The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.19991019 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1999, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING ~:4s-s:~5 A. Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road (Cont'd from 8/3), Chris Bendon s:~s-5:4s B. Saint Moritz LP Expansion & Minor PUD, Chris Bendon s:4~-6:~ C. Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions, Nick Lelack 6:~s.6:4s D. Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District (Cont'd from 9/21), Nick Lelack V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS VI. ADJOURN Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least ½ hour prior to the scheduled time. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19,1999, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM e 10 0 A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES ,w III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING 4:45-5:15 A. Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road (Cont'd from 8/3), Chris .Bendon 5:15-5:45 B. Saint Moritz LP Expansion & Minor PUD, Chris Bendon 5:45-6:15 C. Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions, Nick Lelack 6:15-6:45 D. Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District (Cont'd from 9/21), Nick Lelack V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS VI. ADJOURN Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least V2 hour prior to the scheduled time. CITY AGENDA City Council Meetings- on the 2nd and 41" Mondays at 5:00 PM Planning Zoning Commission Meetings- on the 1st and 3' Tuesdays at 4:30 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meetings- on the 2nd & 41" Wednesdays at 5:00 PM Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand Revised 10112199 10112 GMC (5:00)- at Pitkin County Library City Notice 9/21 Chateau Chaumant—Change in use (CB) (PH) 10112 City Council (5:00) City Notice 9/21 4/26 N. 2nd Landmark 2nd Reading (PH)*Prenotice (AG) Code Amendment- Lodge Preservation Program 2nd Reading (CB) (PH) Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program -1st Reading (CB) Code Amendment- Definition of Residential Multi -Family Housing 1st Reading (CB) Consent 488 Castle Creek Rezoning & Appeal of Code Interpretation 1" Reading (CB) Site Visit 12 Noon- Meet at City Hall 10/13 HPC (5:00) City Notice 9/21 135 W. Hopkins Public Hearing (con't from 8/11) 7" & Main — Continued from (con't from 9/8) Main St. Bus Shelters (AG) 330 Lake- Work Session Surveys. 10118 City Council Work Session (4:00) Truscott Worksession 10/19 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 9/28 Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road, Public Hearing (con't from 8/3)(CB) Saint Moritz LP Expansion & Minor PUD Public Hearing (CB) Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions (NL) (PH) -Open and Continue to 11/2 Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) zone district — Cont'd from Sept. 21 (NL) (PH) Surveys 10125 City Council (5:00) City Notice 10/5 Code Amendment — Lighting Ordinance 1 st Reading (SM) Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Definition 2nd Reading (PH) Prenotice (CB) Saint Moritz Minor PUD 1st Reading (CB) Aspen Mountain PUD Public Hearing (JA) Moore Family PUD 1st Reading (NL) 10/27 HPC (5:00) City Notice 10/5 E. Hyman Ave. Minor HPC 403 W. Hallam St.- Worksession and Site Visit 117 Neale — Minor HPC Contractor Licensing 135 W. Hopkins- Cont'd from 10/13 735 W. Bleeker- Final 11/2 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 10/12 Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment (CB)- cont'd from 9/21 Code Amendments (CB) — Worksession Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions (NL)- cont'd from 10/19 (renotice with broad definitions) 11/8 City Council (5:00) City Notice 10/19 Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program 2nd Reading (PH) (CB) Saint Moritz Minor PUD 2nd Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB) Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 1st Reading (NL) Code Amendment- (PUB) zone District & Definitions 1st Reading (NL) HPC Contractor Licensing 1st Reading (AG) Moore Family PUD and School District Housing Amendment 1st Reading (NL) 11110 HPC (5:00) City Notice 10/19 Architecture 101 (AG) Bavarian Conceptual- Advisory comments to council (JO) 11/11 Planning and Zoning (2:00 — 8:OOPM) at Council Chambers (Dinner Provided) City Notice 10/19 Joint City -County meeting on AACP 11/16 Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 10/26 Code Amendments Public Hearing(CB) Second Aspen Subdivision Lot #29 ADU, Special Review (NL) (PH) Graminger 70/30 AH PUD Worksession 11122 City Council (5:00) City Notice 11/2 Bavarian Conceptual Public Hearing (JO) Lighting Ordinance 2nd Reading (SM) (PH) Moore Family PUD and School District Housing Amendment 2nd Reading (PH) (NL) 11 /24 HPC (5:00) City Notice 11/2 12/7 Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 11/16 Code Amendments Public Hearing (Cont'd from 11/16) (CB) Hoag Lot #3 8040 Greenline Review (CB) N Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD (NL) (PH) Moore ADU Public Hearing (NL) 510 Park Circle Minor PUD- amendment Public Hearing (NL) 12/8 HPC (5:00) City Notice 11 /16 12113 City Council (5:00) City Notice 11 /23 Code Amendment (PUB) Zone District 2nd Reading (NL) (PH) Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 2nd Reading (NL) (PH) Contractor Licensing (HPC) 2nd Reading (AG) State Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resolution (AG) Moore Family PUD Amendment 2nd Reading (NL) (PH) Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 1st Reading (NL) 12/14 Planning and Zoning (4:30) Notice 11/23 518 W. Smuggler ADU Public Hearing (NL) 1395 Riverside Drive ADU (NL) 12/21 Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 11 /30 Holiday- No meeting 12/22 HPC (5:00) City Notice 11 /30 Holiday- No Meeting cc: P&Z Packet City Attorney's Office City Planning Staff City Clerk's Office g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/ W? TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road — Public Hearing 8040 Greenline Review Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement DATE: October 19, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have applied for 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently developed with a single-family residence. The Commission reviewed this application on August 3, 1999, and continued the public hearing after several suggestions were made to the applicant's design team. The design has been modified based on those comments to what staff believes is a very reasonable plan. Drawings comparing the previous plan to the current plan have been provided. These are labled as "August 3" and "October 11." Further analysis regarding site drainage has been provided. In addition, the project Architect has prepared a site model representing the current proposal within the surrounding context. Staff has summarized the amendments requested by the Commission and the applicant's response to each issue under the heading "Issues from Previous Meeting." A memorandum from Alan Richman also details the changes that have been made to the application. Staff recommends. approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage placement standard, with conditions. ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: Model. The limitations of two-dimensional drawings hinder the complete understanding of this proposal. Many of the facades "step -back" although it is difficult to understand from the drawings exactly what effect this may have on the final product, especially from the oblique perspectives from which this site is viewed. The applicant has prepared a model of the site within its surrounding context. This model clarifies many of questions posed by staff and the Commission and clearly demonstrates the complicated massing and roof forms of the project. In addition, the applicant has taken pictures of the site from several locations in town to demonstrate the effects of the proposed development upon the natural aesthetic of the mountainside. Structural Capacity. Many of the Commission's concerns related to possible slope creep and problems experienced by adjacent property owners. Alan Richman's letter and attached report from HP Geotech provides a response to these concerns as raised by the Commission and the neighboring Aspen Alps. Additional structural analysis of the existing house concluded that the foundation cracks are most likely due to lateral earth loading and differential settlement rather than slope creep. This is important in that it concludes that the flaws of the existing house are due to poor construction techniques, which are easily controllable, rather than external movement of the mountainside, which is difficult to successfully manage. Drainage. The Commission and the neighbors expressed concerns about the drainage of the parcel considering the drainage patterns of Aspen Mountain. Specifically, the neighboring, and downhill property owners, expressed concerns about the use of drywells to accommodate drainage. Jay Hammond, P.E., the applicant's Engineer, has completely redesigned the drainage plan for this house. This revision accommodates the site drainage by use of a containment tank and metered pump system to an existing catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This system, as reported by Jay Hammond, will introduce a "nearly imperceptible" impact on the current drainage on Aspen Mountain. Staff considers this amendment far superior to the previous plan. Drywells are used quite often thought town but some have questioned possible adverse impacts to ground stability problems in the area. It is not clear whether or not the ground stability problems experienced by the Aspen Alps are associated with surface run-off condition or would be negatively impacted by the use of drywells. What can be clearly understood, however, is that the current drainage situation, which provides no accommodation of site run-off, will be vastly improved with this redevelopment. House Size. The Commission raised some concerns about the mass and volume (FAR) of the proposed structure. It is important to note that the project does not require an FAR variance, but that the Commission, in considering both the setback variances and the criteria of 8040, expressed a desire for the house to closer conform to the single family house provisions of the surrounding zone districts. 00 In response, the applicant has reduced most of the dimensions of the house. The new proposal has a smaller footprint, reduced facade widths, reduced setbacks, and an FAR of approximately 791 square feet less. 8040 Greenline. The visual impact of the new proposal The 8040 Greenline standards primarily concentrate on the effects of site grading, the ability for the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and the visual effects of the resulting development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff believes these standards have been met with this proposal and the suggested conditions of approval. Residential Design. The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement of the garage responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the front facade of the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other practical alternative for placing the garage on -site without significant grading or encroachment into the dripline of a fairly significant tree. Variances. It is important to note that any house- on this lot will require variances. The dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District prohibit a reasonable use of the land as the setbacks almost overlap and leave literally no location for development to occur. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C") are entirely appropriate for -LP'�ese large parcel but have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non -conforming lot, such as the Mitchell's. This is a classic case of a justified variance and staff believes this circumstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance. The question the Commission had at the previous meeting primarily dealt with the extent to which a reasonable use of the property would be achieved. The Commission primary concern was that the variances being requested were possibly beyond what may be necessary for a reasonable use of the property. The applicant has responded to these concerns by reducing the coverage of the structure on the parcel and reducing the requested setback variances. This also has the effect of reducing the overall size of the house, (See House Size, above.) The reduction is site coverage will eliminate the need to remove several of the small aspen trees on the eastern portion of the lot. These trees, while not of legal size for replacement, do contribute to the visual aesthetic of the area and help soften the view from Aspen Alps Road. Staff is appreciative of this tree protection and feels that it benefits the project more than any other modification made. APPLICANT: Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP. LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700. 3 ZONING: Conservation (C). LOT SIZE: 10,161 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum floor area for the Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed. CURRENT & PROPOSED LAND USE: Single -Family house. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 8040 Greenline Review. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Zoning Variance. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at a public hearing. Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: This application was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in planning and designing this house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous zoning. Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with tht Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews. The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the planning criteria the Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will review each of these criteria during the hearing. 9 Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." A zoning analysis has been provided as Exhibit "C." The application addendum packet has been inlcuded as Exhibit "D." (Please refer to the original application.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions: 1. The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14, 1999, with the following exceptions: a. Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 14.5 feet; rear (west) = 10 feet; north side = 10 feet, south side = 11 feet. b. The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan. b. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. c. A water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system. d. A tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. e. Written approval from the Aspen Ski Company for the construction and maintenance of the drainage facility proposed in the amended application shall be provided. Any required easements shall be recorded and reflected on the building permit set. 3. The building permit plans shall include: a. Construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on -site both during and 5 after construction and shall utilize an on -site containment basin and delayed pump system to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. b. An environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 4. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on -site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 5. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. 6. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 7. All utility neters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 8. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and all other drawing sets used for constriction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 9. 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. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum dated August 3, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit E -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis Exhibit D -- Application Addendum Packet C'l RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, WAIVING THE GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GRANTING FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES TO THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE MITCHELL RESIDENCE, 550 ASPEN ALPS ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel No. 2737-182-00-012 Resolution #99 - WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Cynthia and George Mitchell, owner and applicant, for an 8040 Greenline Review, Appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the garage setback requirement, and variance from the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements for front yard, side yards, and rear yard setback for a single-family residence to be newly constructed and replacing an existing single-family home at 550 Aspen Alps Road; and, WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 10,161 square feet and located in the Conservation (C) Zone District and within the 8040 Greenline Review Environmentally Sensitive Area; and, WHEREAS, the legally created parcel is non -conforming with the minimum lot size requirements of the Conservation (C) Zone District and pursuant to Section 26.312.040 a single-family home may be developed; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.435 of the Municipal Code, development within the 8040 Greenline Review Environmentally Sensitive Area may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Planning a r Zoning Commission when consolidated with another required review process. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314 of the Municipal Code, variances to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which a property resides may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with said Section as part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has authorized the consolidation of the application review process; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, the City Zoning Officer, City Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on August 3, 1999, and continued to October 19, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a to (_-� vote the 8040 Greenline Review, the variances from the front yard, rear yard, and side yard dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waived the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the front yard, rear yard, and side yard dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, are herby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14, 1999, with the following exceptions: a. Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 14.5 feet; rear (west) = 10 feet; north side = 10 feet, south side = 11 feet. b. The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fiigitive dust control plan. b. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. c. A wa-Ler tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system. d. A tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. e. Written approval from the Aspen Ski Company for the construction and maintenance of the drainage facility proposed in the amended application shall be provided. Any required easements shall be recorded and reflected on the building permit set. 3. The building permit plans shall include: a. Construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on -site both during and after construction and shall utilize an on -site containment basin and delayed pump system to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. b. An environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 4. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on -site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 5. