HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20010626 AGENDA
~-~
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Public
II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
HI. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BARBEE PUD AMENDMEN_T_?red Jarman, contd from 6/19
B. 501 E. HYMAN LANDMARK DESIGNATION, Amy Guthrie
C. RUSTIQUE SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR SEATING,
Steve Clay ~og~_~ ~-O
D. CHRISTIANIA LODGE PUD, Fred Jarman ~~/~ ~
IV. ADJOURN
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner �%S
RE: BARBEE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
DATE: June 26, 2001
PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Shadow Mountain Investment, LLC, represented by David Miller,
requests the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an Insubstantial Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment for the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD for the
following:
1) Modify approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11;
2) Increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the
allowance of moving the Paepcke shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass
requirement of the Residential Design Standards;
3) Increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the
Paepcke shed; and
4) Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11.
The Applicant also requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee:
1) A variance from the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design
Standards for the Resident Occupied Lots 5 and 6.
BACKGROUND:
The Barbee Family PUD was originally approved by the City Council on April 12, 1999
via Ordinance #11 (Series 1999). This approval by the City of Aspen City Council,
granted final subdivision / PUD approval for the creation of four free market single-
family residential lots (Lots 1-4); three Resident Occupied lots (Lots 5-7); and four
category lots (Lots 8-11) each of which will contain one affordable housing
condominiumized unit; Lot 12 will contain the parking facility for Lots 8-11 and a
Conservation Parcel.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 1
The property is zoned according to the following matrix:
Lots
Zoning Classification
Lot 1
R-15 / PUD
Lots 2-12
AH 1 / PUD
Conservation Parcel
C
Ordinance 412 (Series 1999) annexed a portion of the lands within the Barbee Family
Subdivision / PUD and Resolution 17 (Series 1999) granted special review approval for
the parking requirements for affordable housing Lots 5-12 by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on March 16, 1999.
PROCESS:
An insubstantial amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the
approved final PUD development plan by the Community Development Director, but
which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
at a public hearing and that action shall be considered the final action, unless the decision
is appealed.
Staff finds that the requested amendment, although consistent with the approved plan,
does not meet the following thresholds for an administrative insubstantial amendment and
therefore requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the
project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the
project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
DESIGN REVIENN' APPEALS COMMITTEE (DRAG)
As a practical matter, the variance request form the Secondary Mass requirement of the
Residential Design Standards for the RO Lots 5 and 6 can be reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission using the DRAC review criteria.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Applicant wishes to amend the approved Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD to 1)
modify the architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, 2) increase
the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the allowance of
moving the Paepcke shed to RO' Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass requirement of the
Residential Design Standards, 3) increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to
accommodate the Paepcke shed, and 4) establish building envelopes for. Lots 8-11. Staff
addresses these requests in the following way. Finally, Staff addresses the secondary
mass requirement in Exhibit A.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum -% Page 2
A. Modify architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11
The Applicant would like to modify the originally approved architectural design of the
affordable housing units (duplexes). The originally approved design and proposed design
are attached to this Memorandum for your comparison. The original two-story design
maintained a more traditional "Victorian" gable roof form with some shed roof dormers
and considerable covered porch elements. The proposed redesign reduces the structure to
a one and a half story miner's cabin style of architecture using a palate of materials such
as vertical barn wood siding, corrugated rusted metal siding and roofing, and cedar fascia.
The structures still offer roughly the same amount of square footage but are reduced in
mass and scale. In addition, the architectural element of the barrel vaulted roof on either
end of the main form of each duplex is certainly a contemporary elements and is out of
character and represents a distinct departure from the typology that defines the western
neighborhoods of Aspen and the original PUD.
