MERILYN
1127 S OLD WILKE RD # 102
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL 60005
O'BRIEN JOHN J
PO BOX 7654
ASPEN, CO 81612
O JACK A
38 RIDGEWAY RD
LAKEHURST, NJ 08733
SMITH NANCY ROSS
PO BOX 185
FOREST HILL, MD 21050
PAULSON WILLIAM T
PO BOX 7693
ASPEN, CO 81612
MENDELSON MEL I
MENDELSON ROBERTA L
5412 FRANCISCA WAY
AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301
MCDONAGH THOMAS G
340 W 57TH ST STE 1 OP
NEW YORK, NY 10019
HYDE ARTHUR C JR.
PO BOX T
ASPEN, CO 81612
WHITNEY PATRICIA A
PO BOX 1168
ASPEN, CO 81612
KENWOOD JOEL D REVOCABLE
TRUST
2531 NW 59TH ST
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
SELLARS KAREN E
SEAMAN ANGELA M AS JT TENANTS
PO BOX 10363
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
100 PUPPY SMITH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BYRUM ALBERT G JR
BYRUM PATRICIA
100 LEATHERWOOD CIRCLE
MARTINSVILLE, VA 24112
SKADRON STEVEN J
1022 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-3272
G.UNDAKER GORDON S REAL
ESTATE CO
2458 OLD DORSETT RD STE 300
ST LOUIS, MO 63043
CHAPMAN HARVEY G JR & RUTH J
717 KUPULAU DR
KIHEI, HI 96753-9349
PRYMAK BILL
1530 W IOTH AVE
BROOMFIELD, CO 80020
LUU TONG K
435 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUNTER CREEK 1045 PARTNERSHIP
A MINNESOTA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
4428 YORK AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410
STANLEY NANCY C LEONARD LINDA UND 1/2 INT LEONARD LINDA SCHIERSE
950 N KINGS RD # 120 CHAPMAN KEITH KAREN & KATHY 1048 VINE ST
1/2
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90069 1 UND ND /2 135TH STREET ASPEN, CO 81611
RENTON, WA 98059-7203
cr" `4IDT DAVID R WOLOSHIN MELVYN A & ROBERTA S WIMBERLY THOMAS FELTON III
34TH AVE #933 PO BOX 7107 PO BOX 761
A. .IORAGE, AK 99503 WILMINGTON, DE 19803 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35201
BARNARD WILLIAM C
C/O ZAP HEALTH CLEANING
PO BOX 8313
ASPEN, CO 81612
SMITH JAMES F & LINDSAY
AS JOINT TENANTS
6542 WESTCHESTER
HOUSTON, TX 77005
MUSSO PAMELA LYONS
MUSSON RICHARD L
319 LOCUST ST
DENVER, CO 80220
SHOSTAC DAVID
SHOSTAC ALEXES
2509 AIKEN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90052
RIDLING JERRY B & MURIEL M
1110 STONYBROOK DR
NAPA, CA 94558
KEL MARIETTA C
28v EL PUEBLO WY
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
LANGE CHAD WICK S JR
1127 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-3274
SARNO JOHN J JR
49 APPACHE WAY
TEWKSBURY, MA 01876
OSTER JEREMY
655 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BURNS ADRIAN JOHN & JUDETH
SHAY
PO BOX 12264
ASPEN, CO 81612
SMITH JAMES F & LINDSAY
AS JOINT TENANTS
6542 WESTCHESTER
HOUSTON, TX 77005
TRAN HONG HUONG
814 W BLEEKER ST #C 1
ASPEN, CO 81611
WILLARD CHARLES LAWSON IV
2398 PACIFIC AVE #602
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
TOWNSEND R JAMES
PO BOX 8145
ASPEN, CO 81611
MELVILLE SUSAN
333 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
LUU TONY HECKER ROSE ROSENFIELD AND
435 E MAIN ST ROSENFIELD ANITA
ASPEN, CO 81611 3952 BEARD AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410-1041
TANGUAY MICHAEL L
210 AABC STE FF
ASPEN, CO 81611
WENZEL KAREN M
1125 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BUTLIEN SHELDON
BUTLIEN RHODALEE
135 DEERHAVEN RD
MAHWAH, NJ 07430
BECKER JANICE
72 ALDER AVE
SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960
WEISS CLIFFORD A
WEISS STACEY L AS TENANTS IN
COMMON
1135 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BROOKES DONNA ANN
1541 PINE WHIFF AVE
EDGEWATER, MD 21037
CLAFFEY WALTER W
CLAFFEY NICOLETTA H