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. 6. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 7. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 8. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 9. 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. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 19, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If , the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff finding: The applicant has prepared two engineering reports on this property analyzing the geologic conditions and the subsoil conditions. The geological study reported no rockfall or avalanche hazards but did make certain findings regarding drainage, potential mining activity, and construction techniques for soil instability, earthflow creep, and earthquake potential. The geologic report sited the need to manage drainage from Spar Gulch. Upon closer review, the applicant's engineer found the Mitchell site to not be in an area impacted by the Spar drainage, even assuming a worst case scenario. ,This is primarily due to the proximity to the subject property and the relatively confined lower portion of Spar Gulch. Staff concurs that the Mitchell property is not threatened by the Spar Drainage. With respect to mine tailings, the engineering report identifies a mine shaft approximately 150 feet south west of the property with the shallowest mining activity occurring approximately 400 feet from the surface. It is not expected the applicant will discover any mining activity during construction. Staff has suggested a condition of approval for the applicant to mitigate mining activity if discovered during construction. The geologic report identifies the possibility of slope instability but concludes the improvements proposed will mitigate this potential. With respect to subsoil conditions, the recommendations of the geologic report have been incorporated into the application. The original geologic report suggests several construction techniques to address this movement which should be part of the building permit. A further study confirmed the original and also concluded there structural crack n the existing foundation are not likely due to earth creep. Staff has suggested the building permit set include these engineering considerat ,ins and be signed by a registered P.E. Staff Comments page 1 Staff does not suggest any special considerations be made for possible earthquakes other than the standards of the U.B.C. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff finding: The existing development has no drainage improvements. Currently the site sheet flows towards the Aspen Alps Road which conveys the water on the surface. The applicant has amended the drainage proposal from a dry well system to a containment system with a delayed pump to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This addressed concerns raised by the neighboring Aspen Alps about impacting subsurface conditions and appears to be a far simpler and more effective solution. Staff has included a condition requiring approval from the Aspen Ski Company be included with the building permit. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The replacement of the single-family home with another single-family home should have no noticeable effect on the City's air quality. In fact, there may be an overall improvement of the City's air quality with the replacement of two wood burning fireplaces with cleaner devices allowed by the Environmental Health Department. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff finding: ''.ie parcel is significantly smaller than allowed for the zone district and is already ;veloped with a residence. There is essentially no opportunity and no benefit to cluster or restrict the development to one portion of the property. The single-family use is possible the only reasonable land use appropriate and compatible with the conditions of the site. The design and location of the proposed development replaces the existing development and staff believes this to be appropriate. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff finding: The final grading of the property will be very minimal. The applicant has stepped the development into the site rather than proposing to re -grade the site significantly. The applicant has proposed removal of three (3) trees which require replacement. Staff concurs with the applicants tree replacement strategy. Staff has included a condition regarding protection of the natural vegetation (much of which is below the replacement code caliper) during construction. Staff Comments page 2 The revised application reduces the need to remove trees along the eastern portion of the lot. While these trees are not required to be replaced due to their relatively small size, they are important to protect. Staff is appreciative of the applicant's amendments in this area as the preservation of these small Aspens will benefit the project. The applicant's proposed access and garage location is appropriate for this site. Staff is appreciative of the applicant's understanding of the site constraints by not proposing a new driveway cut to access a garage further into the property. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff finding: The site is too small to accomplish clustering or restrict development to a portion of the site. The applicant is not proposing any new roads or significant driveway cuts into the slope. Staff agrees with the applicant's desire to replace the existing retaining walls as they may be reaching the end of their usefulness. The proposed structure will not impact the scenic resource of the mountain more than the existing structure. The site is nearly impossible to see from town and is certainly subordinate to the adjacent Aspen Alps buildings. The site is very visible from the Gondola and from the upper portions of the Little Nell ski run. Staff expressed a concern regarding the use of highly reflective roof materials. The applicant is contemplating a metal roof with muted colors. Staff has included a condition prohibiting highly reflective roof materials 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff finding: The proposed building is lower than the existing building and is one story at the highest point of the property. The proposed structure is also broken down into smaller forms, reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The revised application reduces the bulk and mass of the new house, addressing some primary concerns of the Commission. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: The exist sufficient utilities to serve this development. However, due to the gross square footage of the house the Fire Marshall will require a fire suppression system be installed. The increased demands for this .system combined with the reduced water pressure due to the elevation requires an upgrade to the service line and may require a pump system be installed. Staff has included these as conditions of approval. Staff Comments page 1 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The access to the parcel is sufficient and well maintained by the Aspen Alps Association (private road). The Fire Marshall did not request any special improvements to the access. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff finding: There are no proposed trails on or near this parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: Dimensional Variations to Conservation Zone District 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff finding: There is no specific reference to this property in the AACP. The parcel is not identified for public trails, open space, or for any land use different from its current use. Staff believes the proposed development is generally consistent with the AACP. The Interim Citizen Housing Plan also does not specifically identify this parcel. Although the Citizen Plan is more geared towards affordable housing, the plan does support development within the metro area, in close proximity to employment and activity centers, within existing utility provisions, where it does not contribute to urban sprawl, and in a manner compatible with it's neighborhood. Staff believes these criteria are accomplished with this proposed development. The purpose of the Land Use Code (Title) is to ensure the health, safety, and general well being of the citizenry through clear, comprehensive, and consistent regulations on the use of land. The development and use of land should not unduly burden the historic, Staff Comments page 4 architectural, aesthetic, and natural environmental character of the City, it's economic and infrastructure capabilities, or the rights and reasonable expectations of property owners. Staff believes this purpose is maintained with the variance in combination with associated planning reviews and general requirements of the Municipal Code related to the development and use of land. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, Staff find.ng: Staff believes this variance to be the minimum variance to support a reasonable use of the parcel. In discussing the site with the applicant, several scenarios were contemplated. Rezoning the parcel to the LTR Zone District would create a non -conforming use as a single-family home is only allowed on a lot of exactly 6,000 square feet in the LTR Zone District. This also restricted the use of the property in a manner undesirable to the owner who wishes to retain the single-family home use. Furthermore, the topography of the site and its access do not readily support lodge or multi -family development — the two most common land uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential Zone District. This logic also eliminated the possibility of rezoning the property to the RMF Zone District — a district in close proximity to the property. Rezoning the property to the R-15 Zone District would also create a non -conformity as the parcel is approximately 10,000 square feet in size — only 2/3 the size necessary for the zone. Lastly, rezoning to the R-6 Zone District would create a slight anomaly on the zoning map being slightly removed from other parcels zoned R-6. Considering the site's constraints, staff advised the applicant to propose dimensional requirements for the site considering the dimensional requirements and development patterns of the surrounding parcels. While the proposed setback requirements do not specifically coincide with either the LTR or R-15 Zones, the applicant meets these regulations in all but aspect — the front yard setback. This setback, however, will be greater with the new house than with the existing house. Staff believes the proposed structure and dimensional requirements represent a reasonable use of the parcel. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: Staff Comments page 5 a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district.. Staff finding: Staff believes both of the conditions exist and that literal interpretation of the zoning would deprive the land owner of a reasonable use of the property and cause an undue hardship. The Conservation Zone District setback requirements provide merely a few square feet for building. This is created by the relatively large setback requirements applicable to all properties in the zone district. On parcels meeting the minimum size for the zor, .istrict, 10 acres, these large setback requirements are appropriate and do not render tL )perty un-usable. On this small parcel, however, the setbacks are unreasonable if the .land owner wishes to develop the property. The front yard setback of 100 feet combined with the rear yard setback of 30 feet render approximately 1 foot of buildable space on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes there exists a special circumstance unique to this parcel necessitating a variance. Granting the variance will not grant a special privilege denied by the AACP or by the land use code to other parcels in the same zone district. As mentioned above, the AACP does not specifically address this parcel but does not oppose this type of development in this location. The land use code specifically allows for the development of a single- family residence on non -conforming lots. The variance would not confer any additional rights to this property than to other properties in the Conservation Zone District. In fact, at the time of this application the district did not restrict Floor Area. It is conceivable, especially in this market, that a house of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet would be common place on a conforming 10 acre lot in the Conservation zone. The reduction in setback requirements for this property to develop a house of less than 5,000 of Floor Area does not then represent an additional right or special provision. STAFF COMMENTS: Residential Design GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. Staff Comments page 6 In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The design is more effective than the standard. The standard would result in either the removal of a significant tree or the re -grading of the site to accommodate a driveway further onto the property. The driveway concept would be too severe of a road cut and might be physically impossible. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: This parcel is extremely steep and providing a garage or merely parking in any other location on -site would require significant site grading. "Pushing" the garage back, even five feet, would require the removal of a large Spruce which the applicant and the Parks Department would like to preserve. Staff believes these represent site constraints necessitating the garage placement waiver. Staff Comments page 7 - NEMORAINDUNI To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer' JUL� From: Chuck R6th, Project Engineer �`'L 199 Date: July 2, 1999 t; _y I Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 30, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. 1. Site Drainage - The application included drainage design meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code. at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f. The building permit drawings need to include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. These must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 2. Water Department — The Water Director has noted that a new water tap will be required in order to meet flow requirements for sprinklering the residence and that water pressure may need to be augmented. 3. Other — The property is not located next to a public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to many of the usual conditions of approval. The property is served by a 20' wide access and utility easement. The applicant is advised that portions of the pavement are not contained in the easement area and are located on the applicant's property without the benefit of an easement. DRC Attendees Staff. Chris Bendon, Chuck Roth Applicant's Representative: Alan Richman 99111499 Phil Overeynder, 12:47 PM 7/8/99 -, Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline X-Sender: philo@water Date:.Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:47:17 -0600 To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Cc: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us Chuck, Yes, if they are planning a fire sprinkler system they will require an upgraded water service line. Also since they are at the very highest portion of our gravity served zone, static water pressure at the building site will be in the range of 35-45 psi and could be marginal for some sprinkler system applications. The sprinkler system designer should perform a test of the pressure at that location in order to properly accomodate the water pressure conditions at the site. This could be checked ahead of the pressure reducing valve (if one is installed) at the water service line entrance to the existing home. Phil At 10:52 AM 7/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >Phil - FYI - Chuck >>X-Sender: chrisb@comdev >>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:39:13 -0600 >>To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> >> From: Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> >>Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline >>They are planning on a sprinkler system. The question at DRC was whether or >>not they will need to upgrade their water system to handle a sprinkler >>system. Also, whether a special pump device is necessary due to the elevation. >>Chris. >>At 08:49 AM 7/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>Did I leave you a draft memo? >>>I got an e-mail from Phil about if they are sprinklering, they will P, in ad for Chris Bendon <chrisb@c , aspen. co. us> 1 Aspen Consolidated sanitation District Sy Kelly * Chairman 'John Keleher Paul Smith * Treas Frank Loushin Ntichael Kelly * Secy Bruce NIatherly, iN/lgr June 25, 1999 R E C ;= I V; Chris Bendon i UN 2 44 1999 Community Development 130 asr��v -�� ;,� S. Galena St. ^^ :z:! :�;,-�,.;� Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review Dear Chris - The residential. unit at 550 Aspen Alps Road is connected to the Aspen Alp's private collection system. We are not able to estimate the capacity of the Aspen Alp's system but we can say that we do currently have sufficient downstream collection and treatment capacity. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and spy° ations which are on file at the District office.' A.tap permit must be completed once detailed plans are available. Ti- connection fees must be paid. prior to the issuance of a building permit. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager ^.'� Vi 1'li' _ sre i CO 8�!�iI i/ (9l0)0�5-`!,l,, � i' � � �r Zoning Analysis: Existing Proposed R-15 Zone LTR Zone Exhibit C Mitchell 8040 Conservation Zone Front Yard 14 14.5 25 10 100 Side Yards 32 S=11, N=10 10 5 30 Rear Yard 2 10 10 10 3 0 All measurements in feet Front Yard: The existing building exists approximately 14 feet from the front lot line. The proposed garage would be approximately 18.5 feet from the front lot line while the porch would be approximately 14.5 from the property line at it closest point. Retaining Walls: The site is steeply sloped and significant retaining walls have been developed to mitigate the road cut. The timber construction is proposed to be replaced with concrete retaining walls. The land use code allows for development not exceeding 30 inches in height above natural grade within the setbacks. The code also allows for fences and berms up to 6 feet in height. The terrain has been substantially modified to accommodate the road developed some time ago. Taking this into account, staff is assuming the present grade to be the natural grade for the purpose of measuring the developments within setbacks. Moreover, it would be unreasonable, and possibly unsafe, to permanently remove these retaining structures. The new retaining wall is proposed in approximately the same location as the existing wall. Staff recommends the resolution acknowledge the retaining walls and their proposed replacement. October 5, 1999 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 M11111111i Dear Chris, On August 3, 1999, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an application for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances for the re -development of the Mitchell residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road. Following a thorough discussion of;.the matter, the Commission provided the applicant with comments on the application ;and continued the hearing to October 19, 1999. In response to the comments provided by the Commission, the applicant is submitting!, the following additional information. 