More importantly, the Applicant has reduced the two story units to one and a half story
units by going partially below grade bringing the overall height down (to 24.5' as
measured to the ridge which is far below the City requirement) and the Applicant has
added two window wells for each unit for a total of eight window wells. Staff finds this
design considerably reduces the "livability" of the units by going partially sub -grade and
using light wells to get the required natural light. Staff finds that too often, "affordable
housing" units are sunk into the ground as sub -grade units so that they are unseen or
minimize, at all costs any slight impact they might have on more profitable free market
homes. The project originally received approval with a design, as mentioned above, that
provided a very livable feel compared to the considerable reduced proposed version. It is
for these reasons that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the
proposed architectural design for the Lots 8-11.
B. Increase the FAR for RO Lot 7
The Applicant has recently received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission
to relocate the Paepkce shed (currently on blocks at the Bus Barn) to RO Lot 7. The
Applicant would like to preserve the shed and have it satisfy the secondary mass
requirement of the residential design standards. Staff finds this to be acceptable except
that the shed would constitute an addition of 360 square feet of FAR. The Applicant is
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the 360 sq. ft. FAR increase on
Lot 7 to accommodate the shed subsequently satisfying the secondary mass requirement.
The Applicant has also proposed to restore the shed. Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning approve this request.
C. Increase the building envelope on RO Lot 7
The Applicant requests the ability to enlarge the building envelope for RO Lot 7 in order
to accommodate the relocation of the Paepkce shed. which would also satisfy secondary
mass requirement. Staff Finds this to be acceptable and in accordance with the discussion
described above. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning approve this request.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 3
D. Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11.
The approved Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD established the setbacks for the
affordable housing duplexes in a "zero lot line" configuration. This was meant primarily
to accommodate the duplexes as they straddled lot lines and shared a common wall, thus
zero lot lines. However, Staff recommended that more specific building envelopes be
established for any future development that may occur. The Applicant suggested
establishing a building envelope to accommodate the building area footprints with the
newly proposed window wells as shown on the plat. Pursuant to the final PUD, the
Applicant shall be required to follow the landscape Guidelines adopted with the PUD for
all areas outside the building envelopes. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
approve this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the proposed insubstantial amendments are consistent with the originally
adopted PUD and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny 1) the
modified architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, and approve
2) the increase in Floor Area (FAR) by 360 square feet for RO Lot 7, 3) the enlargement
of the building envelope on RO Lot 7, and 4) the establishment of building envelopes for
Lots 8-11. In addition, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
DRAC, approve the requested variance from the secondary mass requirement for Lots 5
and 6.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to approve Resolution No��, Series 2001, for an Insubstantial PUD
Amendment of the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD which approves 1) the
modified architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, and
approves 2) the increase in Floor Area (FAR) by 360 square feet for RO Lot 7, 3)
the enlargement of the building envelope on RO Lot 7, 4) the establishment of
building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) the variance from the secondary mass
requirement for Lots 5 and 6 finding that criterion b and c are met with the
conditions placed in the resolution."
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Secondary Mass Variance Request / Findings
Exhibit B: PUD Standards & Staff Findings
Exhibit C: Location of Project
Exhibit D: Photo Documentation
Exhibit E: Resolution, Series 2001
Exhibit F: Application
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 4
EXHIBIT A
VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS REQUIREMENT
The Applicant has provided a design for a single-family residence on RO Lots 5. The
Applicant intends to design an almost exact duplicate design for Lot 6 as well. However,
this design does not meet the City's secondary mass requirement in the residential design
standards. The Applicant seeks a variance from this standard for RO Lots 5 and 6.
[It should be noted that the Applicant is also aware that a variance from secondary mass
requirement will also be required for RO Lot 7 if the Planning and Zoning Commission
does approve the FAR increase and building envelope enlargement for Lot 7 to
accommodate the relocated Paepkce shed]
The requirement is stated in the Land Use Code as the following:
All new structures shall locate at least 10%of their total square footage
above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal
building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory
buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are
examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
The graphic illustration (left) shows the intended
meaning of this standard. Specifically, The' intent of the
standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical
homes by creating new homes, which are more similar
in their massing, by promoting the development of
accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving
solar access. The criteria used by the Commission to
determine if such a variance should be granted are:
a. Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the proposed design is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community
Plan in that the private sector provision of affordable housing through developing
Resident Occupied housing is laudable; it does not yield greater compliance the AACP.
Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
b. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to; or
Staff Finding:
The intent of the standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating
new homes, which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of
accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. The proposed house
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 5
design for Lots 5 and 6 are 1,700 square feet in size. Currently, the proposed design does
not locate at least 10% of its total square footage above grade in a mass which is
completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element.
However, in light of this, the proposed design maintain significant single -story elements
on the east, south, and north elevations constituted by the first story shed roof / porch
elements. Staff believes due to the small size of the houses and their considerable single
story elements, the intent of the standard is met and the proposed design more effectively
addresses the issue of bulk and overpowering mass on a site as intended by the standard.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site -specific constraints.
Staff Finding:
Lot 5 and 6 are between 5,887 and 6,318 sq. ft in size with associated building envelopes
that are approximately 2,646 sq. ft. in size substantially reducing where development can
take place. In addition, a steep slope begins to rise toward Shadow Mountain halfway
through Lots 5-7 thereby further reducing appropriate buildability. In essence these are
small houses on small building envelopes further restricted by existing steep topography.
Staff finds that the proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific constraints.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 6
EXHIBIT B
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Barbee Family PUD has already been approved by the City Council on April 12,
1999 via Ordinance # 11 (Series 1999). These insubstantial amendments are addressed by
applicable criteria in the PUD standards as they apply to the specific requests.
Specifically, there is no increase in density
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional
requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed
dimensional requirements are listed below and 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:
The Applicant is requesting to change the dimensional requirements of the final PUD for
site coverage and FAR. Specifically, the Applicant would like to increase a building
envelope on Lot 7 in order to accommodate the relocation of the Paepkce shed currently
sitting on blocks at the Bus Barn. The Applicant has recently received approval from the
Historic Preservation Commission to relocate the Paepkce shed to RO Lot 7. The
Applicant would like to preserve the shed and have it satisfy the secondary mass
requirement of the residential design standards. Staff finds this to be acceptable except
that the shed would constitute an addition of 360 square feet of FAR. The Applicant is
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the 360 sq. ft. FAR increase on
Lot 7 to accommodate the shed subsequently satisfying the secondary mass requirement.
The Applicant has also pledged to restore the shed. Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning approve this request.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 7
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:
Staff finds the proposed increase in FAR (by 360 square feet) to allow the Paepkce shed
relocation continues to 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 finds this criterion to be met.
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 of 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 materials, and other attributes that 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.
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.
3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding:
The Applicant received approval for a particular design for the affordable housing
duplexes on Lots 8-11; however, the Applicant would like to drastically modify this
approved architectural design. As stated above, the original two-story design maintained
a more traditional "Victorian" gable roof form with some shed roof dormers and
considerable covered porch elements. The proposed redesign reduces the structure to a
one and a half story miner's cabin style of architecture using a palate of materials such as
vertical barn wood siding, corrugated rusted metal siding and roofing, and cedar. fascia.
The structures still offer roughly the same amount of square footage but are reduced in
mass and scale. In addition, the architectural element of the barrel vaulted roof on either
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 8
end of the main form of each duplex is certainly a contemporary elements and is out of
character and represents a distinct departure from the typology that defines the western
neighborhoods of Aspen.
More importantly, the Applicant has reduced the two story units to one and a half story
units by going partially below grade bringing the overall height down (to 24.5' as
measured to the ridge which is far below the City requirement) and the Applicant has
added two window wells for each unit for a total of eight window wells. Staff finds this
design considerably reduces the "livability" of the units by going partially sub -grade and
using light wells to get the required natural light. Staff finds that too often, "affordable
housing" units are sunk into the ground as sub -grade units so that they are unseen or
minimize, at all costs any slight impact they might have on more profitable free market
homes. The project originally received approval with a design, as mentioned above, that
provided a very livable feel compared to the considerable reduced proposed version.