640 SHORELINE ROAD
BARRINGTON, IL 60010
GREENWALD ALAN
PINE BROOK TIRE CO
295 CHANGEBRIDGE RD
PINE BROOK, NJ 07058
DOWELL RONALD R
DOWELL MARSHA S
2 APPLEWOOD COURT EAST
PERRYSBURG, OH 43551
NOONAN ELIZABETH A TRUST
1450 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
r ' `4S STEFAN FABER JOHN A TORNARE RENE
'INE ST 1401 W PACES FERRY #3401 285 LIGHTHILL RD
.;N, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30327 SNOWMASS, CO 81654
KISKER ELLEN H
SANDERS CURTIS B
MALONEY JOHN V
1211 VINE ST
PO BOX 8661
MALONEY ANNE J
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
484 SHERIDAN ROAD
GLENCOE, IL 60022
FREDERICK FAMILY TRUST
BIXBY PATRICIA ELLIS
ROGERS MARY ELLEN
1215 VINE ST
403 FAIR OAKS
2143 PINE ST #2
ASPEN, CO 81611
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
BOULDER, CO 80302
OLSON AKASHA K
LESTER GEOFFREY
TOBEL KEVIN W & MARY LYNN
PO BOX 5896
PO BOX 3704
28610 SUMMIT CT
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-5896
ASPEN, CO 81612
NOVI, MI 48375
VERNIER WILLIAM J
SERGOTT EMIL D
VERNIER GLADYS M
SERGOTT HELEN VERONICA
UKRAC JOHN
2040 DAVIS ST
7913 GLACIER CLUB DR
PO BOX 10032
WYANDOTTE, MI 48192-3537
WASHINGTON, MI 48094-2225
ASPEN, CO 81612
CHRIST KLAUS AKA CHRIST BELL MARTIN W LANGLEY WILLIAM
NIKOLAUS 5217 18TH AVE NE PO BOX HM 3085
PO BOX 4947 SEATTLE, WA 98105 HAMILTON BERMUDA,
ASPEN, CO 81612
I HOLM IAN BOSLOUGH JOHN I LEBACH DOROTHY
3, BENS AVE RAEHN SUSAN L LEBACH JOAN C
AVALON NS WALES AUSTRALIA, 9119 MILL POND VALLEY DR 165 W END AVE SUITE 29-G
2107 MCLEAN, VA 22102 NEW YORE, NY 10023
STEIN WALTER W MELDAHL JOHN C HUNTER CREEK VENTURE
STEIN SYLVIA B MELDAHL DEBORAH M A COLORADO CORPORATION
6531 LAUREL VALLEY ROAD 2620 HUMBOLDT AVE SOUTH 195 ROYAL GEORGE CIR
DALLAS, TX 75248 . MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 MCQUEENEY, TX 78123
LARSON KENNETH R EDMUNDSON SCOTT J ZAUNER HEINZ
0095 SILVERADO DR PO BOX 4486 C/O S KENNAMER
BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81612 0320 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
RAY GAYLE A TRUST LEBACH DOROTHY 93% INT FRIEDMAN HAROLD & SANDRA
9473 PINYON TRL LEBACH JOAN 7% 19513 PLANTERS POINT DR
LITTLETON, CO 80124 165 WEST END AVE #29G BOCA RATON, FL 33434
NEW YORK, NY 10023
RESTAINO THOMAS AND SILVER JEROME D KLAR JOAN L
F '�R JANICE B SILVER STEPHANIE PO BOX 722
)ER AVE 6835 FOX LANE DR S ASPEN, CO 81612
SAW ANSELMO, CA 94960 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46278-1223
GIBBONS COLLEEN
1327 VINE STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
FRIEDMAN DANIEL S
1328 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BURNS ADRIAN JOHN & JUDETH
SHAY
PO BOX 12264
ASPEN, CO 81612
LUSK CHARLES M JR AND URSULA G ADLER STEPHEN L DOPKIN HARLAN
14710 MARINE DR INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY CAROL DOPKIN REAL ESTATE
C/p PO BOX 4696
HUMBLE, TX 77057-1905 OLDEN LANE ASPEN, CO 81612
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
SCHROEDER MICHAEL E BALCOM SYLVIA J HENNING BARBARA D
PO BOX 10760 1336 VINE ST PO BOX 4535 -
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 812
SHERWIN GREG
2992 SHADOW CRK DR M302
BOULDER, CO 80303
KIMBALL TRACY
PO BOX 4295
ASPEN, CO 81612
THER OSKAR TRUSTEE
THER OSKAR TRUST
10338 OAK HILLS CIR
ASHLAND, OH 44805
LOCK DENISE E
125 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
KOWAR JOSEPH ALBERT
133 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1549
RAPPAPORT MYRON AND HELENE
HWR JEWELRY INC - C/O
318 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
F "q ROBERT M
NANES DR STE 214.