1. A revised set of drawings of the proposed development is being submitted. The architect has made significant revisions to the site plan, building elevations, and floor plans for the proposed residence, including the following: • The revised site plan illustrates that the building footprint has been reduced in size. The dimensions of most of the forms within the building have been reduced and as a result, some of the proposed setbacks have increased. The front yard setback will be 14.5' (the Planning Office previously measured it to be 12'), and the side yard setback will be 11' (the Planning Office previously measured it to be 10'). The reduction in the size of the deck that faces to the east will allow several additional existing trees to be saved. • The elevations also illustrate how the size of the house has been reduced from that previously presented to the Commission. The original and the revised north and south elevations have been shown side -by -side, to provide a "before and after" comparison of the two designs. They illustrate that the width of the house as viewed from these directions has been reduced. The elevations also show the house will appear to sit lower into the hillside as viewed from the east. Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Two • The proposed floor area of the structure has been reduced by more than 15 % from the original design. The proposed floor area of the revised design is 4,277 square feet, a reduction of 791 square feet from the original design. • A model has been produced demonstrating the massing and design of the proposed house as compared to the other buildings that surround this property. This model will be presented at the Commission's meeting, and will show how much smaller this house is than the surrounding buildings, how the building has been stepped into the hillside, how its curved roof form replicates the form of the mountain, and how the existing and proposed trees on the site will help to screen the house from view from the ski slope. • A series of photographs have also been taken, looking up at the property from locations all around the downtown area. The photos show that this property is simply not visible from virtually any location in the core. For example, the house is not visible from in front of the Wheeler Opera House, from the corner of Hyman and Galena, from the corner of Hyman and Hunter, and from the corner of Durant and Hunter. The only places we could even see the existing house were from the intersection of Hunter with Cooper and from the very uphill part of the gondola plaza. At these locations the house can be seen, although it is partially screened by trees. Because the Aspen Alps 700 Building is directly behind the house, the existing house does not impose any building mass upon open character of Aspen Mountain, a situation that will continue to be true for the proposed house. 2. Attached to this letter is a letter written by Steven Pawlak, P.E. of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. In this letter, Mr. Pawlak reports on the results of a site visit he conducted with Bob Patillo, P.E. of Patillo Associates, Inc., Structural Engineers. This site visit was conducted to assess the condition of the existing building to determine if slope creep movements had damaged the structure, and was a follow-up to their prior geologic site assessment and subsoil study of the property. The site visit was completed in response to a letter submitted by Mr. Allen G. Thurman, Ph.D., consultant for the Aspen Alps. In that letter, Dr. Thurman stated that the applicant should conduct additional analysis to determine whether the Mitchell residence has been significantly damaged by slope creep. Mr. Pawlak's letter states that "The overall building appears to be in a relatively good condition from a foundation standpoint. Signs of building distress were identified at each level of the building that indicate relatively minor foundation movements... Based on our observation, the movements appear quite old and inactive or occurring at a very slow rate." Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Three Mr. Pawlak concludes that 'Based on our observations and the previous exploration at the site, the building movement and distress appears to be related to lateral earth loading and possibly some differential settlement rather than long term slope creep." Mr. Pawlak then goes on to recommend that the project can proceed as planned, but with additional consideration given to slope stability. He identifies several measures that should be taken during design and construction to ensure the safety of the structure, all of which are acceptable to the applicant. Among these measures, we would point out the value of evaluating the existing foundation during the demolition process, and making any modifications necessary to the design of the new structure to address the conditions that have adversely affected the existing foundation. 3. Also attached to this letter is a letter from Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, written to Mr. Steve Sewell, the manager of Aspen Mountain for the Aspen Skiing Company. This letter is a follow-up to a meeting Mr. Hammond held. with Mr. Sewell to discuss the proposed drainage system for the Mitchell house. You may recall that in the original application for the Mitchell house, we suggested that drywells could be used for on -site detention of drainage. Dr. Thurman objected strenuously to this solution and stated that the applicant must find an alternate way to handle surface runoff. Mr. Hammond presented the applicant's proposed alternative to Mr. Sewell at their meeting. It would replace the proposed drywells with an enclosed tank structure sized to contain a large, low -frequency runoff event. Following containment, runoff would be pumped via a pipe to the existing catch basin on Lower Aspen Mountain Road. This pumping would occur approximately 30 minutes after the storm peak has passed, to ensure that it does not add to the peak flows entering the basin. Mr. Hammond has determined that the maximum flow from the Mitchell site would be about 0.15 cfs, as compared to a flow from the tributary watershed of about 9.0 cfs. He concludes, therefore, that "The drainage flows associated with the Mitchell residence replacement would represent a very minor additional impact to the storm drainage system on the Little Nell slope. I am also confident that we can configure a disposal system to delay the discharge until well after the storm peak has passed the catch basin inlet and minimize the flow rate in a manner that would render the impact nearly imperceptible." In conclusion, we believe that with these revisions, the applicant's proposal to re -develop this property complies with the applicable City standards for 8040 Greenline Review and for setback variances. As you noted in your original memo on this application, . the 8040 Greenline standards focus on the effects of site grading, the ability of the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and visual impacts on the City's mountain backdrop. Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Four Staff concluded that the original proposal met these standards, and we believe the additional materials we have submitted bring the proposal further into compliance with these standards. We have also demonstrated the need for a variance for this property. The combined front yard (100') and rear yard (30') setbacks of the Conservation Zone District are greater in width than virtually any portion of the existing parcel and leave no area that could be developed. The fact that this is an oddly shaped 1/4 acre parcel in a zone that has a minimum lot size of 10 acres is a special circumstance that also necessitates the variance. To ensure this is a minimum variance, the applicant has limited the extent of the footprint, so it will comply with the setback standards of the surrounding L/TR and R-15 zones. The proposal complies with all of the setbacks of the L/TR zone district, and with the side and rear yard setbacks of the R-15 zone district. It falls slightly short on the front yard setback of the R-15 zone, due to the very odd shape of the lot. However, it is important to note that the front yard setback has been increased from the existing situation by moving the stairs and retaining wall back from where they are currently closest to the road. In addition, the rear yard setback along the Little Nell slope has been increased from 2' to 10'. I believe these materials respond to the concerns raised by the Commission at the meeting in August. We look forward to meeting with the Commission later this month to review these revisions with them. Please let me know if there is anything else you require to complete your review of this project. Very truly yours, Alan Richman, AICP September 20, 1999 Cynthia Mitchell c/o Gary Tabasinske Architects, AIA Attn: Gary Tabasinske 305 Doe Road Lopez Island, Washington 98261 Hep%vorth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ;020 Countv Road 1 -4 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 ('hone: 970-945-7988 Fat: 970-9---8.4-54 hpbeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 198 609 Subject: Review of Mitchell Residence Conditions, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Ms. Mitchell: As requested by Alan Richman, a review of the building conditions was made on September 10, 1999 with Mr. Richman and Bob Pattillo. The purpose of our review was to assess if there have been slope creep movements based on the building -onducted a subsoil study for foundation design and a conditions. We previously geologic assessment at the site and presented our findings in reports dated November 30, 1998 and January 26, 1999, Job No 198 609. The residence is a four level wood frame structure with a concrete wall nd spread footing foundation that steps up the hillside. The parkin; and road grade is about one level below the lowest building level. Based on our inspection, the effective cut slope at the back wall of each level is on the order of 0.6 horizontal to 1 vertical. The floors at each level appear to be partly slab -on -grade and structural behind each of the uphill foundation walls. A circular staircase is attached to the west side of the building and connects the lower to the third level. A central fireplace, which appears to be masonry, goes from top to bottom of the structure. The top and bottom floor levels daylight to the respective ground surface of the hillside. No indications of water seepage from underground were observed although a small crawlspace access from the mechanical room at the bottom level has a partially undermined footing which could have been from seasonal seepage. The overall building appears to be in relatively good condition from a foundation viewpoint. Signs of building distress were identified at each level of the building that indicate relatively minor foundation movements. The distress typically consists of interior door racking in the north -south direction, slight tilting of typically east -west walls and occasional cracks and separations in the drywall and door tile. The movement and distress appears typical of foundation wall rotation due to lateral earth loading. The rotation in the laundry chute between the bottom and third level was measured to be about 1 3/8 inch in 13 feet or about 0.9 `% of the vertical 'height. This magnitude of rotation is within the typical range expected by cantilever or lightly restrained walls that can rotate. Based on our observation, the movements appear quit, - old and inactive or occurring at a very slow rate. Cynthia Mitchell September 20, 1999 Page 2 Based on our observations and the previous exploration at the site, the building movement and distress appears to be related to lateral earth loading and possibly some differential settlement rather than long term slope creep. We would expect the impacts of slope creep movements on the 30 year old residence to be much more severe and variable than our observations indicate. In our opinion, the project can proceed as planned with consideration of localized and overall slope stability. For example, steps in foundation grade need to be at an effective slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter unless. excavation shoring and bracing is provided. Additional safety factor against sliding and overturning can be achieved in the foundation by assuming a higher lateral earth loading and providing additional lateral resistance and support to the foundation walls. During demolition, the existing foundation should be evaluated for foundation configuration, bearing and lateral earth loading conditions. The new foundation design should then be reviewed with respect to the conditions found and modified as needed. Long term monitoring of the constructed foundation could be provided by internal settlement and plumb measuring points and externally by inclinometer casing that extends to well below the building foundation and into stable soils. The casing depth could be on the order of 100 feet or more. If you have any questions or require further assistance in evaluating the building conditions or additional monitoring, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-P� QJECHNICAL, INC. a v Steven L. P w 4. ' P. 2 /2 ` a -'5 t Rev. bv: DE . vM1"' tr, J � SLP/ro-sd cc: Alan Richman Bob Pattillo (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Aspen Mountain Manager ASPEN SKIING COMPANY P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS GM SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER RE: Mitchell Residence Replacement, Drainage Design Dear Steve: P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 I am writing in follow-up to our meeting of September 151h regarding a proposed drainage design for a replacement of the Mitchell residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road. As indicated in Figure 1, the Mitchell residence site is located on the east edge of the Little Nell ski slope approximately 800 feet south of Durant Avenue. (Figure 1 was initially prepared to demonstrate the site's relationship to the Spar drainage but also shows its relationship to a nostalgic footprint of the old Little Nell building.) The existing home is located within the Aspen Alps condominium complex although it is an independent property. As I indicated during our meeting on the 16h, our original drainage recommendations for the Mitchell project were based on the City of Aspen's current Interim Standards for Drainage Design and Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Parcels Smaller than One Acre dated April 30, 1998 and issued by the City Engineering Department. Our recommendations for drainage control and on -site detention included; "..the use of two drywell structures which may be located under the garage structure or under the pavement within the property if they would not be in conflict with easements or utilities," On -site detention utilizing dryweils is typical for suitable sites in the Aspen area to promote recharge of area aquifers and minimize additional runoff impacting adjacent properties as a result of new development. Our report in October of last year also noted that; "Over the years, the various Aspen Alps buildings have suffered a variety of problems related to drainage and soils conditions. My belief from prior work in this area is that the site soils are sufficiently porous that water re -introduced into the deep soils at the Mitchell site should not impact the Aspen Alps buildings to the north. I would recommend in this case, however, that a geotechnical consultant be contacted to comment on whether additional water introduction at the Mitchell property could impact the buildings that are downslope to the north of the site." Subsequent to our report regarding drainage design for the site, the Aspen Alps property 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Page 2 retained a consulting engineer, Dr. Allen Thurman, to review the Mitchell proposal and provide comment to the Alps. Dr. Thurman shared and reinforced my noted concern over introducing additional water into the deep soils upslope of the Aspen Alps 500 building and indicated that "Some alternative way to handle surface runoff must be found!!". These discussions and concerns led to my contacting you regarding an alternative concept for handling drainage at the Mitchell property. As I noted during our meeting, we have already had some experience in the downtown Aspen area with sites situated too close to downslope structures or subject to excessively deep excavation requirements on a small site where conventional drywell disposal of runoff proves inappropriate. We have designed a couple of systems now that contain the site runoff in a fully enclosed tank and discharge on a delayed basis to the street or adjacent storm drainage facilities. Our concept for the Mitchell residence (as shown in Figure 2) would be to replace the proposed drywells with an enclosed tank structure sized to contain a large, low -frequency runoff event and pump it on a delayed time basis to the existing catch basin on the Lower Aspen Mountain Road above the cul-de-sac at the Aspen Alps 800 building. This concept, obviously, involves piping the runoff from the tank structure onto Aspen Skiing Company property and accessing the catch basin within the ski slope. During our meeting on the 15`h, you indicated a willingness to consider allowing the Mitchells to pursue this option provided it could be demonstrated from the standpoint of runoff analysis that the system could be configured spas not to aggravate stormflow conditions for the existing collection system. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an excerpt of the DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPAC 'YANALYSIS OF THE CITY OFASPEN, COLORADO that is currently being compiled by WRC Eng ;leering. As I had vaguely recalled during our meeting, the Little Nell slope sub -watershed (watershed ID 11) represents a small upper segment of a watershed that lies between the larger Lower Spar and Vallejo Gulch watersheds. The area above the catch basin on the lower Aspen Mountain road represents only about 7.8 acres with a maximum flow distance of about 1,200 feet to the south tip of the sub - basin. Based on a Rational Method Calculation, the maximum runoff for this small watershed from a 100-year storm event should be about 9.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). This figure compares with a maximum flow of about J.15 cfs off the Mitchell site. The Time of Concentration for the Little Nell slope is just under 20 minutes as indicated on Figure 3, the Overland Flow Nomograph. We would therefore propose to discharge flow from the proposed tank with a time -delay timer on the pump system set to around 30 minutes. Discharge from the tank would therefore occur after the storm peak passes the catch basin and would be limited in flow by the pumping rate, probably about 10 gallons per minute (0.02 cfs). In closing, I would suggest that the drainage flows associated with the Mitchell residence replacement would represent a very minor additional impact to the storm drainage system on the Little Nell slope. I am also confident that we can configure a disposal system to delay the discharge until well after the storm peak has passed the catch basin inlet and minimize the flow rate in a manner that would render the additional impact nearly imperceptible. SCNMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Page 3 I hope you will find this proposed system acceptable and allow the Mitchell's permission to obtain an easement across Aspen Skiing Company property to access the existing catch basin. Please feel free to contact myself or planner Alan Richman (920-1125) with regard to this request. I will also be available after October 11 h to answer any questions regarding this issue. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. nJayHammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 98121SS1 cc: Mr. Alan Richman SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 7. buA L (l �� —41 V MITCHELL RESIDENCE LOWER ASPEN ALPS ROAD _ � --�- •--____�_�.