The Applicant contends that these proposed units remain livable, are of a better design by
providing higher ceilings in the main level, and allow for a gradual rise in building form
on the site as one views the Barbee Family PUD from the adjacent park / open space
where the volleyball courts are located. It could be argued that this reduction in the
overall massing and scale of the units are the result in attempting to achieve greater views
for the RO Lots directly behind them and for the free market lots to the southeast of them.
Therefore, Staff finds that sacrificing the livability and consistent west end Victorian
design of the approved units for the increased views of the RO Units towards Red and
Smuggler Mountains is inconsistent with the original PUD.
Lastly, Staff finds that the proposed design is not compatible with or enhances the visual
character of the city or appropriately relates to the proposed architecture of the RO units
on the property. It is for these reasons that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the proposed architectural design for the Lots 8-11.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 9
EXHIBIT C
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 10
EXHIBIT D
SITE PHOTOS
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 11
EXHIBIT E
RESOLUTION No. a�-
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY'OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT OF THE BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
/ PUD FOR 1) THE MODIFIED DESIGN OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS ON LOTS 8-119 2) THE INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA (FAR) BY 360
SQUARE FEET FOR LOT 79 3) THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE ON LOT 79 4) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUILDING
ENVELOPES FOR LOTS 8-11, AND 5) A VARIANCE FROM THE
SECONDARY MASS REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE
BARGEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION / PUD, CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel ID: 2735-131-00-100
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the Applicant, Shadow Mountain Investment, LLC, represented by David Miller,
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an Insubstantial Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment for the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD for the
following:
1) Modify approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11;
2) Increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the
allowance of moving the Paepkce shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass
requirement of the Residential Design Standards;
3) Increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the
Paepkce shed; and
4) Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11.
The Applicant also requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee:
1) A variance from the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design
Standards for the Resident Occupied Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the
requested modification of approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-
11, and recommended approval for 1) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square
feet for Lot 7, 3) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, 4) the
establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) a variance from secondary
mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 12
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review
Appeals Committee, has reviewed and considered the secondary mass variance request from the
residential design standards and has approved the variance request finding that the following criteria are
met: b. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; and c. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related
to unusual site specific constraints; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of
to (_ — _), for the 1) modification of approved design for the affordable housing
units on Lots 8-11, 2) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square feet for Lot 7, 3) an
enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, 4) the establishment of building
envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) a variance from secondary mass requirement for Lots 5
and 6; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals .and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 19TH DAY OF
JUNE 2001, THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the request for an insubstantial planned unit development amendment, is approved with the
following conditions:
1. That the Applicant shall record the Plat Amendments to the Barbee Family
Subdivision / PUD Final Plat within one -hundred -and -eighty (180) days of the
adoption date of the Resolution established herein. Failure to file these documents
within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a final development
plan. The City Council may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant an
extension of the deadline, provided a written request for extension is received no less
than thirty (30) days prior to the deadline. Reconsideration of the final development
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 13
plan and PUD agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
may be required before its acceptance and recording.
2. The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final plats,
drawings, and agreements as described below shall be recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners
subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute
the development regulations for the property.
3. Development of the property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration,
and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan and
PUD agreement;
4. That the Applicant shall amend the PUD Agreement regarding the approved
changes and shall have the Agreement recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the
development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the
development regulations for the property within one -hundred -and -eighty (180) days
of the adoption date of the Resolution established herein.
CPetinn I
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
4ertinn I.
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Sectinn 4-
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum -% Page 14
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 19, 2001.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 15
EXHIBIT C
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
pl
` 438302 12/06/1999 11:39ii SUB pGRE DAVIS SILVI
22 of 32 R 360.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
-a
M
I'T
i
,��t
..'� �� M
r � ..