-jTON, TX 77090
JACKSON ERNA D REVOCABLE FREDERICK CHARLES E & JILL F
TRUST 1215 VINE ST
9708 COLONIAL CIR NE ASPEN, CO 81611
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111
ZAREK LINDA L BARBATELLI ELIZABETH L
HAMWI G JOHN PO BOX 3245
724 W BUTTERMILK RD ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
BITTNER SHIRLEY MARIE BARNES JOHN ELWOOD III
945 VINE ST
BARNES SHARON MEEKER AS JOINT
TENANTS
ASPEN, CO 81611 124 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
KERSHAW ROBERT B MORSE ROBERT J REVOCABLE
WARD JOHN THOMAS TRUST
113 WEST MONUMENT STREET 1515 WESTWOOD CIR
BALTIMORE, MD 21201 MUSKEGON, MI 49441-5887
CHRIST CHRISTIAN & LOTTI NEWELL GEORGE S JR
PO BOX 2943 PO BOX 10250
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
HEEDUM SHARON D WALLACH ANNE M & KARL E
210 SAINT PAUL ST STE 215 5190 UPPER CATTLE CREEK RD
DENVER, CO 80206-5100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
GOFF DEBORAH L MALCOLM IAN
410 W ORMAN PO BOX 4671
PUEBLO, CO 81004 ASPEN, CO 81612
SKLAR PATRICIA REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST
KINKEAD T W
250 BRADLEY PL #408
670 N TOMOHAWK TR
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
VERO BEACH, FL 32963-3942
USHIDA RHODA 1/2 INT
SPECK C
ESTRELLA ROGER M & JULIA K 1/2
PO BOX 912
9912
INT
ASPEN, CO 81612
2334 JEFFERSON AVENUE
BERKELEY, CA 94703
BRUCE MICHELLE MARIE ERNSBERGER FRED M & RUTH E
224 VINE ST 1325 NE 1 OTH AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 GAINSVILLE, FL 32605
OBR WARREN DEMAYO WILLIAM M
5 RUE PORT DE FOURQUEUX 109 ST CLAIR CfR
FORQUEUX FRANCE, 78112 LIGONIERE, PA, 15658
DAMKE LEILANI KAE RAUPP MARVIN L
5371 E CALEY AVE . 1147 MANHATTAN AVE #223
LITTLETON, CO 80121 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
IAN JOHN L DUSK AMBER `
1 �RONT ST 7337 N 46TH CIR
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945-3545 GLENDALE, AZ 85301-2257
RICHMOND ILENE H MACE LYNNE PFRIMMER
714 N ROXBURY DR 311 VINE ST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611
COOPER MATTHEW MARC JACKSON LAND COMPANY
COOPER NINA IRENE ILLINOIS CORPORATION
8341 PLUM CK CT I I I W JACKSON BLVD # 1700
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 CHICAGO, IL 60604
ALFORD CAROLE L POGLIANO FELIX JR
316 VINE ST POGLIANO LENORE L
ASPEN, CO 81611 1110 BLACK. BIRCH DRIVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
COTTRELL RICHARD D
r TSCH SHARON A HAYDEN JACK N
LAUREL 6356 FORESTER DR
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
EMIGH ROBERT A
EMIGH PAGTRICIA A
7877 ANDREWS WAY
BOULDER, CO 80303
RAPPAPORT NOAH
223 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WALLACH HOWARD B AND BETTY S
2229 TROY AVE
BROOKLYN, NY 11234
PATRASCIOIU ADRIAN N & EMILIE J
3016 E HAWTHORNE ST
TUCSON, AZ 85716
PURCELL EDWARD T
PURCELL ANNE CELESTE
P O BOX 1003
ASPEN, CO 81612-1003
LAWRENCE THEODORE W
PO BOX 5414
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
CADGER ROBERT E JR
PO BOX 4712
ASPEN, CO 81612
QUIGLEY ANN MARIE
PO BOX 8194
ASPEN, CO 81612
BUNCE BARBARA A
321 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CRUZ CATALINA
CRUZ LAURA O
PO BOX 2661
ASPEN, CO 81612
HOLDERBACH URSULA
LEE JOSEPH B III
LEE BRENDA R
ABERNATHY LINDA K
4 HORIZON RD STE 1220
131 HOLLY LANE
420 SE RIVERSIDE DR
FORT LEE, NJ 07024
GRENANDA, MS 38901
EVANSVILLE, IN 47713
GREENE ANTHONY F
FLETCHER PAUL
NAGY ROBERT H - TRUSTEE
50 HAZEL AVE