` \�` � -�� i� 1, � y n � i-- 1. GAARD MOSES RESIDENCE ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION P - SPAR GULCH 72" CMP CULVERT CROSSING —...�.. FIGURE 1 CITI OF ASPEN TOPO'®aRAPHI i MA� Scale: 1 " = 200' C.I. = 2' x,,'942.7 4sp ,5�00 ego ��'s I-- PROPOSED INTERCEPT TANK 7950- EXISTING CATCH BASIN,,,,, i \ i D TER LINE ASPEN ALPS 800 BLDG. \ '� EXISTING MITCHELL RESIDENCE DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF THE CITY OF*'ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR The City of Aspen, Colorado PREPARED BY WRC Engineering, Inc. 1963-13 September 1998 Revised April 1999 EXHIBIT 1 1/2 EN 14- JT �,j 4 Ito ji LITTLE NELL HOTEL ,;:7 r4 'olk W GONDOLA BASE , \tl `\�allll � 1 \- \ l _.ice `..•J ''�, -`•y _��-.. \ �•r �/�+;� \ \ � `\��( �,, ��.�..ir _ _ y;: r i /1 j Ilk - I W /fltVA"111f it IN ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD y tirk Al ��^ , \�. ' � � ;r�"� / I rrrl 11 / \�. \\ `-��M� \\\ .4, \ ��.\\ Z - /fill III zf'^ 50 0 250 500 1000 �� ( \__;.'__ ` ,' i " \;`{ SCALE: 1 =500' -- �, Owb LEGEND V SPAR.GULCH SUB WATERSHED ID - ---- i i _ -------- j 1 / / /j7 AREA (ACRES) SUB WATERSHED \ _ _ . ` BOUNDARY VAL LEJO EXISTING 10 FOOT G u L cl�_ T 1- CONTOUR INTERVAL �` ` �/ / EXISTING 30 METER EXHIBIT 1 2/2 rntjTnlir 1117M/nl m I zcc ;t- :-1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 Inn —400 -300 E Lli —200 A R Lli 01 X u- POOR GRAS SURFACE n —100 AVER.GRAS cf SURFACE — 90 � 80 DEN SE LL- 70 GRASS 60. 50 —40 —3 0 7" LLJ 20 10 1 Ld ).5- CL 0 1.0 -J 1.0 z 5.0— w X to— W /. 20 30/ 40- 501 l.. FIGURE 3 OVERLAND FLOW TIME NOMOGRAPH 35- 30J - to Z5— LIJ 20 4z o A LLJ 15— 0 Lij 0 10- 9 _j 13 7 R 70--------- --- --- - � I 10'-01 � , I ------(v/aRYAQD BO Exsr. rwwsroRn�z— �� O'OO' `--- PROPER7YLGVE �``• S-NEIV6COh�ifR9-� / T. AEr. WALL \ GAMGE1 Fr yr - \\ BELOW° GMDEI j t � /E+P9T. STAR `�-61wr. %VICE f �- yltl I ' E%15T. WJUSE FOOTPRINT l�y �' PROPOSED SITE PLAN - REVISED OCTOBER 11, 1999 PROPERTY UNE -2-+Vw6cOM%A25 i WALL i PROPOSED SITE PLAN - ORIGINAL AUGUST 3, 1999 0 ME 0 Elm �, 3: __, =,fit �1, ■ ■ I ■■ 1111 ON �7'� }s1t1 ��ri%/� att.:4�la►•::.: ;v1�14y. 1`-', i•r •,{�� ii�ili��i� vt din". U, .Idl# risk �t4 i'• •�%'••. a '"' �..�.'.y��i'• rill 1 �, ! mi rarer;„ �� jls1 :i�N1y�I '�X ,• :��,il,, Illllllf r.. /�� sett• � ai ■I {II, ,� ' • � • •YU, ,. 1 1111E ,:. � . T �i��ll-,, al. „'r . � Sri, • • 'Ijf' I��iiilli «V :'L V M•• t,•1 •�� : 4i%'�il•'ia �• i1• ON ON [i■ III !IIIIIIIIlI�IIIIIIIII��"��; ; w ... 111111 /. IIII�IIIIIIII� v11111d!` � •r��ti,r++I; �"r ■ ■■ ON ® ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ �HOUR Mir .P tc0''I ON ■■ 28' HEIGHT LIMIT PROFILE - EXISTINGHOUSE�_ ....... I I I I I ----------I---L--8r`6' I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH ELEVATION REVISED OCTO B E R 11, 1999 28' HEIGh'T LIMIT c FQnFlI F _ FYICnnlr uni Icc I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH ELEVATION - ORIGINAL AUGUST 3, 1999 I----------- )!I2-6-),SP6N80 x ! 7 5PRUCE WI � `e;--f �1111��y�`. � — PROPERTY LINE , , q�I1 ALL 01 tt1 �I h q'lY r 1 1 i i i \S S W, ` i 5`RRUCE A ROOF STA110 I — W000CRI33I1\16 ``,\ `♦ `` ` `� \ ` `♦ -2� 6•A5PEN PROPERTY LINE NW'30`00"W - - `♦ a `: - 110 , \ ♦ . ,off EXISTING CONDITIONS (qTH TREE LEGEND e ASPEN s CONFER NOTE: THIS ORAWW\10 REFLECTS 6?PROVEMENTE SURVEY PREPARED BYALPINE SURVEYS DATED 7IC6196 AND UPDATED 10102198. MITCHELI RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Roai ASPEN, COLORADO GARY TABASINSK ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 982 PHONE (360)g68-go88 fax (360) q68-2921 email: gtabarch@rockisland.co, EXISTING CONDITIONS SCALE.- 118" =1'-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: 41a),27,1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets ---------------------------- ------------_ - ---- 10,-0" REAR YARD ` EXfST. TRANSFOR�]ER ' t ' �_ _ PROPERTY LINE 2 - NEW 6' 0r\'IFER9-\ / rn'�\V \ eyCI5T. RE 7 HALL \ \.. GARAG E� Fizon�-O ,' / i/pAl,l,1\,� RRDSc, I wl ' 1 I 1 , t I o � � , 441 I111O\ I 1 ------- �... I r — I , 2' PA Rr m U1I 11 W4LL ' TREE LEGEND ASPEN �m rNH CONIFER \ : NE!CON / C. RIFT. HALLS ....................::...........:.:.:. .:..t........ f � TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIG TREES TO BE REMOVED EKI5T. HOUSE FOOTPRINT 1 CONIFER @ 12" DlA = 112.5 sq in 1 ASPEN @ 8" DIA = 50.3 sq rn 1 ASPEN @ 6` DtA = 28.3 sq in TOTAL =191.1 sq in r--------------\� \`s�� NEW TREES TO BE ADDED 7 CONIFERs @ 6" DW = 198J 5q in O 51\NIFER5 G EXT5T. HOUSE FOOTPRINT' jp MUTCUELI PROPOSED =\ �A O \\ -� RESIDENC \ \ Aspen Alps South Roa ' \ \ ASPEN, COLORADO \ \ --------- I,, GARYTABASINSK A R C H I T E C T, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98 PHONE (360) 468-4088 \ \ \ \ \ fax (360) 468-a9z1 emaiL• giabarchmekisland.c \ \ p --- - 1 ------ ---J, REVISED ` SITE PLAN _ 131.08 SCALE: 1/8 -1-0 1 110 \ 9b0 `\ \\, \. \ 80 Revisions: PROPOSED SITE PLAN - REVISED Approved: Alft Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02, 1999 id Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets �— 26 HE1C--HT LIMIT EAST ELEVATION ` — 26 HE1GH7 LIMIT GROPLE - EXISTINO HOUSE 1 �_ A1, 6• � t i � I 1 /-12,_6 SOUTH ELEVATION 2 - NEW CONIFERS ..........:::::::a:::::::::,;::::::::::::::,,................................... ...: EXISTING FOUN0,ATION GARAGE LEVEL L-----------J 72 6 WEST ELEVATION �— PROFlLE - EX,STbNG HOUSE — ............................................................... NORTH ELEVATION MITCHELI MESIDENCI Aspen Alps South Roa ASPEN, COLOMO GARY TABASINSK ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98. PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax (360) a68-292i email: gtabarcharockisland.o REVISED ELEVATIONS SCAIT 118" = F-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: (kf. 02, 1999 3 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION MITCHELI RESIDENCI Aspen Alps South Roa ASPEN, COLORADO GARY TABASINSK ARCHITECT, AIA 3o5 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98: PHONE (36o) 468-4088 fax (36o) 468-2921 email: gtabarcharocklslandxc ELEVATIONS EXISITING HOUSI SCALE.• 118" = F-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Maj,27, 1999 _ 4 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets 1 \ 1 I �, 1 GARAGE 1 1 \ BELOW GRADE I I I L 1� 1 i 1 � 1 1 � 1 PLAN - SKI ROOM LEVEL PROPERTY ONES i 1 / I / I I i I I PROPERTY LIVES GARAGE LEVEL PLAN MITCHELI RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Roac ASPEN, COLORADO GARY TABASINSKI ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 982E PHONE (360) 468-4o88 fax (360) q68-z9z1 email: gtabarcharockisland.coi VISED FLOOR PLANS SCALE: 118" = F-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02, 1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets r i t rLOOR ABOVEE �------------------J PLAN - BEDROOM LEVEL t_---y---------------- PLAN - FAR OUT ROOM LEVEL MITCHELI RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Roac ASPEN,COLORADO GARY TABASINSKI ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 982( PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax (360) 468-291 email: gtabarcharockisland.cor VISED FLOOR PLANS SCE- 118" = r-o° Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02, 1999 6 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets - - - - - - - - - - - GROrERTYLWES --�--� v %i .% �7 ,, k y yOAT INI ) > '% �) XX T L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIVING LEVEL PLAN MITCHk LI RESIDECE Aspen Alps South Roar ASPEN, COLORADO GARYTABASINSK ARC HITECT,'AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 982 PHONE. (360) 468-4088 fax (360) 468-z9n email: g[abarchorockisland.co REVISED FLOOR PLANS scMX: 118° = r-0° Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02, 1999 7 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets ACTION: 8040 Greenline Review The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and to all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted by the Community Development Director. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. 04. he design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5: ny grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. - over - 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. DIMENSIONIAL VARIANCE: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure, and Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privileg,2 denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE CRITERIA: For a variance to be granted, it would have to be based on one of the following three criteria: The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, or The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard responds to, or A variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director JA,--:'-, FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: St. Moritz - Public hearing Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Lodge Preservation (LP) Program Expansion DATE: October 19, 1999 SUMMARY: Michael Behrendt, applicant and owner of the St. Moritz Lodge, is requesting Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and Lodge Preservation Program expansion approval to construct an addition of eight lodge rooms and two affordable housing units on the existing St. Moritz Lodge. This is the first project to come forward under the revised PUD regulations and the newly adopted LP Program. The allotments for the Lodge Preservation Program are granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This includes both the lodge units and the affordable housing units. Six of the proposed eight lodge rooms and one of the two proposed affordable units were granted under the prior LP Program and remain valid as allotments. Therefore, the expansion request is only for 2 lodge units and one affordable unit. The Minor PUD process requires adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council after a recommendation from the Commission is forwarded. The PUD process allows all of the dimensional requirements to be established through the final PUD. This includes parking, FAR, and setbacks. This project is requesting those aspects of the zoning be established through the PUD and staff is in support of the request. Staff recommends the Commission approve this Lodge Preservation Expansion and Affordable housing proposal, with conditions, and recommend City Council approve this Minor PUD, with conditions. APPLICANT: Michael Behrendt, owner. LOCATION: 334 West Hyman Avenue. ZONING: Medium Density Residential, Lodge Preservation Overlay. R-6-LP. LOT SIZE: 8,714 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): 8,714 square feet. Allotivable -- Underlying Zone District or as established through PUD. Existing -- approx..882 — 7,686 square feet. Proposed -- approx. 1.28 — 11,183 square feet. CURRENT LAND USE: 25 room lodge building. PROPOSED LAND USE: Same, with additional 8 lodge rooms and 2 employee units. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Minor PUD. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Lodge Expansion/LP Affordable Housing. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall, by Resolution, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The St. Moritz Lodge received 6 Lodge allotments and one affordable housing allotment through the previous LP Program. The allotments were never acted upon due to the limitations of the zoning. These allotments, however, remain valid and are to be applied to this project with the proposed additional 2 lodge units and one affordable housing unit. STAFF COMMENTS: The LP Program was recently adopted after a lengthy process to determine the ultimate manner in which the program could serve the interests of the community. This LP Program was adopted, in part, to serve the goals of the community as expressed in the AACP. In staff s opinion, after aiding the elected and appointed officials in the adoption of the LP Program, this project meets the spirit and intent of 2 the Program. In fact, this project represents what many envisioned as the ultimate goal of the Program. The LP Program seeks to maintain and bolster the small lodge experience that differentiates Aspen from other resort communities. Over the years, some small lodges have become defunct due to changes in the lodging market, conversion to more profitable land uses, and, in some instances, lack of upkeep and general maintenance. Operating a small lodge certainly takes more effort than developing a duplex. At the same time, however, the quality of the guest experience, the economy of the town, and the character of dispersed lodges in the town's neighborhoods benefit the community immeasurably. In fact, in ways identified as important to the overall well-being of the town in the community -tan. For these two reasons, staff believes this project meets and promotes the goals for the AACP. 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." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the -Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Lodge Preservation Program Expansion of the St. Moritz Lodge, 334 West Hyman Avenue, and recommend City Council approve the St. Moritz Planned Unit Development, with the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required in Section 26.445.070(C). b. A statement about the long-term maintenance of the common central courtyard and pool area. c. An agreement to enter into a future lease agreement for on -street parking spaces for guests of the lodges if necessary. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way , location of utility pedestals, and a note stating that a witness corner will be installed on the north east corner of the property after completion of construction. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. 3 d. 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 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. The PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans shall be recorded prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted by the Building Department. 4. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z. Resolution. b. The conditions of approval, for both the lodge expansion and the Minor PUD, printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department. e. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement. f. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. 8. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system for the new portion of the structure. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. c. The studio employee unit shall be deed restricted to Category 2, or lower, and the two -bedroom employee unit shall be deed restricted to Category 3, or lower, with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. d. Existing vegetation where construction activity is expected shall be protected by tying -back limbs and surrounding vegetation with construction fencing. 12. The applicant shall encourage visitors to not rent a car when staying at the St. Moritz through marketing information. 13. Two parking spaces shall be made available for the employee units and signed as such. 14. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines 15. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 4 16. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion for the employee units, a member of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall inspect the unit to determine if the units comply with the representations made in the application. 18. -Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 19. 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 PZ-Resolution 99-32. approving the Lodge Preservation Expansion of the St. Moritz Lodge for two lodge units, for a total of eight lodge units in the expansion, and one affordable housing unit, for a total of two affordable housing units in the expansion, and recommending City Council approve the St. Moritz Planned Unit Development, with conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments - PUD Exhibit B -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments - LP Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit D -- Development Application R Exhibit A St. Moritz PUD STAFF COMMENTS: Minor Planned Unit Development — Section 26.445 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties:, eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest i -0on an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP encourages the preservation of small lodges such as the St. Moritz. "The community must find ways to maintain these small lodges and the experience they offer to our guests."- Commercial/Retail section philosophy statement '93 AACP. In addition, the Lodge Preservation Program Ordinance as adopted for the specific purpose of preserving small lodges and aiding in their development and re -development as lodges. Lastly, the LP Ordinance was adopted, in part, to further community goals as expressed in this document related to the small lodge experience characteristic of Aspen. Staff believes this project is consistent with and promotes the goals of, the AACP. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding The St. Moritz Lodge is located in a primarily residential neighborhood. The LP Overlay Zone District, however, allows these small lodges to continue and expand when compatible with the neighborhood. The bulk of the expansion is proposed along the alley and will effect a closed -in feeling along the alley, although no safety issues are expected. This placement of the units is preferred over providing the addition along either of the two public streets. The "U-shaped building will also provide an enclosure around the existing pool which is to remain. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The development is not expected to adversely affect the developability of the surrounding area. The applicant will be upgrading infrastructure as needed and will be improving the fire safety of the building. The surrounding zoning and land uses are primarily residential and are essentially built -out with only redevelopment potential remaining. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 1 Staff Finding_ The Lodge units may be exempted by the Commission and the application is requesting that action be taken. The project received 6 lodge allotments and one employee unit through the previous LP Program. These allotments are still valid, as the applicant has been actively seeking this PUD approval for the dimensional flexibility to locate the units on -site. There are currently 38 LP Lodge Units available and the application is requesting 2 from that pool to complete the g lodge units being contemplated in this PUD. The applicant is also requesting 1 additional employee unit to complete the 2 in this application. Theallotments will be considered by the Commission prior to Final PUD review by Council. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final P development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed dimensions of this PUD to be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area. There are no natural hazards or site conditions that make this level of development difficult, unsightly, or undesirable. In fact, this addition will benefit the existing development and help ensure the continued desirability of this lodge. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The addition will be along the alley way and will not create a feeling of significant mass along Hyman Avenue. The site is currently approximately 64% open and is proposed to be approximately 51% open after the addition. This lesser percentage of open space is consistent man with the surrounding neighborhood and is, in fact, equal to, or slightly b greater than, Y of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood, including residential development. The character proposed is typical of small lodges of this era and is suitable for this neighborhood. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 2 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The existing parking situation is somewhat odd and staff requested an explanation of the existing parking be provided in the applications. There are 15 parking spaces serving the existing development. Many of these spaces lie partially within City right-of-way. According to the owner, who has operated this lodge since 1969, there are rare instances when parking is a problem. These are typically when parking is a problem throughout town, such as the 4"' of July and Winterskol. On average nights, the owner reports between 3 and 5 parking spaces open and available. During the day, the parking lots are primarily empty. Staff concurs with the applicant after visiting the site during several times to consider the parking situation. There exists an abundance of parking during an average day during the summer season. The parking lot was hill during the annual volleyball tournament. Of course, there was literally no available parking in the entire area during the tournament. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the parking requirements for these additional lodge units and employee units. Based on the owner's report of the parking situation and staff, s site inspections, staff supports the waiver and believes the additional lodge units will not generate a parking problem. Staff is, however, recommending a few conditions be applied for this parking situation: l . The applicant shall encourage visitors to not rent a car when staying at the St. Moritz through marketing information. 2. The Commission should require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the City Engineering Department for the parking spaces which lie partially within tl,� City right-of- way and show the agreement on the final plat. 3. The applicant should be required to enter into a lease agreement with the City Parking Department for guest street parking spaces as needed. (Currently the extra street parking spaces are not needed.) 4. Two parking spaces shall be made available for the employee units and signed as such. Staff believes these conditions of approval specific to parking will appropriately address the lack of providing additional parking at this location. This is due to the number of cars expected to be generated by the additional units, the benefit of housing employees on -site rather than accommodating their autos on a daily basis, the shuttle service provided by the St. Moritz in coordination with the Snowflake Inn, and the proximity of the St. Moritz to the center of town, ski lifts, etc. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 3 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding_ There are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prohibit the amount of development being considered. Staff does not recommend any reductions in the development being proposed. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development be of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed, structure., road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding There are no known natural hazards or site limitations that prohibit the amount of development being considered. Staff does not recommend any reductions to the proposed development based on this standard. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one'or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding : The addition of the lodge rooms and the provision of affordable housing on -site both promote goals expressed in the AACP. The underlying Zone District (R-6) does not provide for lodges and, subsequently, does not provide a maximum density of lodge units. However, there exists no St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 4 limitation on the number (density) of lodge rooms within a lodge or on a property as long as the use is allowed. The LP Overlay allows the lodge use -in addition to the uses allowed in the R-6 Zone District. So, there is technically no increase in density necessary for the lodge units, only an increase in FAR to accommodate additional units. The affordable housing is an allowed use pursuant to the LP Overlay. The overlay allows for the density to be that of the underlying zone district, or as otherwise established through the PUD process. The underlying zone district is R-6 which does not prescribe a maximum density for multi -family structures (because they are not a permitted use in R-6). So, again, there is no maximum density to vary from that allowed in the underlying district. The density is merely established through this PUD process. Based on the AACP goals of providing affordable housing on -site in conjunction with additional development, staff believes this additional residential density is desirable and warranted. The Final PUD plans should indicate the number of lodge units and residential units. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or -a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The addition is proposed in a location to preserve the pool and center courtyard area. This placement maintains the visual interest of the property and adds to its identity. This is a feature of many of the lodges of this era and should be encouraged as an appropriate character of the small lodge experience. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: There is only one structure. Not applicable. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The placement of the addition preserves the view of the center courtyard and pool area from the street. This placement preserves the visual engagement of by -passers and is appropriate. This site almost defines the boundary between the urban areas of Aspen and the rural areas of Shadow Mountain and the County. This area has always had a sharp contrast between the two landscapes and staff does not see this furtherance of the visual difference as detracting in any way from either aesthetic. In fact, the lodging experience is most likely enhanced with such easy visual and literal access to Shadow Mountain. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 5 The applicant has proposed a reconfigured fire access way to accommodate the concerns of the Fire Marshall and the Building Official. There are no new access ways necessary or proposed. The Fire Marshall reported no present difficulties in servicing this site and requested no additional improvements to the older portion of the building. The new portion will need to be equipped with a sprinkler system and an alarm. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding : The site plan provides a sufficient amount of pedestrian access. The applicant is proposing one (1) handicapped lodge unit on the first floor which can be accessed easily. This handicapped accessible unit is not required by the building code (for only 8 units) but is encouraged and is appreciated. The affordable housing units, again due to the limited number being proposed, do not have to be handicapped accessible. The City Engineer has requested a sidewalk curb and gutter agreement be executed prior to the application for a building permit. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: The City Engineer has requested a drainage plan and report be prepared, accepted, and recorded with the Final PUD Plans. This drainage will need to be accommodated on -site according to a two-year storm frequency design. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programatic 'anctions associated with the use. Staff Finding: The interior courtyard surrounds an outdoor pool area and the space has been designed to accommodate that use. This criteria loosely applies because the pool is already developed and is intended to remain. Staff believes this criteria has been met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, aid with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existi .g significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: The existing landscape of the parcel provides a variety of species in an attractive manner. The addition is proposed in a location where some of this existing vegetation will need to be removed. The remaining portion of the lot, however, will primarily retain the existing vegetation and no additional landscape treatment is being recommended. Staff believes this criteria has been mer with the landscape plan suggested in the application. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 6 Staff Finding: The swimming pool is probably the only site feature that falls under this criteria. This outdoor pool does provide some uniqueness to this lodge and is being preserved with this proposal. Staff believes this criteria to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Significant existing vegetation will need to be protected from construction activities. Staff has suggested a condition requiring the applicant tie -back and protect with construction fencing the existing vegetation where appropriate depending upon construction access routes. This should be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit. No excavation or storage of dirt or material should be allowed within the driplines. Tree removal permits will need to be obtained per the tree replacement Ordinance for the existing cottonwood trees. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability oi= a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of mat;rials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: The architecture proposed for the addition is in the same style as the existing building and is appropriate. Staff believes this criteria has been met. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: This standard is somewhat difficult to achieve on additions to existing buildings. To extent practical, the applicant has oriented the structure in a manner conducive to solar heating and the mechanical system of the existing building will serve the new addition. Staff believes this standards has been met to the extent practical. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 7 The roof pitch of the proposed addition is somewhat shallow and will probably not shed snow on a regular basis. Staff has included a condition requiring the applicant provide snow stops to prevent the shedding of snow onto either the courtyard or the alley way. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibitted for residential development. Staff Finding The applicant has proposed lighting that will be down directional and in compliance with the City's lighting code, as amended. Staff has included a condition prohibiting up -lighting of architectural and landscape features of the site. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding: The courtyard area serves as open space and recreation area to the benefit of the property users. This amount, location, and design of this area is beneficial to the overall project and provides a desirable visual relief from the mass of buildings. Staff believes this criteria has been accomplished. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding: This standard does not apply. The interest in the courtyard area is not proposed to be divided and will remain with the lodge owner and management of the operation. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. St. Moritz PUD .Comments Page 8 Staff Finding: Due to the undivided nature of this courtyard and the nature of this use, staff does not believe there should be required a separate legal instrument to ensure the continued maintenance of the space. This is primarily due to the fact that the long-term viability of the lodge will somewhat depend upon the visual attractiveness of the courtyard and common grounds. An additional legal instrument requiring the applicant to maintain this space would not serve any significant benefit. However, to meet this standard it is important to include a this maintenance assurance in the PUD Agreement. This will protect the City and the neighborhood against a fixture land owner who may not share the same sensibilities as the current applicant. Staff has included this as a condition. I. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application and reported the ability to serve this project. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: The applicant has agreed to fund his fair share of utility expenses as required. This includes a new service line for the sanitary sewer. I Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: No oversized utility stubs were requested to be installed with this development. L Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The structure and all uses on the lot have adequate access to the public street system. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 9 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding : The applicant's existing parking is partially to mostly within the City right-of-way. This condition has been present since the creation of the building and has not presented a significant burden for the Streets Department operation. In fact, the Streets Department Director complimented the applicant on his application and did not request any changes to the parking configuration. J. Phasing of Development Plan. ((Ioes not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Finding : The applicant is proposing two phases of development. The entire addition will be within the first phase and is designed to be self-sufficient. The second phase is primarily minor aesthetic improvements, although some additional FAR will be attributed to the second phase. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. Staff Finding: Occupants of the lodge units are not permanent occupants of the PUD and should not be greatly affected by the improvements of phase two. Likewise, the level of improvements for phase two are minor and are not expected to significantly inconvenience residents of the employee units. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: All infrastructure improvements necessary are proposed to be performed during phase one. St. Moritz PUD Comments Page 10 • it St. Moritz LP Expansion STAFF COMMENTS: Lodge Preservation Program Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(M). Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes this project is consistent with the AACP. Please see comments related to the Community Plan under PUD Comments, Exhibit A, page 1. (2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. Staff Finding: This lodge has existed in this neighborhood as long or longer than many of the surrounding uses. Characteristic of small lodges dispersed throughout town, this lodge is not consistent with the neighboring uses but is compatible and actually adds character to its context. Staff believes the proposed addition has been designed in a manner compatible with the neighborhood and with the existing lodge building. Furthermore, this proposal promotes the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zoning. The addition will aid the financial viability of the lodge use and will help preserve the small lodging experience in Aspen. (3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of multi -family housing, as required by section 26.530. This shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact between the existing development and the proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Dousing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding: The applicant has proposed two employee units. One is a studio unit and the other is a two bedroom. As part of the LP code amendments, staff asked several of the small lodge operators to provide their employment information along with their level of services St. Moritz LP Comments Page l provided. This study concluded that there is a large range of employment generation based on the services provided by the individual lodge, but that on average approximately .245 employees per lodge room are employed by these smaller operators. It is important to note that many small lodges, and small businesses, are seeking affordable housing for their employees as part of their long-term financial viability as a business — regardless of local regulations for providing this housing. In this case, the applicant is more interested in providing employee housing to serve the long-term viability of the lodge operation that to serve any housing authority requirement. It just so happens that this economic reality results in significantly more affordable housing than required by the Housing Guidelines. The eight new lodge rooms generate, according to this recent study, approximately 1.96 employees. The standard growth management requirement for new development is to mitigate for 60% of that generation — or 1.2 employees. The proposal will house approximately 3.5 employees. The Housing Authority has recommended a few conditions for the employees units. The studio unit is recommended to be deed restricted to Category 2, or lower, and the two - bedroom unit to Category 3, or lower. Additional recommended conditions have been included in staff s recommended conditions. (4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. Staff Finding: The applicant has suggested that the existing parking is adequate to serve the needs of the additional development and has requested the existing condition be accepted. (5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.050. Staff Finding: The newly adopted LP Ordinance initiated a growth management "bucket" of 3 8 units for this growth year. This proposal is requesting two of those 38 units. The process allows the allotment to be grated on a first -come, first -served basis. Staff believes this project meets, or exceeds, all the development parameters for allotments to be granted and, because this project is the first to come, staff recommends it be the first to be served. The bucket will be reduced accordingly. There are sufficient affordable housing allotment available and the respective bucket will be reduced accordingly. St. Moritz LP Comments Page 2 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer d d C yle- From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: September 24, 1999 Re: St. Moritz Minor P.U.D. and Lodge Expansion 334 West Hyman Avenue Parcel ID No. 2735-124-64-004 The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their August 18, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features without misrepresentation, and the it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements if continuation of such encroachment would be acceptable to the City. 1. P.U.D. Plat — The application lacked a draft PUD plat. A PUD plat needs to be provided, reviewed, revised as necessary, and recorded prior to submitting a building permit application. The plat needs to be prepared to meet the requirements of the City Code in §26.88.040.D.1.a and 2.a. The following are comments based on information at hand: a. Include a statement by a surveyor that "All easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." b. Identify all of the encroachments (parking, landscaping, fire escape, dumpster) and provide a general note referencing a temporary encroachment license for the life of the building recorded at Reception No. 1 c. The plat must show an easement on the adjacent property for the drywell, as proposed by the applicant. An easement document for the drywell must be provided or certificates provided on the plat to convey the easement by the adjacent property owner(s). d. The northeast corner of the property requires a permanent monument because development will be occurring on that portion of the property. However a monument would be removed during the construction. Therefore that corner should be indicated referencing a general note that states that a witness comer monument will be install for that corner at. the completion of construction. e. Symbols on the face improvement survey drawing are not listed in the legend for the southwest corners of the property. The plat must clarify this. f. Indicate all parking spaces with lines for proposed striping. g. Clarify that the 6.6' dimension at the northeast corner is to a building corner. h. The property must be tied to either a USGS Section corner or a City Grid System monument. i. Indicate an easement for the utility pedestals that are planned to be relocated out of the alley right-of-way. 2. Site Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system does not have additional capacity to convey increased 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 a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the--tate 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. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The drywell may not encroach into the alley right-of- way. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to building permit drawings. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. 3. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter — Due to the unusual site location, sidewalk, curb and gutter will not be required at this time. Therefore the applicant needs to submit a signed and notarized sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and recording fees at the time of final plat. Any curb and 2 gutter installed across the street by the applicant may be deducted from the lineal feet of curb and gutter stated in the agreement. 4. Easements — The applicant needs to provide the Engineering Department with copies of the title commitment and all of the easements referenced therein. 5. 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. Existing pedestals in alley right-of-way adjacent to property need to be relocated onto private property. For pedestals and transformers, easements must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 6. Fire Protection District — The new building needs to be sprinklered. A fire alarm system will be required. No work is being performed on the old building so no fire safety improvements are required for the old building. 7. Parks Department — Trees must be protected during construction. A tree removal permit will be required for the cottonwood tree. 8. 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 at the time of final plat. 9. 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. DRC Meeting Attendees Staff. Ed Van Walraven, Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, Stephanie Millar, Karma Borgquist, Stephen Kanipe, Nick Adeh, Cheryl Christiansen, Jack Reid, Chuck Roth Applicants' Representatives: Michael Behrendt, Olafur Johannsson 99M127 3 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly *Chairman Jolln Keleher Paul � mitll * Treas Frantz Lousl�in 1Vlicliael Kelly * Secy Bruce i�Iatherly, NI�r September 17, 1999 Chris Bendon Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: St. Moritz Minor PUD and Lodge Expansion Dear Chris: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Once detailed plans are available, a tap permit can be completed which will estimate the fees for the p sect. We would request, as a condition of approval, that the fees be paid prior to the issuan;.0 of a building permit. A new service line will be required for the development. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, -41 Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 SEP 29 199 01:46PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.1 MEMORANDUM TO; Choi Sendon, Comm u r, ity Development Department FROW, 00('Y ChNstansen, Husising Office DATF,:�,, Sap,,,Qmbar23, 1999 St, �,AcrRav Minor FJUDend Lodge R ponnion iF) No. 2735-12A_&j._00�. / 334 VV. Hyman Avenue, The C-:ippki iri,( 11s rac;uesflng approval to en -panel the lodge lby (Right hotel rooms and two L ernployee urjj�t,, 1ji?hf,,,h �'VNICQi-ltsjll ' st'40,ullit and I 2-bedraorn unit, q to Seotj,.)r "6.4-fl-1.070,1q, ,xpr- 57 usafiodge Wrpanslon, an a �nsion of el 11X I- Y' ' 4,;e PraV!0U-'JY Z011en. I �Fl shiall be exempt frarri growth managament r The e't'arrintion i8ilvailabla provided that employee dousing ,X veil: be (ircvided "o rnitip for 2�dditionul employeeq g n-Bra change gate � 0 , ted by h Ch n in u:�a,s, or 0Xparisjon i;-i act'-r_;:-danr,,,n wRh 01he vianclards 1'0t' laffordable housing set forth at Section Ths Cornrounity Deparfmant did a Sm-all Lodge Zrriployment Survey to see how m;�nry %111411,ne %ampoyee-S, It 'ug-kas per init. the Housing Office has been using an avenag .0, of .1 tr.) .."I !,..,mp[oyc,,,cs per iodq, midis UrtSj.�;"r s I-oL)rn, The -3'jr!ey conciuded that on the average, each te as or110 �We-,.: d Pj 0ximately 0.2v,5 a:)jpjo�ipe�B. Therefore, 1,he applicant would need to 3 lod',ja; o ,rns X .0245 1,98' Full4irriz aquivaleriLs 13 A , gqs, 1, % The applicant i.c,-; approvaito ptrovide tha following afrordable housing on -site: 'I SWC110 )( 1.26 emi0ioyees = I 2-bedroor X 2.2,ie.-mployeps 'rarAl_ 111JEb A ' the 0, oard's. " o priority ;a� .19aVOn is on -site housing. The applicant is aching, approvEi; try , Yess, an addingnai 1.54 employe' f what is flred. Therc.,,for&-, --1zfa.Ff Fe.=mrns-nde, ;p4po Wal Undol- the. follo ondMon as 0 1. A dead reSITdJon for be tjvk) units be rsr,)rde,(J orfor to building pem,,R approval; 2. ao-ite Nor -to �aertijficatc Of Occur);- , :lncy; and '()e deed Czkegory $. CA C'Ztn;PxW 1 01' 2 and the two -bedroom as ADDITION CONTENTS: f r� 1 COVER 2 VICINITY MAP 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN 4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PHASE 1 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PHASE 2 6 FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR 7 FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR 8 FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT 9 SOUTH ELEVATION 10 EAST ELEVATION 11 NORTH ELEVATION 12 FIRE STAIR NEW PLAN & ELEVATIONS 13 FIRE STAIR ELEVATIONS 14 EXISTING AREA CALCULATIONS 15 PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONS 16 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 17 PARKING 18 TRASH 19 LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, PHASING 20 EXEMPTIONS, MITIGATIONS 21 ECONOMY LODGING 22 RATES 23 HISTORY OF LODGE -7-7IW S 19 HDSIVVLI NJ z z_ Y N 1 m v QQQO sL Qia cr J F ,� � Sr � T.• • �� 2zi •o, .ir u 00 • �y�0 A q Le L `• I F M 3W Ui l W! ` 4. L, ! 1S H�JSIWdb'J 1 n� ,� y Y A W O a i ��1 M Q zz M M O Zy w i iun o C �7 UO H im.� r IS N3dsd d a p m Vv CI nitt}�L ' W S m a:O i Nir t O V.V O 1S HDHVNOW S gg �•�• g � a to � � � � A rn 3 �— l b� •e v o � A CITI) a U E4 $ O L°CD w W J a � r N Y C ¢ O y C w �� g�' F LL 3 � ®� 8 � o r <, ful ry. d•_X0� T4Rj+ '°� � _,� � j¢g�•Y� �v � (�>1R U N 6 O Y 2 A yy!ryry� �y��y ��' �� Q Jj, r�r �.�C�O I ?••C� �C C C L _ € t UU ,Cy U k�� 8 I II <W J N },�JF 'S� A O 1�^ L 1 I t 1.• I II O.. - T- C O t IT '�• h d. aAb41m6/Fo iTOPAINT HYMAN AVE. EXISTING SITE PLAN ❑❑a COMMUNITY RECYCLE BINS 6' FENCE UTILITIES PHONE/ ABLE STRUCTURE i STRUCTURE ON NPFLE LOT N EX15TIN& EA5EMENT ON LOT M TO MAINTAIN 5'SETBAGK 3 CONMINITY [ BEAR SAFE •i I CV HYMAN AVE. PROPOSED SITE PLAN plim 1 GO""ITY RECYCLE BINS b' FENCE --• ^- • -- I- -TIES PHONE/ ,ED OUT OF EMsNT 1RE ON N ON EM gHTAIN 4 COHMUNITY I BEAR SAFE Al I EV HYMAN AVE. -"'**N 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PHASE 2 OOMMMITY RECYCLE BINS b' FENCE -1 - -m -TICS PHONE/ /Ev OUT OF VhIENT /RP ON N -IN .NT -INTAIN 5 LL O ts) r r ECOND FLOOR � 6 Z a F_IRS_T FLOOR SCALE: 1 /8"=1'-0" "l-0' II d II T II it BASEMENT _ 8 SCALE: 1 /B"=1'-O" r.1 )VAL�E:ST eELE�VATiON 10 0 11 OLI11 ELEVATION SCALE: = NEW 12 3 MOM 2 FLOM 4ETIMN ELEVATIONS 13 0 FI SCA NOTE5: F.A.R. GALGULATION5 5Gt. FT. 50. FT. TOTAL LOT AREA OF LOTS K, L AND M EXGLUDING TRIANGLE SHAPED AREA IN LOT K 8rt14.34 BASEMENT 6R05S AREA NOT INGLUDEO IN F.A.R. 2455.0 F I RST FLOOR GROSS AREA MAIN FLOOR 2485.0 SAUNA 9I.O STORAGE 1001.5 TOTAL: 2b85.5 5EGONID FLOOR MAINR 2430.5 TONRAFGE TOTAL: 2515.5 THIRD FLOOR MAIN FLOOR 2485.0 TOTAL: 2485.0 TOTAL (5RO55 BUILDING AREA 7bbb.0 F.A.R. 7bbb.0/8714.34 0.882 OPEN SPACE MINIMUM OPEN 5PAGE 35% (LOT AREA-BUILDING-PARKING)/LOT AREA (8714.34-2b85.5-481.5)/8714.34 64 % PARKING PARKING 15 SPACES EAGH SPACE 8'-b" X 18'-O" 14 NOTES: PHASE I ADDITION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS 50. FT. 50. FT. TOTAL LOT AREA OF LOTS K, L AND M EXGLUD I N6 TRIANGLE SHAPED AREA IN LOT K 8114.34 BASEMENT 6RO55 AREA NOT INGL. IN F.A.R. EXI5TIN6 2485.0 ADDITION 1251.0 FIRST FLOOR 6RO55 AREA MAIN FLOOR 2485.0 ADDITION 1111.0 TOTAL: 36-12.5 SECOND FLOOR MAIN FLOOR 2485.0 ADDITION 11-".0 TOTAL: 3662.0 THIRD FLOOR MAIN FLOOR 2485.0 ADDITION I I-".O TOTAL: 3662.0 TOTAL 6RO55 BUILDING AREA 10ag6.5 F.A.R. I04%3/8114.34 1.26 OPEN SPACE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE 35% (LOT AREA-BUILDING-PARKING)/LOT AREA (8114.34-3612.5-481.5)/8114.34 52 % PARKING PARK I N6 15 SPACES EACH 5PA6E 8'-6" X 18'-0" NOTES: PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS So. FT. 5G. FT. TOTAL LOT AREA OF LOTS K, L AND M EXGLUD I N6 TRIANGLE SHAPED AREA IN LOT K 8114.34 EXI5TIN6 AND ADDITION EXGLUDIN6 BA5EMT. lOgg6.5 NEW BAY WINDOH5 ON EXISTING L006E 106.5 NEW ENTRY ON EXIST. LODGE a0'0 TOTAL 1183 1 F.A.R. 11183/8114.34 1.28 OPEN SPACE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE 3595 (LOT AREA-BUILDING-PARKING)/LOT AREA (8114.34-3806.5-481.5)/8114.34 5196 Dimensional E Requirements . Existing R-6 Zone Request Minimum Front Yard Old Building 0--21 10 New Building 10 67 Minimum Side Yard Old Building 0--5 5 0--3 1 /2 New Building 5 5 Minimum Rear Yard Old Building 0 10 New Building 10 0 Maximum Site Coverage Old Building 30.8% 65% New Building 65% 43.7% Maximum Height Old Building 30$ 4" 25 New Building 25 25 Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 10 Minimum % Open Space Old Building 64% 35% New Building 35% 51% Allowable Floor Area Ratio Old Building .882 1 /1 New Building 1/1 1.283 16 St Moritz Parking The existing Lodge has 13 hotel rooms and 12 dormitory rooms. 25 rms X .7 = 17.5 (today's R-6 requirement). The Lodge has 15 grandfathered nonconforming parking spaces, all' overlapping City right -of way. For 30 years this has been way more than enough parking, with no history of citations for overtime guest parking on the streets. We regularly allow several guests to store cars in our lots for 3 to 6 month periods while they are away. During the 1998-99 winter we never had less than 5 spaces left open every night. Winter dormies, especially temporary foreign workers, rarely drive. Some 35% of our hotel room guests are foreign and don't drive. Economy lodging guests tend not to rent cars. The city and ski bus shuttles are two blocks away. Our proximity to the commercial core and activity centers allows our guest to walk to them. We contract with the Snow Flake Inn for airport shuttle service. During Spring parking is always abundantly available, During Summers our off-street parking is slightly fuller, with typically 3 to 4 spaces left open. Because we house some 15 music students and 10 seasonal workers during summers we have 24 to 30 bicycles on premises instead of cars. The main Shadow Mountain bikeway portal is across the street, During Fall the lots nearly fill up, as some 40% of employees moving to Aspen for work and housing stay with us --they drive here. Normally, day or night parking only becomes a problem on Hyman Street three blocks closer to town. The only parking shortages our neighborhood experiences are during the 4th of July, and Winterskol (when the entire city is clogged), and during a few evening events at the Ice Garden. Street parking around 3rd and Hyman is so available that the City parking department gives overtime permits to Rec vehicles and 30 ft trailers of guests of downtown lodges to park in our vicinity. We have 9 staff members, 2 of which are part-time, with primary jobs elsewhere. 4 of the remaining 7 carpool, Day parking is never a problem as our lots empty out early. Overall then, the existing lodge is more than adequately provided with parking, with 3 to 5 spaces left open nightly. The new addition will have 8 hotel rooms and 2 employee units with 3 bedrooms. 11 X .7 = 7.7 spaces. There is no possible space to provide more parking. By housing 3 to 5 staff members on premises we should reduce present parking needs by 3 or more spaces. Existing off-street parking should handle our needs for the remaining demand. After an aggressive "Don't bring your car to Aspen" campaign in our literature, overflow onto the streets, if any, may be accommodated with day permits purchased by the Lodge from the City -- as is the case with every other Lodge. 17 TRASH -- Storage and Collection The Lodge is located at the foot of Shadow Mountain, prime bear, coyote, and raccoon habitat. For the last three years 4 neighbors have abandoned their separate containers and used the tall 4 yd Lodge dumpster to combat constant "critter" littering. The dumpster is emptied two or three times weekly, depending on demand. The Lodge polices the area daily, pays BFI, and collects funds every six months. With the advent of the new City bear -proof container laws, one more neighbor has joined our coalition and two others have expressed interest. A totally bear -proof container has been on order for two months. We simultaneously combined our recycling efforts into two 40 gallon containers located across the alley behind the lodge. These are collected once a week. A look at the site plans will show where the recycling bins and the dumpster have been historically located. Shadow Mountain eliminates all sun for 2 months every winter. Several times in years past we have tried to locate the dumpster in the alley, but, despite the best efforts of City crews and our Bobcat, difficulty of access, particularly during Winter, made it impossible for BFI to provide service. The present locations work best for the neighborhood, the Lodge, and BFI. 18 Lighting All exterior lighting will be energy conserving, downward directed and code compliant. Landscaping The St Moritz's manicured gardens and pool area comprise its major public amenity. The new wing must add to that feature. Mr. Behrendt planted the 37 trees now growing. Two large female cottonwood trees and eight small decorative trees must be removed from the annex footprint. The smaller trees will be replaced at least one for one after construction with columnar evergreens on the annex's South side, a replanted fountain tree on the SE corner, and 4 Aspens at the employee entrance easement. Ordinance #34, 1995 calls for mitigation for the two female cottonwoods. If in cash this could amount to $29,000.00. In consideration of the 1/3rd AH employee housing ratio, and to assist us in keeping the new tourist units in the economy range, it is requested that this mitigation, instead, be in -kind and go to the neighborhood. We would like to plant two balled purple plums at the 3rd and Hyman bikeway entrance -- to enhance landscaping already contributed and underway. And, further, to plant up to 10 balled male cottonwoods: 3 to replace sick trees along the bikeway in Koch Park, and 7 on the bare North side of the Ice Garden, planted as soon as they complete repairs. Phasing Phase one is the annex with 8 guest rooms, a steam room, and two employee apartments. It would also include replacing the main lodge boiler, adding a soft water system, and replacing the fire escape. Phase two, to be done sometime after the first phase is all cleaned up and customer ready, consists of replacing 12 windows in the original lodge with insulated, sittable bay windows, and adding a wind -break foyer to the lobby. The small FAR increment is included in the dimensional tables. 19 On Purposes, Exemptions and Mitigations Bucking all trends, the applicant desires to expand and sustain a small, economy lodge property through the new Minor PUD, LP Expansion process. This assumes exemption from GMQS Scoring and Competition, including the AH request, assumes flexibility in setbacks, FAR and parking, and needs relief from some of the mitigation exactments. Estimates of these exactments are: Planning Application Fees ACSD Impact Fees City Water Impact Fees new rooms 2 AH units City tree penalty Parks & Rec Impact Fees new rooms 2 AH units Building Permit Fee Planning Check Fee GIS Fee Energy Check Fee Zoning Check Fee Totals 1,430,00 no relief requested 1,430.00 11,965.25 no relief requested 117965.25 20,542.00 no relief requested 20.542.00 6,525.00 exemption 29,000.00 replacement 4,000.00 12,160.00 1 /2 relief requested 6.080.00 4,245.00 exemption 2596.15 no relief requested 2,596.15 1,687.50 no relief requested 1,687.50 50.00 no relief requested 50.00 259.62 no relief requested 259.62 420.00 no relief requested 420.00 $90, 880.52 $491030.52 Under the new Minor PUD,0 LP Expansion process the application would comply with all requirements of the City Code. Further it upgrades the fire, health, safety, and ADA aspects and standards of the existing lodge, and strengthens it economically to last and compete in today's market in its almost unique Economy bracket. The application's consistency and compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan is obvious. The 1 /3rd employee housing aspect has the broadest of community support -- and can be seen as in -fill. For the 2/3rds new rooms, it seems complete consensus exists for allowing maximum flexibility to enable retention and improvement of the small lodges -- the only affordable lodging left. 20 Lodging -- Little Economy Left Attached are the St Moritz's list rates. They roughly equal the other lodges' listed as "Economy." What the sheet can't show are the prices actually achieved. All lodges negotiate rates to some extent, and always downward. In the off and shoulder seasons our Economy private room rentals go as low as $28 per night, if monthly. Dorm spaces go for as low as $15. In -season room rates actually achieved surge for the 9 days of Christmas, then average about $98 throughout the ski time, and $79 during summer. Travel agent and Central Reservation commissions take 15 to 20% further. The St Moritz will charge approximately $10 more for the new rooms during off and low seasons, and $20 more during high periods. The newness, quality, kitchenettes, and larger size warrant this. Higher rates than that won't carry, because "luxury" clients will not call us -- and in any event wouldn't enjoy the ambiance mix that our current repeat clients experience and prefer. So how have Aspen's Lodges fared since the 9/24/98 inventory? Luxury: Boomerang, 34 units Beaumont, 29 units (applied to add 10 units & condominimize) Hearthstone, 18 units (for sale) Hotel Lenado, 23 units Molly Gibson, 21 units (condos) Sardy House, 22 units Moderate, Aspen B& B, 35 units (condos) Hotel Aspen, 47 units (condos) Hotel Durant, 22 units Innsbruck Inn, 31 units L'auberge, 19 units Mountain House, 16 units Shadow Mountain Lodge, 11 units (condos) Economy, Lost: Buckhorn, 8 units -- office & AH conversion Grand Aspen, 150 units -- tear down, luxury conversion Heatherbed -- AH conversion Ullr, 22 units -- AH conversion Remain: Chalet Lisle, 8 units Christiania, 22 units (attempting to convert) Christmas Inn, 26 units (for sale) Holland House, est 20 units Skier's Chalet, est 20 units St Moritz, 25 units applying to add 10) Snow Queen, 7 units Tyrolean, 12 units 21 Winter Deposit & Cancellation Policy Two nights' deposit due within 10 days of booking. Deposits are refundable, minus a 20% handling fee, if notice of cancellation is received by the St. Moritz Lodge 21 days or more prior to arrival. *Final payment is due at least 21 days prior to arrival. If cancellation is made between 20 and 8 days prior to arrival, then the first two nights' deposit is forfeited and final payment is refunded. If notice of cancellation is received 7 days or less prior to arrival, then deposit is forfeited and refund of final payment is based on number of nights resold. No refund for early departure. *Final payment for bookings between 12/22 to 1/3 are due 30 days prior to arrival. Twenty-nine days or less deposit is forfeited and refund of final payment is based upon resale. 