�: .,
�, - 4
e _ .�
o'h � r
wl '..
a• .
..
,�� �'
1 ��
�.
����
'=-
� :.
�Y ��
_ E
.s �s�
} d
5(
',, � ..�
F �
Y [•
F� �
• �
k �¢
i� �r
f� ' Y�,
v �
� M �.,
k �^ `
_' k ��� II
� �` _ N
,.
Wit„ .•.�. ... � �+.
�A" � � �
-tom � �- � � .
� �- � � ��u,,,
- `=� '.
_ �°'
P� u�
:� � 4
�, ��
r _ =_ �.
�;�
__;
.= - ��
._
�.
�. � - �;�
��;�.
�_: -
��� ,�
�.-
�:��. ,:
���., ..
�.
��� . - -.
7 .=.
�p
_.
�" �..-
�����,
.�
�-,��- ,
.: ��-'�
�,,
�s�
_. �:.
`:���. .
u pY�.
du,' u
•
;,-
- � �
�� � ,� �-
!% � ��"
+~`�
�,
-'
'�
=— �
��'�=`-
�= y-_
x
X�
April 12, 2001
Tim Semrau
Semrau Building and Design
208 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tim;
ASPEN PITKIN
COMMUMTl DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Historic Preservation Commission would like to voice their support for your idea to
move the "Paepcke Garden Shed" onto the Barbee parcel. Although the building does
not have any formal historic designation, they feel it is commendable to find a.use for the
building, to keep it within the City limits, and to make needed repairs.
Amy uu nrie
Aspen Vistoric Preservation Officer
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-197/5 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAX 970.920.5439
Printed on Recycled Paper
0� t!
�- dF
L-L
el
v1
��
IAJ
IN
r�)j
CL
UA CL
to G
N M
&
I
5/24/O1
SEMRAU
To: Julie Ann Woods/Fred SALITERMAN
From; Shadow Mountain Investment, L.L.0 DEVELOPMENT
Timothy Semrau
RE; Administrative changes to Barbee PUD
Per our conversation the following changes are approved for the Barbee PUD.
1. Single car garages can be substituted for the carports.
2. A plat amendment will be filed showing an easement for a common
driveway between Lots 4 and 5
3. The building envelope for Lot 6 will be enlarged to accommodate a 360
sq. ft detatched historic shed. The 360 sq. ft. will not be deducted from
the allowable FAR for the existing RO FAR on Lot 6.
Items going to Planning and zoning on June 19"
1. A Commission determination if the proposed design of the 4 Category AH
Units are acceptable under the terms of the PUD.
2. An exception requested for the secondary mass provision of the residential
design standard for the small RO homes on Lots 4, 5, and 6.