FLETCHER JANET
NAGY WENDY AND NAGY TRUST
HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035-3307
473 WEST END AVE
PO BOX 828
NEW YORK, NY 10024
WAUKESHA, WI 53187-0828
RANKIN ROBERT E WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C DOYLE SHARON KAY
RANKIN JOYCE S - JT TENANTS 855 GIBSON AVE 400 MADISON ST #705
336 VINE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ALEXANDERIA, VA 22314-1746
ASPEN, CO 81611
WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C FOX FAMILY TRUST
LANDIS BILL
855 GIBSON AVE FOX CHARLES H - C/O
LANDIS MINDY
ASPEN, CO 81611 1965 NAUTILUS ST
PO BOX 11573
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
ASPEN, CO 81612
GILLETTE INGEBORG A TRUST 1/2
CAMERON ROBERT A & ROBERT A JR
AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES
INT
PO BOX 8237
CORPORATION
945 GREEN ST #2
ASPEN CO 81612
A DELAWARE CORPORATION
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
203 CHALLENGER DR
APPLETON, WI 59415
JOHN E & CAROL S
FAINSOD NICHOLAS
STRAUSS KENNETH CANFIELD
'COMMONWEALTH DR
FAINSOD EVA
STRAUSS CARLEEN CANFIELD
SAR
ARASOTA, FL 34242
DANTE 26 BIS - CLOLNIA ANZURES
205 TAPPAN LN
MEXICO D F, 11590
ORINDA, CA 94563
VELEZ CARMELO E
ERB MARY ANN
BARDEEN WILLIAM A LIVING TRUST
6116 EXECUTIVE BLVD #800
8401 GREENWOOD DR
BARDEEN WILLIAM A - TRUSTEE
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
NIWOT, CO 80503
29 W 280 IROQUOIS CT N
WARRENVILLE, IL 60555
RAUPP MARVIN L
ETS-HOKIN ROBERT
ANASTASI JOAN
1147 MANHATTAN AVE
434 VINE ST
435 VINE ST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
PINKHAM SYBIL EKEHOLM KELLY M DINARDO LORI J
423 LONG HILL DR 511 VINE ST 512 VINE ST
SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
MOUNTAIN STATES
r MUNICATIONS CONNOLLY KEVIN M CROKE KELLEY
514 VINE ST 515 VINE ST
Pv ,SOX E ASPEN, CO 81611-1593 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
ANSON CHRISTOPHER D
PO BOX 11948
ASPEN, CO 81612
MCFADDEN KIMBERLY A
ESTOCK PETER J
522 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
MANDT JULIE K
PO BOX 11813
ASPEN, CO 81612
BRUCKER HANS E AND
HIGGINS CORIN
PO BOX 3304
ASPEN, CO 81612
WAYT MARILYN R
517 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
COLVER JOHN C
855 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
BRUCKER MISSEN LYNETTE
526 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
TROOST ALBERT
PO BOX 4894
ASPEN, CO 81612
MCDERMOTT SHAWN M & SHANNON BARRETT MARIANNE
J DAVIS KELLY O
533 VINE ST PO BOX 2126
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
OVEC P RICHARD BOHN GERRY
5.:,, VINE ST 537 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1593 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM BIERMA RIXT J
ASSOC CLIFFORD DAVID M
CHASE DAVID E C/O 612 VINE ST
617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1594
ASPEN, CO 81-611
MOUNTAIN STATES
COMMUNICATIONS
INC
PO BOX E
ASPEN, CO 81612
DANIEL CARALYN L
621 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-3267
MAROLT STEVEN M
PO BOX 8705
ASPEN, CO 81612
ADAMS KAREN
PO BOX 4332
ASPEN, CO 81612
FRIEDLANDER VIVIAN REVOCABLE
TRUST
FRIEDLANDER VIVIAN TRUSTEE
527 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GIROD SUZANNE
532 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1593
PERKINS TOM
PO BOX 1991
ASPEN, CO 81612
RIGNEY JOHN W & ANNA
538 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1593
SLEDGE EARL INC.