1999 Summer Rates 4/12-6/1 6/2 9/7 & to to 10/10-11/23 9/6 10/9 TYPE OF UNIT (STD/oCC) Standard room/1 bath (2) 44 95 69 1-bdm condo (2) 64 139 99 2-bedroom unit (4) 75 159 119 2-bdrm condo/1-bath (4) 95 189 139 2-bdrm condo/2-bath (4) 119 219 159 Small room/shared bath (2) 34 75 55 Shared hostel room daily 25 35 29 10 to 29 days 19 29 24 30 or more days 15 22 20 Summer Deposit & Cancellation Policy Two nights' deposit due wi thin 10 days of booking. Deposit is refundable (minus 20% handling fee) if notice of cancellation is received by the St. Moritz Lodge 11 days or more prior to arrival date. 10 days or less deposit is forfeited. Final payment is due upon check -in. Full payment is required at time of booking for Holiday periods and special events. GUESTS SERVICES, AMENITIES AND INFORMATION Continental Breakfast Extra person charge ($15) (winter & suniner seasons) Children 17 and Under Apr6s ski parties no charge when sharing with parents Pool / Whirlpool Check -in. 4 pp.m. Sauna Check-out: 10 a.m. Cable TV No pets allowed Any Day Arrival State Tax: 8.2% (subject to change) Daily maid service Group Rates & Ski Packages are available All rooms have small refrigerators. WIN 11o1. k"r 1 WT 1A U o L-_l fit. iolit, xt,bsc D4uN>tG_, WAIV o "E!1101F_Itf� "ON m . n�g __1 & (llonbaminiums •n[1W IUI courtrco�l �1 10x�a1[ I � n 1 �..�,El EITITE 7-1', NpNwkru t �t- Jporitz Bodge 8� condominiums 334 West Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 800-817-2069 (970) 925-3220 Fax (970) 9204032 1998-1999 Rates & INFORMATION The St. Moritz is a friendly European -style lodge offer- ing its guests a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere at a very affordable price. Located at the foot of Shadow Mountain in the quiet west end, two blocks to the free shuttle service, the lodge offers a wide range of accom- modations. Choose from standard hotel rooms to 1 & 2 bedroom condominiums with the full comforts of home. For the economy minded traveler we offer small private rooms with shared bath as well as shared hostel rooms. Appreciate more of Aspen's exciting winter and summer activities by staying at the affordable St. Moritz Lodge, 1998-99 Winter Rates 11/25-12/21 12/22 1/4 2/6 3/20 & to to to to 4/54/11 1/3 2/5 3/19 4/4 TYPEOFUNIT (sm/occ) Standard Room/1-bath(2) 79 209 119 169 119 1-bdrmcondo(2) 120 289 179 219 139 2-bedroomunit(4) 125 299 199 229 149 2-bdrm condo/ 1-bath (4) 165 369 249 309 199 2-bdrm condo/ 2-ba ths (4) 189 399 279 339 229 Small room/shared bath (2) 65 125 95 109 89 Shared hostel room daily 29 48 38 38 35 10 - 29 days 25 39 33 33 31 30 or more days 21 30 24 24 24 See other side for additional rates & information. 22 ST MORITZ LODGE HISTORY Lots K, L, & M, block 46, township of Aspen, were bought in the mid- 1950's by Grace and Norman Knecht. Of Bavarian birth, they designed and mostly self -built a three story block and framed ski lodge on a minimal budget. The office and adjoining bedroom was their home. A lobby and 13 rooms with bath made up the first two floors, 12 dormitories with 4 beds each and two common baths made up the third story. Floors were linoleum, the walls were unpainted composition board with no trim. One thermostat controlled the entire building's comfort level. A few years later they constructed an ovoid concrete swimming pool. During the mid -fifties the neighborhood was a scattering of log cabins, miner's shacks and vacant fields. The streets were unpaved, and, being on the edge of town, meandered slightly from the normal grid. Like its North - neighboring houses, the Lodge building was set ten feet back from the then Willit's survey West lot line, which was later corrected towards the East. The building was approved as constructed on the alley line, with parking on the City right-of-way. Norman died of cancer. Grace, apparently unable to keep things going, died of alcohol and suicide. Their children, who grew up in the lodge, did not wish to return. A series of Denver law offices, bank trustees and property managers oversaw the rapid decline of both the business and structure during the late sixties. It filled with dogs, cats and hippies, very few of whom paid rent. In July of 1969, Michael Behrendt bought the lodge after competing with two other bidders who wanted to tear it down. It was very like starting from scratch. Over the years, in small affordable increments, the lodge was completely made over to meet the ever -rising expectations of Aspen's tourists. Notably: the dorms were decrowded to 3 beds each, bathrooms were custom mosaic -tiled, lots were paved, rooms and lobbies redecorated three times, phones, voice -messaging, and computers installed, modern locks fitted, a new cold roof installed, irrigated landscaping and gardens built, a sauna installed, the pool completely re -built and tiled, a Jacuzzi installed, zone heating, wiring, T.V. cable, plumbing and fire alarms retrofitted, room refrigerators and customer laundry provided, and so on and on. Even with all these improvements, a 13 room lodge and 33 bed youth hostel is hard pressed to keep income rising above the ever increasing expenses of the Aspen business climate. During the last thirty years all nine other dormitories and half of the competing small lodges expired. Today's customers, even in the "Economy" category, come for shorter stays, with odd arrival dates, yet demand better maintenance, concierge service levels, long office hours upgraded facilities, access to the NET and office support, better 23 breakfasts, and free transportation. Recall that the St Regis, represented to never compete with the little guys, sells off-season rooms for 69 dollars. That the promised demolition of the 150 room economy level Grand Aspen, restoring bed balance, never happened. Recall that Lodge --but not condominium --taxes doubled three years ago. And the last assesment went up 25%. The St Moritz stays open year around. Due to its affordability, over 40% of new employees coming to Aspen spend their first weeks and months staying with us. We uniquely serve many mini -markets: Traveling businessmen and service crews regularly come and go. 15 MAA participants live with us all summer. BOLD, the Given Institute, ACES, hockey and figure skating seminars, the Ski Company and other employers automatically refer their applicants to us. We are the only hostel remaining --offering bed and breakfast for as low as 20 dollars a night. With all these, plus the regular repeating tourists, we still only make a 2% return on equity or 7% on gross sales. Yet somehow, if we are to remain in business, new moneys must be spent to upgrade and maintain the existing lodge. The eight new, similarly priced rooms we are requesting will allow us to compete for groups and to remain in economy lodging by spreading our ever-increasing costs over a wider base. The kitchenettes in each will broaden our market appeal and allow off-season income. Provision will be made for meeting ADA requirements. A steam room will replace the out-of-date sauna. The employee housing is absolutely needed- -most of our employees now live in Rifle! The Fire Marshall has repeatedly requested moving the fire escape to the alley. The phase 2, lodge bay window and entrance changes, add ambiance and replace worn, heat leaking units. The existing lodge boiler is 47 years old. A new dependable boiler will yield fuel economies and a badly needed supply of domestic hot water. We mustn't confuse old funky lodges with reasonably priced, personal and attractive establishments when we think about Aspen's smaller accommodations. And we should ask: is there a niche left in our town for small, noncentrally located, middle-class tourist lodging? If you think there is, and if you think they are desirable, then those that still exist need considerable flexibility and support to survive. 24 S 0 VACANCY 4F 40 ......... . :10 -'4d Coo s � J 10 •� J r „A VACANC Y ' 07 ;Now n, 'o MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Comi-i1unity Development Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director p Director 6 FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner �z. _ RE: Code Amendment — Public Zone and Definitions of "Non -Profit Organization" and "Essential Public Facili ty" - Public Hearing DATE: October 19, 1999 SUMMARY: In 1998, the City of Aspen purchased the Yellow Brick School. Subsequently, the Yellow Brick TaskForce and Tenant Committee which community volunteers and neighbors, defined the building's llding's public purposes to be consist of a variety of educational and community service in nature. The i space to child care providers and non-profit organizations.City currently leases Yellow Brick p The City Recreation Department is now applying to rezone the former school site ( from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Public (PUB). Th allows private schools and child care centers but o ) e R 6 zone district applicant believes the Yellow Brick's existingusesare profit organizations. The within the Intent of the Public zone district. The purpose of the Public zone district a stated in the Land Use Coded is "to provide for the development of governmental an facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other Qo quasi -governmental However, the zone district does not allow a child care c nt nmental purposes." profit uses. This poses an issue of creating non -conformities in p he e school, t non - rezoning; the rezoning application has been concurrently submitted.process of the The applicant is proposing an amendment to add these uses to t district's list of permitted and conditional uses. Specifically, he Public zone Department is proposing to add "private school" and « ub is a Recreation profit uses providing a community service" to the list lic and private non - care center" as a conditional use. A private school an f permitted uses, and "child the purpose to provide educational services; and public d child care center will fulfill providing a community service satisfies the intent to i r and private non-profit uses other governmental purpose. provide an educational, civic, or In addition, there are two revisions to the definitions The first revision' is to add a definition for non-profit organization. Staff proposes the ion °f the Land Use Code. following definition: "Non-profit organization: an entity Which has received a favorable determination letter from the United States Internal regarding their tax exempt status, and is incorporated subject Revenue Service t to or in 1 applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes complianc e with the CRS Corporations and Associations articles 121 to 137. this amendment The second revision in unrelated to the Yellow Brick School issues; and "essential wou ld delete duplicative language in both the essential public eain in the ser vices" definitions. Specifically, the following language woul public facility" "essential service" definition and be deleted from the "essential fireless definition: "The development or maintenance of commercial en soot an essential telecommunication services facilities and/®equipment of wireless telecommunication service, but the development or maintenance services facilities and/or equipment used exclusively for police, fire and/or other response communication systems shall be considered essentia emergenc y services." This text amendment is submitted as part of the application package to rezone the Yellow Brick Sc hool from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Public (PUB). Staff recom mends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a reco mmendation of approval to City Council this text amendment nconcerning and "Essential the Public Zone and the definitions of "Non -Profit Organization" Public Facility." APPLICANT: Recreation Department, City of Aspen. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Text Ame approval with conditions, or application at a public hearing and recommend approval, pP denial to City Council. BACKGROUND: The City navigated a similar rezoning and code amendment path after it purchased the 1993. Specifically, the City rezoned the Red -Brick from R 6 to Red Brick School in p Public and amend ed the Public zone district's list of permitted uses to include as, cultural, and recr eational activities, buildings, and uses. The outcome of the nit - ' rezoning and code amendment approvals was the creation of a co o y Bricks rez g public, private, and non p fi oriented arts and recreation facility occupied by would effectively establish the organizations. The current Yellow Brick applicationsnon-profit organizations, Yellow Brick as a community service center occupied o kindergarten. ber arten. public and private day care centers, and a private g RECOMMENDATION d Zoning Commission forward to City Councila Staff recommends the Planning an tion of approval to amend the Public Zone District and definitions attached « recommendation pp t Organization and "Essential Public Facility as provided in the Non -Profs g Resolution. 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council amend the Public Zone District and definitions of the terms Non -Profit Organization and Essential Public Facility as provided in Resolution 99-' ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Proposed P&Z Resolution C:\home\Code Amendments\Public, Ess Public Facilities PZ MEMO.doc 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT USES AND DEFINITIONS OF "NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION" AND "ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY", SECTIONS 26.710.250 AND 26.104.090 OF THE LAND USE CODE. Resolution #99 -ftofto WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.304.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission may initiate text amendments to the Land Use Code and did so initiate this text amendment to the Land Use Code after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Amendments to the text of the Land Use Code 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 Section 26.310; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the amendment, pursuant to Section 26.310, and recommended adding "Private School" and "Public and Private Non -Profit Uses for Community Services" to the Public zone district list of permitted uses and "Child Care Center" to the Public zone district list of conditional uses, and definitions of the term "Non -Profit Organization" be added and the term "Essential Public Facility" be amended, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a recommendation made by the Community Development Director, took and considered public testimony, and recommended, by a — to vote City Council amend the uses listed within the Public zone district and definitions section of the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 Section 26.710.250 (B. and C.) of the City of Aspen, Colorado Land Use Code is hereby amended to include the new text, denoted by underline: B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Public (PUB) zone district: 1. Library; 2. Museum; 3. Post office; 4. Hospital; 5. Essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops); 4 6. Public transportation stop; 7. Terminal building, and transportation related facilities; 8. Public surface and underground parking areas; 9. Fire station; 10. Public and private school; 11. Public park; 12. Arts, cultural and recreational activities, buildings and uses; 13. Accessory buildings and uses; and 14. Public and Private non-profit uses providing a community service. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Public (PUB) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Maintenance shop; 2. Affordable housing; and 3. Child care center. Section 2 Section 26.104.100 of the City of Aspen, Colorado Land Use Code is hereby amended to include a new term and definition: "Non-profit organization: an entity which has received a favorable determination letter from the United States Internal Revenue Service regarding their tax exempt status, and is incorporated, subject to or in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) Corporations and Associations articles 121 to 137." Section 3 Section 26.104.100 of the City of Aspen, Colorado Land Use Code is hereby amended to delete the following text from the term "Essential Public Facility" denoted by a line drawn through the text: Essential public facility. A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is constructed or its use changed in response to the demands of growth, is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by the general public or used for the benefit of the general public, and serves the needs of the community. The. e- gyStQ;44S Shall be sew APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 2, 1999. 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair EXHIBIT A STAFF COMMENTS: Code Amendment to Public Zone District Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Amendments to the Land Use Code In reviewing an amendment. to the text and 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: No Land Use Code conflicts are evident for the proposed text amendments. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The amendments are consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). The 1993 AACP called for the City to "Support and enhance the conditional use of the Yellow Brick School." The amendments help implement the Plan by expanding the educational uses allowed in the Public zone district by allowing private schools and child care facilities instead of just public schools. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Neighborhood compatibility issues will specifically be addressed pursuant to the rezoning standards. However, Public zoning in most communities provides for a wide variety of uses and activities for citizens and guests. Staff feels that the proposed changes will allow uses which are very similar to the traditional and current uses of the Yellow Brick School. Staff also feels that the proposed uses will be compatible with the surrounding land use patterns. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment will not effect traffic generation and road safety. Specific impacts will be considered during individual conditional use review processes. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not 7 limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The addition of the proposed uses allowed in the Public zone district is not expected to result in increased demand on public facilities. The existing structure has been in existence and the impacts are already accommodated within the current services. In addition the change from school to the proposed public uses has probably decreased the impacts on the Yellow Brick site given the reduction in the on -site population and public facilities required to accommodate them. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The primary affect of this amendment will be to permit the Yellow Brick School's existing uses to continue and moderately expand. No adverse impacts are anticipated on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: This amendment adds language to a land use policy that is consistent and compatible with the community character. For approximately the past half century, the Yellow Brick School and its uses have contributed to Aspen's community character. The uses have recently changed from a neighborhood school to child care providers and community service related agencies. The uses located at this site reinforce core community values and, therefore, are consistent and compatible with the City's character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The Yellow Brick School building was sold by the Aspen School District to the City of Aspen. The change in ownership from a school district to the City is a changed condition which prompted the rezoning and this text amendment. The amendment is appropriate for the entire Public zone district because it carries out the zone's intent and purpose, but is most appropriate in its application to the Yellow Brick site. 