Thank you,
Timothy Semrau
-m_
a 208B East Main - Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 970-925-6447 - Fax 970-925-6437 '`-}
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E)
, 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 Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the E;i day of Ml'y , 200_�_ (which is,2p days prior to the public
hearing date ofJV F' I 9)con-
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ¢' day
of tJ i , 200�, to the '/ day of v�N = , 200 ( . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
Signa ,00001,
Signed before me this day of
;001. by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: '� -- 12- 04—
V'
Notary Public
NOTARY 4
PU 1GBL
OF
MY COMMISSION EXPIR19
r-1 �y _iT_7--r.'uDi D C.'y N --r.-N �-f -r,'� D D m m D-1-Irr^ D cc: E -4 E C: > 2 r -iD D-r.. 1:1=I=I=1 c mC�� r-1 -1 C=1j _n z
D
Ef 0000 mvc 3 QQ= ^^0 �3 3
C O � I� AAQ�m X-1, aim A
om A m m er m m io
oo °c °c y c °c c° c g g m c g N
m c c
m m mm cm m m m 0 C 0 m C
=o= s 0 ff = O
mi m Z i a a m SL
-
mxx OO ,(� ,n ,n ,n �i m�pNtOpppp_pppppp mwmmw W D D D O
ZG1 Or 0 p A r, r x Z r m O p rj- r A m m 0 0r m m m D G 2 G A Z O (On m m D m m 2, o p (% - O O O -. y O A n zp m m m A A OM8RC fiI T D z m D C� ((Dv� p D
A -rim Xy�pm�Arbcmzwo °° m{ AAmzooOZ:AOOD A �-� {m D.tO� AO qZ<00Sz0 xT. "�D Z�OmO A-1O-riZr D yOx Z f �Dm� ��Cmm mMxwOZ�O>m3D GZOr OzZ �oWM
Mv D=Z
T10
Nz Z Z AD OzD Tp gn AA OZ ZD Ozmm ODyr_mym mmzmozo OZA-C{I A D arm' 00 Z> OZZAZ nM,NmD fy-T>CmA D mnrx�tOltOm V OD m�D TOE
Z A r r m A -� A O Z A < r C O D m O-
Cmo R'm{ ym 9° Tm{<2mr mD < A mnmm r2ozc> O m AOD SZ 20D Z N3AA D 22 n.107O xy AmEs ZzxGg� rD Z Am3p(�i� r=zAOmA o� DAm
4Aj mCAA?in Z { 3vaOOy�A Orr-0 zr A'v rpr0 v D O Z A C- zoo o mz,v� ADrO < -Im m mZ3znppm 02 (Cn< �DAAm3 Z'< Z y
m D R12� G A2m (n SP <ri mm mD D Gm 0 A my30 �� K D� f,Zj C A D ZQOm m ` tN.� D {� O m
z m-1" 3 Om mA VDZ O z <o -4 DT O D z m OA< r Z D m 2
O m m'-o>mjZ= N� mm a n m W mzD A < A p Z mm0 -Zi D m
A A -gym- m Nm r my0 D C OmD C Qo
z �mm Z D K' N y N �pN(0, z -yi O Am = D
0 z m m D
yyy -zi v 1 rNNp z �' z wp z m
AT= r x �O n� '� N O 2
v gi O 3 r z
{
Z
yD
6� ;cgaJAio�Ogn�w�AOawO� O��Rcoo uwim lNi�p���'ig'8'000O Ammo my OO18 NOo Om Oo�rnAV NSWUAO�+O p'pp Cu'o oD mC 000m� :�Nv
coox
D ommz00>ZOy O8QS(--. oj N y0 *D �mKmmmm Dm�O>m A-Ny1D 03XZ0 ZmomA-yi�Dn�p D j rm-XmC50 tO OCDi00c)mmD Na' ��OX O°xXwXy m mmp DrXXX m � m.Z01
mARmI fmjZZx D yXD Z-� rX (n 3 �DaopO ZAm (i�rD ZX O O C AO T%5<Q �X2mC Z A o < o00>m ,Zo m-� Om
A 202ZZg-yl�-l-yifAil2�-yj�OT.o'9�-f C{mi V1M*ooZZr.ZOIG<Gy p Womor.m, z,. D, K. X i W .O y Z m=mNOAm2Sw-T N W Zz�vm��� $ooZyZy
tm-'(Orl �.yim0 C §*Kmo ZwmC�r{mm-i -i-/mmm-y{ = fn myD Z<mz� BD=m m NZDOm�{jrIl1vr <A yv w�O�A {ZZA D o,m
mZ -i(ny CD M D fl° ttDOD D Ay mD
p) mm {OAm -i Z Z Z2 m Z A m m m m-i{ (ntt j �mm< D4� nm0 Z Z wommm, r0 mK<
(Dn Z O Z O < O m D x D -1 D O A 2 N D N (*i c m m Z A O D K r m y m
O A m o O Z (n o N 8 D A Z A Z < O
w D A o o C A A D a Z N m O V v Z w w �n N v .Do A z 0�
o� O No c v w i r -� v -�� O mA� S T =rCN
m m N l A U -� m-
8tt { m z A
N z A Am
m 0 V
G 0
y M
m
0
n�Ni o o D y t`o�+ D w m °' O A v r8 m tO
z z p�j m A m tO m g �o m 0
m D o m
y { Z 3 jw D A XC AXw Xy yCC T GD
�
4i p Z m m .r yC rA O 00
z O
(n j ZZO Z
m 0 x '{ z _nA 1