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
465 N MILL #4
ASPEN, CO 81611
PEARCE NANCY D VALLEY ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES
616 VINE ST A COLORADO GENERAL
ASPEN, CO 81611 PARTNERSHIP100 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDMAN SANDRA M
PO BOX 11526
ASPEN, CO 81612
TULLMAN DEBORAH
623 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
NT"T-TIKAWA HIROATSU MEYER FREDERICK H III & NANCY C SHIEKMAN SALLY A
NE ST MASON 626 VINE ST
N, CO 81611 625 VINE ST ASPEN, CO 81611
t, ASPEN, CO 81611-3267
LAGESCHULTE KURT G
PO BOX 5088
ASPEN, CO 81612
STOCKER JONATHAN L
PO BOX 4326
ASPEN, CO 81612
MOONEY THOMAS
635 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ADAMS RAY VINCENT
638 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
RACHILLA KALA M
PO BOX 3184
ASPEN, CO 81612
a 'ON STEVEN E & PATRICIA E
PL _JX 9463
ASPEN, CO 81612
KRAHE CATHLEEN M TRUST
PO BOX 11426
ASPEN, CO 81612
ARMSTRONG MICHAEL D
PO BOX 9092
ASPEN, CO 81612
STURGIS MARGARET A
731 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BONGIORNO PHILIP & LINDA
PO BOX 4540
ASPEN, CO 81612
STEPHENSON TERRY ANN
633 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
MARKLE CATHERINE E
PO BOX 9348
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARTINSON FREDERICK K
PO BOX 3186 -
ASPEN, CO 81612
BACSANYI KARLA S
PO BOX 9226
ASPEN, CO 81612
COTE RICHARD JOSEPH
PO BOX 8356
ASPEN, CO 81612
COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE
531 W GILLESPIE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BARTELL MICHELLE
43 CANYON ISLAND DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
GOMES PEPPER JAMES EDWARD &
SUSAN R
732 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-1595
WALPOLE JOANNE
631 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HOLZER HANS U
PO BOX 11928
ASPEN, CO 81612
HARMON RANDY R
PO BOX 11753
ASPEN, CO 81612
DANFORTH DAVID N
PO BOX 1863
ASPEN, CO 81612
TRAN DANNY
0716 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
SCHAFFNER JOANNA S
722 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
SZCZYGIELSKI BERNADAETTE
725 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CAREY PATRICIA
PO BOX 1440
ASPEN, CO 81612
EDWARDS TERESA D
PO BOX 10304
ASPEN, CO 81612
TIDWELL JOAN BURTCH GEORGE W MANN CATHERINE A & FLOYD C
\tE ST PO BOX 8345 736 VINE ST
h f, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
VENNER WILLIAM H
PO BOX 1708
ASPEN, CO 81612
LAUGHREN DAVID
PO BOX 1625
ASPEN, CO 81612
ALLEN LEONARD A
PO BOX 8316
ASPEN, CO 81612
CREPPS KAREN E
PO BOX 11773
ASPEN, CO 81612
WONG MARGARET S-K
PO BOX 8018
ASPEN, CO 81612
' ER CREEK COMMONS CORP
L
1400 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
PIERRE SALLY ANN
101 WILLIAMS WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
KNUTSON BRUCE C & LISA
104 WILLIAM WY #E 104
ASPEN, CO 81611
DE LISE DONALD LEE
PO BOX 345
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
SEUBERT KAREN A
738 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
RICHARDS RACHEL E
PO BOX 3393
ASPEN, CO 81612
KING WANDA JO
824 VINE ST a
ASPEN, CO 81611
PETROSIUS EDWARD W II
PO BOX 4199
ASPEN, CO 8161�2
SHAPIRO HOWARD LEE & JOYCE E
836 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUNTER CREEK COMMONS CORP
INC
1400 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WILSON DOUGLAS L & BEDRISHAH
PO BOX 10092
ASPEN, CO 81612
MORAN JAMEST AND MARY
688 SPRUCE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CUNNINGHAM ROBERTA J
PO BOX 9211
ASPEN, CO 81612
SPOFFORD FRANK
PO BOX 2535
ASPEN, CO 81612
ALLEN VIRGIL G
PO BOX 3765
ASPEN, CO 81612
GEIST SUSAN L
PO BOX 8431
ASPEN, CO 81612
BABBITT SUSAN
834 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUNTER CREEK COMMONS CORP
INC
1400 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUNTER CREEK COMMONS CORP
INC
1400 VINE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
FERGUSON ROBIN PATRICIA
PO BOX 2691
ASPEN, CO 81611
SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST
ALEY ELIZABETH TRUSTEE
0002 WILLIAMS WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
OATES SARAH M
112 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81611-3209