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: One of the goals of the AACP is to better utilize community facilities. These amendments allow for enhanced public -oriented uses at a public site. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) J), being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: l . By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject A property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 27ay of Se_ o , 199J (which is ;W days prior to the public hearing date of 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 t� day of Dc o eY be Must 190. _ ( posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted signis-attaehed-here,, Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed b fore me this 1 O. clay 1991by n WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAJ My commission expires: d Cad p ® 00TiA& �� ofOTblic POKIC otablic's ignature Wf COMPOGWEXP*M *IV4. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SAINT MORITZ LODGE MINOR PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (PUD) EXPANSION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 1999, 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 Michael Behrendt of the Saint Moritz Lodge, 334 W. Hyman Ave, Aspen, requesting approval of an application for a Minor Planned Use Development (PUD) and an Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption for an addition of 8 lodge units and 2 employee units. The property is described as Lots K, L, M, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072. chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 1, 1999. City of Aspen Account MARCUS RENEE A GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J SCOTT MARY HUGH 432 W HOPKINS 430 W HOPKINS AVE C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 7000 E BELLVIEW AVE STE 120 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 SCOTT MARY HUGH C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 7000 E BELLVIEW AVE STE 120 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 BRAFMAN STUART REVOCABLE TRUST BRAFMAN LOTTA BEA REVOCABLE TRUST 161 E CHICAGO #30B CHICAGO, IL 60611 SCOTT MARY HUGH C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 7000 E BELLVIEW AVE STE 120 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 TORNARE RENE 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL 409 S GREENWOOD AVE COLUMBIA, MO 65203 YOUNG PAUL III 13355 NOEL RD LB 28 DALLAS, TX 75240 SCOTT MARY HUGH C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 7000 E BELLVIEW AVE STE 120 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 JOHNSTON DANIEL R & MARGARET S 2018 PHALAROPE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 KASPAR THERESA DOSS PO BOX 1637 ASPEN, CO 81612 JBG SECOND QUALIFIED PERS RES TRUST C/O GILDENHORN JOSEPH B 2030 24TH ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20008 STASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP C/O JOHN STATON 191 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 4900 ATLANTA, GA SHERWIN KITTY P & WALTER J 12.2% INT 7017 ARANDALE RD BETHESDA, MD HOPP ROSALIND FRANKEL KATHY REVOCABLE TRUST HOPP CLEMENT A JR AS JOINT TENANTS 444 N WELLS #303 107 S WARBLER LN CHICAGO, IL 60610 SARASOTA, FL 34236 KENDIG ROBERT E KENDIG MARILYN SUE 450 S GALENA ST STE 202A ASPEN, CO 81611 DHM INVESTMENTS LP 90% 15 INMAN CIR NE ATLANTA, GA 30309 CONNER WILLIAM E II LIVING TRUST 264 VILLAGE BLVD STE 104 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 89451 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BARTON META PACKARD 6507 MONTROSE AVE BALTIMORE, MD 21212 ' SAMIOS CAROLE SAMIOS NICHOLAS A P O BOX 867 WESTMINSTER, MD 21158 TORNARE RENE 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FLECK KATHRYN 25 BROAD STREET - APT 15C NEW YORK, NY GRAMIGER HANS R PO BOX 67 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARTEN RANDOLPH 129 MARTEN ST MONDOVI, WI 54755 CLEARY THOMAS P 70 N STEVENS ST RHINELANDER, WI 54501 BIRDMAN DIANE 307 S 21ST AVE HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020 BEHRENDT MICHAEL H 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL " PARTNERSHIP 333 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 FLACK MICHAEL FLACK SHARON PO BOX 266 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 COTTONWOOD GARDENS DEV CORP TUCKERJOHN PO BOX 11117 CASA GRANDE, AZ 85230 LITTLE CLOUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TUCKERJOHN PO BOX 11117 CASA GRANDE, AZ 85230 GERBERG JORDAN V PO BOX 907 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 REEDER LYLE D 75% INTEREST JOHNSON STANFORD H 25% INTEREST PO BOX 4859 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 COTTONWOOD GARDENS DEV CORP TUCKERJOHN PO BOX 11117 CASA GRANDE, AZ 85230 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O COLEMAN CHRIS 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 KUHNE JAY R 55-435 TANGLEWOOD LA QUINTA, CA 92253 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SILVICULTURE LTD C/O LYLE REEDER PO BOX 4859 ASPEN, CO 81612 LODGE PRESERVATION PROGRAM: The following criteria must be met: The proposed development is consistent with the AACp -� The proposed development is COmpatjble with the character of existing land uses in the s Of the LP Overla uririct. g area and with the Y Zone District. p�'pose �— Employee housing or cash -in -lieu additional employees generatedlieu will be provided to for the demolition of mint by the development mitigate for 26.5-0. 1 family hous,n pment or to mitigate This shall include g, as required b generation analysis and credit for existing section employee and the incremental impact between and the proposed develo en the existinge development County Housing development. ``� recommendation from the velopment g Authority shall be considered for`�spen/pitkin this standard. Adequate parkin s develo g paces and public facilities exist w' pment, or that adequateill be provided for t existin mitigation Will will be r he g deficit of required parkin May Y be maintained through Provided. � There exists sufficient GM S g development. development and the allotmentsallotments to accommodate theDevelo are deducted from the respective proposed pment Allotment and Metro Area Developmentp ctive pursuant to Section 26.470.050.Annual Ceilings established MINOR PUD it Development 'Planned,Unit ith the following standards and A development application for a PUD must comply �"� requirements 1, General Requirements: The proposed development shall be cons istent with the Aspen Area Community A. Plan. 0 Os development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land B. The proparea. uses in the surrounding affect the future development of the osed AUr. Vral°pment shall not adversely C. Thepro P surrounding area. the development to the extent to which royal shall only be granted to applicant- D. Final approval the GMQS allotments are obtained by 2. Density: ermitted in the underlying shall be no greater than that p The maximum density be reduced if: A. densities may zone district. Furthermore, water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed l There is not sufficient wat P snow removal and road development; adequate roads to ensure fire protection, 2 There are not sed development; Hance to the prop proposed development because of Slope) ers; maintenance rockfalls and avalanche dangers; 3 The land is not suitabseb�otY of mrud flow, detrimental to the natural ground instability, and the pos ment are detr�m pollution; ro osed develop cent water p � the 4 The effects of the p P tie soil erosion and consequent uality watershed, due to runoff, drainab will have deleterious effect on au q e 5 The proposed developmentdriveway, or trail m th area and the city; or structure, road, surrounding and location of any proposed desi ' h the terrain or causes harmful disturbance ° 6. The � compatible with proposed development is not comp features of the site. critical natural Staff Comments 1 B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor: a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district. b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district. C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district. d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); C. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash access area; i. Internal floor area ratio; and j. Minimum percent open space. If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when Staff Comments 2 averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural Staff Comments 3 consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Comments 4 0 0 ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. 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. ................. TO: THRU : FROM: RE: DATE: SUMMARY: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Nick Lelack Planner � '\,� Rezoning Yellow Brick School to Public Zone from Medium -Density Residential (R-b) Zone - Public Dearing October 19, 1999 In 1998, the City of Aspen purchased the Yellow Brick School. Subsequently, the Yellow Brick Task Force and Tenant Committee, which consist of a variety of community volunteers and neighbors, defined the building's public purposes to be educational and community service in nature. The City currently leases Yellow Brick space to 4 child care providers and 3 non-profit organizations. Now, the City Recreation Department is applying to rezone the former school site from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Public (PUB). The R-6 zone district, which is more suitable for a neighborhood school, allows child care centers as conditional uses, but not non-profit organizations. The amended Public zone district allows both uses, and is a more appropriate zone for a combined educational and community service facility. In addition, the Public zone district is more appropriate for the property given the sale of the building from the Aspen School District to the City of Aspen. For these reasons, Recreation and Planning staff believe that rezoning the former school site is the best mechanism to bring the existin` uses into compliance with the Land Use Code. In 1993, the City purchased the Red Brick School, amended the Public zone district to allow "Arts, cultural and recreational activities, buildings and uses", and rezoned the site from R-6 to Public. The rezoning and text amendment also allowed non-profit organizations and private artist studios to operate in the facility. Concurrently requested via a separate memo and ordinance is a text amendment to add "Private School" and "Child Care Centers" to the Public zone district and clarify that non -profits are contained in the definition of Essential Public Facilities. Together, rezoning the site and amending the Public zone district text will bring the Yellow Brick's existing uses into compliance with the Land Use Code. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council to Rezone the Yellow Brick School Parcel to the Public zone district, with no conditions. APPLICANT: Recreation Department, City of Aspen. LOCATION: 215 N. Garmisch. LOT SIZE: 1.4 acres. ZONING: Current: Medium -Density Residential (R-6). Proposed: Public (PUB) CURRENT LAND USE: The Yellow Brick leases space to 3 child care agencies, 1 private kindergarten, and 3 non-profit organizations. See specific uses below under `Background." PROPOSED LAND USE: The current land uses would continue and potentially expand inside the building. Approximately 1,800 square feet inside the facility is planned to be remodeled to make room for additional non-profit groups. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request. However, in May 1998, the City Council approved the Yellow Brick Capital Improvements. Included in the approval was a provision to make improvements to the first floor, which leases space to child care providers, for safety reasons, energy efficiency, as well as state child care regulations and the buildings esthetics. Another provision was to upgrade the basement to create affordable space for non-profit organizations. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. BACKGROUND: The City contracts building management for the Yellow Brick School with First Choice Properties. The building management includes overseeing all leases, maintenance, and custodial services. Current Yellow Brick tenants include the following: Child Care Centers/Kindergarten Aspen Waldorf School Early Learning Center Mare's Play Group 7 Kid's Club Non -Profit Organizations Community Office for Resource Efficiency (C.O.R.E.) Gay & Lesbian Community Fund Aspen Interactive In addition to the above tenants, the City plans to remodel 1,860 square feet of the building for the use of additional non-profit groups in the near future. RECOMMENDATION: .Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation of approval to rezone Yellow Brick School to the Public Zone District, with no conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council to rezone the Yellow Brick School to the Public Zone District." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Public (PUB) Zone District provisions Exhibit C -- Vicinity Map Exhibit D -- Proposed P&Z Resolution CAhome\Active Cases\Yellow Brick rezoning\PZ_MEMO.doc 3 EXHIBIT A STAFF COMMENTS: Yellow Brick Rezoning Section 26.92. 020, Standards Applicable to Amendments to the Land Use Code In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment to the official zone district map to change the subject property's zoning designation from R-6 to Public is not in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code provided the accompanying text amendment is approved. The amendment does not represent new land use policy or a change in land use policy for the City of Aspen. B. Whether the.proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The 1993 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP) calls for the support and enhancement of the educational use of the Yellow Brick School. The City purchased the facility primarily to continue school's educational functions, and also to provide space for non-profit groups. This amendment to the map is not only consistent with the AACP, but is a step toward insuring that the structure is preserved for educational and community services. After the City purchased the property, the Yellow Brick School Task Force and Tenant Committee was formed to address the building's use. The committees, which consist of a wide variety of community volunteers, determined that the building would be used for educational and community services. They also approved of creating affordable space in the basement for non-profit groups. These decisions support the Yellow Brick's continued educational use and are therefore consistent with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed use is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses. In the past, it was an even more intensive educational use as a fully functioning school, which was a permitted conditional use in the R-6 zone district in the same location. The subject property is situated in the well -established West End residential neighborhood. To the north, west, and east of the Yellow Brick School are single family homes which have 4 predominated in the neighborhood since the 19"' century. To the south are single family homes and the Hotel Aspen. And, to the northeast is the Red Brick School, now the Aspen Arts and Recreation Center, containing many similar uses. The Yellow Brick School committees' decisions concerning the facility's use and tenants has helped to ensure that the, existing land uses are compatible with the neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The rezoning is expected to have minimal impact on traffic and road safety. The continuation of the existing uses will not generate more traffic or hinder road safety; however, leasing an additional 1,800 square feet to additional non-profit groups may impact traffic and road safety. The property is centrally located and easily accessed by foot and by public transportation. Therefore, vehicular trip generation will be less than for a property in a location which does not possess these transit and pedestrian amenities. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether 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 rezoning to Public will not result in increased demand on public facilities. The existing structure has been in existence and the impacts are already accommodated within the current services. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The rezoning to Public will not adversely impact the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Tl-; �, proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen and in the neighborhood. The educational and community service uses have been consistent and compatible with the community character in the past and will continue to help build this character in the future. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 5 Staff Finding: The City purchased the Yellow Brick property from Aspen School District. The change in ownership from a school district to the governmental entity is a changed condition which supports the rezoning from R-6 to Public, providing a more appropriate zone for combined educational and community service building. 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: The text amendment to rezone the Yellow Brick School to Public and bring the existing educational and non-profit agencies into compliance with the Land Use Code is not in conflict with the public interest, but rather is strongly in the public interest. The rezoning of a public building to Public is also within the purpose and intent of this chapter of the Land Use Code. 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL REZONE YELLOW BRICK SCHOOL TO T THE PUBLIC (PUB) ZONE DISTRICT. PARCEL NO.2735-124-36850 Resolution #99 - N1 WHEREAS, a parcel of land located at Block 57, Lots A-F, plus vacated ally, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly referred to as "Yellow Brick School"; and, WHEREAS, the property is approximately 1.4± acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council may approve 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 Section 26.92; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of land and recommended the property be included in the Public (PUB) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission took and considered public testimony and recommended, by a to vote, City Council include this property in the Public (PUB) Zone District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the City Council should include the land commonly referred to as Yellow Brick School in the Public (PUB) Zone District, and direct the Community Development Director to amend the Official Zone District Map accordingly. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 19, 1999. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk CA\home\Active CasesWellow Brick rezonin--\PZ_MEMO.doc PLANNING AND ZONING Robert Blaich, Chair 7 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Mill ly"ellow Brick City of As* ff- LI�L - �Jz "City Sho/r� 1J 1:4 Qb zL� 2� ACSD - -- 1 r E� Cif© r` E�= Red Brick,lo, . Marolt Ranch s _ Ice Garden t �/`� Fire Dept. Mountai n Oaks] Marolt Ranch ��1 _r �\l -I / Castle Ridge � Water Plant IVA Rubey Park Transit City Hall?l 0 ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. 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.