m OC 0 '( Z
x D m o A A T j ;a <
A o p o w a, m
z z A D C) y
m A o m
v
o
A
O 0 D A w D -1 v r D D 2 D 2 D D 0 D D O O D 0 D; 0 0 0 S r r A D� D m 0 D O D m D O D D 0 a* 0 D m D r y y D D D A K 0 x m O D D z D D m D D'Z (n D T O x F Z D D. 0 (n S D 0
D �D wo D to m c000 D os;> 00-ion 0 D DOMO> OOm OOOOr-ym0 o x.o10> 00M D D my D 0000 www OD Z DOm(n(n ww0ww O mZTp(=D (n zr000(n-'-{{
A r Z A x Z V m T Z V A (n A( A A O� r� A A m Z V A Z O Z C Z 3 O W Z A Z C A rr< V O V O v v O r O Z v r v y A A A ((-- y A O r O y V V V C V V p V p Z Z V A Z O O O C A{
m Om -Im <mmmm-(m -{mmz mD M W WM<m- <wo D x-(m(n-� m D <mOmD TTyi <mOm I mmTD -(mm mmrmm mr< mT D O T
pcmz ODZF12zzzzc szzmzc zOOzmzD m-(�y mOm ZDxzxmz zOzzy(p 0mZozzzmzzzcTo*5DZzz{z zOzzO Z m DAzA { 1z
pm o zp 5 Z N mZ m OO A O'OAO 000cm mph r> ti A MW A < .0 Dm Or=z z 0D O m Am ACC < Om 00
DD A O Oy 4i m AO O A D D mND z020AD �2 D N m D vn A rm'(y(nn0 Am yD AT. A -iD O CfZiir N� D Z
(M D m D Z D mm pZm OC 07 O 0 0 m Z� m (mnnC D y m Z mm o mm O m
m m D m m m D m x n m n r
OrDODDOrOD0030r-00DOr000000D vNOXrTrKrODZOx<OgONOOgr X00DODDr000rzmOrrr00-<OOOOOD N 000 -r Ooo-,NXOD
M
m
mwtOm Nt(D�m W mtD W W (pA(ppmw U6�U8wpmwmOJ W W NO�NO ENO V N _m _m (j��p ppApp����_m V �mAOm�� W �A V NONTOO V UTm4wi�( mw. NNN a!f $ 0� 802 S2 N N m 8. E!Wert S a AO A �0aN
W N� W Nm��00(l'mOO�J00m OOm NN�Nm(Op ON1+tOJ V (OONl.�U��00°'w°'O'w-+O V V V 0��� O O tOA N pp pp��U J
O
W A N V
p
pU Q V� pAp p Vp O Q N (V� U O O
A A Of O� OOi s N W N O AUDA V m
w� O W O W O W O j -.W O W O W � �88--- -- '-.R-.$kJ'R-k'$$$88 . 88k'-.$�k'a8�
m
m
1
z
O
mm i T mmmm* mm:�m mmmmom* :�y mmmm mm mmmm m m mmm mm:Em m*mmmmmm TmmWmmmm mm mm(. :E a
A
m
m
O
r
0 C 0 0 C 0 000000C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O c- O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0
O C m O C m C C O C 0 C C O C m C C CA G D C O m O A T m C C C C m O C m m C C C O C C C m C C C O C O O m�7 C O C C C C C C W m m mm m O C O D C CA O C m m�tt C C m C C D O '(
m D Z m D z z D D m D m M D D m D Z D D D D 3 D m z m -yj Z Z D D D D Z m D Z Z D D D m D z D Z D D D m D m m Z D m D D D D D D Dz z z z Z m D m 3 D D m� Z z D y z D D; m z m
mz m z zzmzm(^zzmz zzzz-zm m zzzz mz zzzm z z zzz mzmm zmzzzzzz mzm-zzmz Zz zz- m
A '( A -i 'i -(A -/ A O -1 -/ A 1 -( -( -1 -i n -7 A A -1 -i -i -i A -i -i -i A -7 -i '-1 -( -( A -1 A A -1 A '� "'� _� -{ _( -( A -4 A n -1 1 A _( -4 _( -i -i N A Z
S x S D
cc 3
0 m
0 mD m 00>00 D m(o DDm DD(nD(n (n (nD 0 0 00000 0 0 0 D wozoozD own wo(nwow ow wwww lzooz D zoo
-i -1 -1 < -1 -1 G < -i G G -1 G -1 -1 -i G -1 -i -i -1 -i -i -1 -i -i -1 G -i -i < -i -i G G -1 -i < -i -1 -i -1 -1 -1 -i -i -1 -i -i -1 -1 < -i -1 G -1 G -1 -1
m T T mm mm T T m m Tm m m m m A
m
T
c
c_
p Np m t p tt NN NRNW RT A �A my
W pWNNOm p WON 0N 00DJ m m
D
r
� " �- •'tom- .. ��
ems.__77-
S�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director ito
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 501 and E. Hyman Avenue and 304-308 S. Galena Street- Historic
Landmark Designation
DATE: June 26, 2001
SUMMARY: The subject site contains two 19th century commercial structures; the
Cowenhoven Block (commonly known as Ute City Banque) and the Cowenhoven