SA , rnVOLD DIANE L HOLGATE HOWARD B PEKKALA EVA C
X 4114 114 FREE SILVER CT PEKKALA ERIC W
PO BOX 936
�.. 11, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
PALMAZ ALEJANDRO
ROBREDO MARIA T
BALL DAVID S
PASTERNAK CAROL ANN
PO BOX 9755
119 FREE SILVER CT
120 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611-3210
ASPEN, CO 81611
MCCRORY CHARLES B JR
CARP RESA ANNE
SPAROVIC CHRISTINE
PO BOX 3512
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
123 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 10432
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
LEE CRISTAL
SABARESE WILLIAM F
BRACHER KIMELISE M
124 FREE SILVER CT
205 S MILL ST #224
PO BOX 4002
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
STONE FRANCES PATRICIA SALVADORE TERESA BEACH CATHERINE A
PO BOX 3870 ARMSTRONG JOHN B PO BOX 8432
ASPEN, CO 81612 129 FREE SILVER CT ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEVILBISS JUDSON E
WOLFF SUZANNE L
SKARVAN ERIK S
PO BOX 5012
PO BOX 1686
215 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, C0.81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611-3213
I DEANNA K
CORBETT PAUL CHARLES
ROBERTS CHARLES W
2Gv rREE SILVER CT
PO BOX 2884
11 MADISON CIR
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
GREENFIELD, MA 01301
MERKEL WERNER
BARBOUR REGINALD DONN
CAYE ANNE-MARIE
PO BOX 9971
PO BOX 4194
225 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612-4194
ASPEN, CO 81611
FERRO TESS
SAMET JEANNt E
HANAH CHERYL M
PO BOX 8563
PO BOX 8596
313 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
NORMAN JUDY KAY KLEIN RICHARD LAIRD WOLFGANG SILVERMAN KAREN E
314 FREE SILVER CT PO BOX 737 PO BOX 2615
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
S" `'4ONS SUSAN KULZER DENNIS CROSS EDWARD T
EE SILVER CT 320 FREE SILVER CT CROSS SUSAN K
_N, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1843
�� ASPEN, CO 81612
GREEN GWENDOLYN RENEE &
DAVID C LAFFERTY MICHAEL P & HEATHER S TOTTENHOFF JOHN P
324 FREE SILVER CT A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AS JOINT TENANTS ASPEN, CO 81611 325 FREE SILVER CT
323 FREE SILVER CT ASPEN, CO 81611
/ '1,CO81611
EIRMAN THOMAS F READER WILLIAM JOSEPH MARK C
4931 NE 36TH AVE 327 FREE SILVER CT 329 FREE SILVER CT
PORTLAND, OR 97211-7621 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
JOHNSON TAMAR
SCHLUNDT SUSAN
KLONOWSKI JOHN A
PO BOX 3549
412 FREE SILVER CT
420 FREE SILVER CT #D201
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
MOONEY MICHAEL J
KOCSIS LAURIE A
MOONEY TIMOTHY W
NESS COLIN EC AS JOINT TENANTS
TERKUN MARK
PO BOX 3452
422 FREE SILVER COURT
PO BOX 329
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611-3226
ASPEN, CO 81612
LOPER GLENN & LAURIE ROSEDALE
BROWNSTEIN AMY
LUTGRING TAZ MARIE
PO BOX 5061
PO BOX 8153
PO BOX 11392
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
LE KATHLEEN T
KAPPELI KIMBERLY, K
INNES JENNY A
2 r 1EAL CT
216 TEAL CT
1240 E COOPER AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
KOCIELA DANIEL A JENKINS MAURI JANE MATTHEWS NANCY ANN
212 TEAL CT JENKINS JANE J PO BOX 1370
ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 4152 ASPEN, CO 81612
.ASPEN, CO 81612
ZUEHLKE WILLIAM M MARQUIS JANET L FRANCIS LESLEE K & ROBERT A
PO BOX 806 PO BOX 2712 ' 226 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
BRAUNIG MARTHA J MINK KATHLEEN GANCSOS JOHN MARTIN
PO BOX 761 224 TEAL CT ANDERSON MARILYN
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 11205
ASPEN, CO 81612
D A - TI'ORTH ALISON C LEVERSON JANET V CARNEY TIMOTHY J
X 3763 221 TEAL CT PO BOX 12190
A_ ____N, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
MCWILLIAMS TONI
PO BOX 10938
ASPEN, CO 81612
CARROLL TWILA
314 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
DRESSLER ROBERT C JR
310 TEAL CT UNIT P 110
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOKEY REED
327 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611-3256
O'DRISCOLL KEVIN
DRISCOLL JOSEPH
PO BOX 9995
ASPEN, CO 81612
'LER PATRICIA A
"LER KEITH A AS JT TENANTS
PO BOX 3513
ASPEN, CO 81612
STAUTH PATRICIA C
412 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
MACKAY SANDRA L
PO BOX 3431
ASPEN, CO 81612
KESSLER DIANE & CHUCK
420 TEAL CT #Q206
ASPEN, CO 81611-1566
GRINSTEAD LAURA L
HULEY MARC J
317 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
ZACHARY MARC
PO BOX 4494
ASPEN, CO 81611
OTTE GAIL D
329 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 8161
SOYKA FREDERICK K
HOBAN SONYA L
326 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
KIRKHOFF TRACY A
323 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
KENNAMER SANDRA
PO BOX 11947
ASPEN, CO 81612
PARKER ANNE LISE
410 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
STEWART CHRISTOPHER W
422 TEAL CT I
ASPEN, CO 81611
LAING SALLY
415 FREE SILVER CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
FORSEILLE JULIA S
315 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
PRZYBYLSKI ALBERT L
312 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
KILLIAN LINDA H
328 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
TYLER MICHAEL & LISA
PO BOX 10564
ASPEN, CO 81612
ROSENBERG CHARLES WILLIAM
ROSENBERG JANICE MARY
322 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
SMITH KENNETH M
PO BOX 11334
ASPEN, CO 81612
BYRNE PHILIP J
424 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLLNER HERMANN
421 TEAL CT
ASPEN, CO 81611-1566
MORRELL CONSTANCE G
PO BOX 5121
ASPEN, CO 81612
CENTENNIAL ASPEN WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE
IITED PARTNERSHIP C/O MARK IV INC MARK IV INC -C/O
1KE SHORT CT 3214 CAMPANIL DR 3214 CAMPANIL DR
AJrEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109
LIPTON HUNTER
7324 MAHOGANY BEND CT
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
Question:
When using the IMAGE command to display a TIFF image, the error "Can't handle
Orientation" is returned.
Cause:
The TIFF Orientation tag is set to a value other than 1. This means that the
image must be rotated before displaying. ARC/INFO does not support on -the -fly
rotation of images.
Answer:
The Orientation tag in a TIFF file defines the amount of rotation an image will
have. ARC/INFO follows the Aldus Corporation's 5.0 guidelines for TIFF images.
These specifications recommend that any value other than 1 for the Orientation
tag should be used for private (non -interchange) use only. It is extremely
costly (slow) for programs to perform image rotation 'on the fly' (every time
the image is displayed). ARC/INFO does not support the rotation of raster data
'on the fly.' Thus, only an Orientation value of 1 is supported. This tag has
to be set at the time the file is created -- it cannot be modified in
ARC/INFO.
If the user's scanner or other image creation software cannot avoid setting the
Orientation tag to a value other than 1, try having it write out another
ARC/INFO-supported image format, such as BIL (straight binary). This can be
converted in ARC/INFO to TIFF.
Notes:
If the image needs to be rotated, create the image with the Orientation tag set
to 1 and use a combination of REGISTER and RECTIFY to rotate the image. If you
wish to only rotate in increments of 90 degrees, convert the image to a grid
with the IMAGEGRID command and use the GRIDROTATE command to rotate the file.
A complete description of the TIFF format may be found in the TIFF Developer's
Toollcit available from the Aldus Corporation.
APPLICANT: SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST
LOCATION: 002 WILLIAMS WAY
ACTION: SUBDIVISION, REZONING, SPECIAL REVIEW
Staff Comments: Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
?. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
13
mudflow, rockslide, avalanch or snowslide, steep topography, or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed
subdivision.
1.
Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins.
2.
Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and
improvements of a collector street.
3.
Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4.
Paved alleys.
5.
Traffic -control signs, signals, or devices.
6.
Street lights.
7.
Street name signs.
8.
Street trees or landscaping.
9.
Water lines and fire hydrants.
10.
Sanitary sewer lines.
11.
Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
12.
Bridges and culverts.
13.
Electrical lines.
14.
Telephone lines.
15.
Natural gas lines.
16.
Cable television lines.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence until on any of the
improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile,
and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and,
when appropriate, the relevant utility company.
C. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the
improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the
subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been
provided beyond the needs of the subdivision.
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all
subdivisions.
a. Street and related improvements. The following standards shall apply to
streets
regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with
paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
1.
Conform to plan for street extension.
2.
Right-of-way dedication.
3.
Right-of-way width.
4.
Half -street dedications.
5.
Street ends at subdivision.
6.
Cul-de-sacs.
7.
Dead-end streets.
8.
Centerline offset.
9.
Reverse curves.
10.
Changes in street grade.
11.
Alleys.
I
12.
Intersections.
13.
Intersection grade.
14.
Curb return radii.
15.
Turn by-passes and turn lanes.
16.
Street names and numbers.
17.
Installation of curb, gutter sidewalks, or driveways. No finish paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveways shall be constructed until one vear
after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements. r
18.
Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8) feet wide in the Commercial
Core (CC), Commercial (C 1), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5) feet wide in all
other zone districts where sidewalks are required. Consideration shall
be given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing
sidewalk locations.
19.
City specifications for streets.
20.
Range point monuments.
21.
Street name signs.
22.
Traffic control signs.
23.
Street lights.
24.
Street tree. One street tree of three-inch caliper for deciduous trees
measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot
height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone
districts for each lot of seventy (70) foot frontage or less, and at least
two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy
(70) feet frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one tree for each
street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at
driveways or corners. The City Parks and Recreation Department shall
furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage, and landscaping shall
be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the City in
accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan.
b. Easements.
1. Utility easements.
2. "T' intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20) feet in width
shall be provided in "T' intersections and cul-de-sacs for the
continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary.
3. Potable water and sewer easements.
4. Planned utility or drainage system.
5. Irrigation ditch, channel natural creek.
6. Fire lanes and emergency access easements.
7. Planned street or transit alignment.
8. Planned trail system.
C. Lots and blocks.
1.
General.
2.
Side lot lines.
3.
Reversed corner lot and through lots.
4.
Front and street.
5.
State Highwav 82.
6.
Block lengths.
7.
Compatibility.
8.
Mid -Block pedestrian walkways.
d. Surve`- ?Monuments.
1. Location.
2. C.R.S. 1972 38-51-101.
3. Range points and boxes.
e. Utilities.
1.
Potable waterline and appurtenances.
2.
Size of waterlines.
3.
Fire hydrants.
4.
Sanitary sewer.
5.
Underground utilities.
6.
Other utilities.
7..
Utilities stubbed out.
L Storm Drainage
1. Drainage plan.
2. Detention storage.
3. Maintain historical drainage flow.
4. Calculations and quantities of flow.
g. Flood hazard areas.
1. The proposed subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electricity, and potable water systems.
2. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for any proposed subdivision
of at least fifty (50) lot or five (5) acres, whichever is less.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope, road,
driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant
natural or scenic features of the site.
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this section,
"Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in
Chapter 26.64.
5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Title 20, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System.
6. School land dedication standards.
C. Dedication Schedule.
1. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed according to
the following schedule:
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Dormitory
.0000 acres (0 sq, ft.)
Studio/One bedroom
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom
.0248 acres (1081 sq. ft.)
Five bedroom
.0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.)
2. Cash -in -lieu payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu
of dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in combination
with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this section.
Because of he high cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the
School District and Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash -in -
lieu amount which is less than the full market value of the land area.
The formula to determine the amount of cash -in -lieu payment for each
residential dwelling unit is as follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment.
Payment of cash -in -lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwellings.
Staff Comments: Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Staff Finding -
The rezoning of the southern property is necessary to allow the creation of a lot which
conforms with the City's zoning requirements. The Park (P) Zone District will more
closely follow the uses that this property is intended for.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Comments: Special Review for Parking
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set
forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of
a proposed de-velopment are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in
lieu by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met:
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed
development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential
uses of the parcel; the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected
impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests, and employees.
bA
N
N
O
U
�
to
'
O
�
to
0
p
421
Cl.
03
p
y
06
a�
Cd
Q a b4
U 2
O
•
O
~
°
•�
'�
Q o
ct
o
ct
O
bD
0
(1)
o
C
U o�
C
o
c}.i
C-.to
a
Cam•
°
N
•cri
°
O
o
v� O
ct
ct3
ct3
03
w3
z
a