Addition (commonly known as the Arcades Building.) The Cowenhoven Block is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and was designated a local landmark through
Ordinance #57, Series of 1981. It is not clear that the designation pertained to the
Cowenhoven addition, therefore an application has been submitted to clarify the
situation.
Staff recommends landmark designation for both structures on the property.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-001
D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Staff Finding:
The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District and these buildings are
among the character defining structures in the downtown. The intersection of Hyman
Avenue and Galena Street contains a group of prominent historic structures. Staff finds
this standard is met.
E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Staff Finding:
The structures on this site exemplify the expectations for the future that were in play
during the late 1800's in Aspen. The buildings housed numerous important businesses
and were designed in a high style to convey prosperity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z recommend Council approval of Historic Landmark
Designation for 501 E. Hyman Avenue and 304-308 S. Galena Street, finding that review
standards A (historical importance), B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood
character) and E (community character) are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTIO :
"I move to adopt Resolution W , Series of 2001, finding that the review standards have
been met."
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated June 26, 2001
B. Application
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of
an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 26, 2001, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission considered the recommendation made by the Community
Development Director and HPC, took and considered public testimony and
recommended, by a vote of _ to that City Council approve landmark designation
finding that standards A, B, D, and E are met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Council approve landmark
designation for 501 E. Hyman Avenue and 304-308 S. Galena Street, Lots A-D, Block
955 City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 26, 2001.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Robert Blaich, Chair
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin
SS.
State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, F.L. Stan Clauson , being or representing an Applicant
to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U. S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on
the attached list, on the 8th day of June , 2001 (which is 18 days prior to the public
hearing date of 26 June 2001 ).
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 12th day of
June , 2001, to the 26th day of June , 2001. (Must be posted for at least ten
(10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
Signed before me this L t,day of s�
2001, by
,Ncn C aJ.Son
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: n ey - o y - -;;Zoo5
Notary Public
HILLARY PYLE - -
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE � ATE OF COLORADO
MY Commission Expires 04-04-2005
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 501 E. HYMAN AVENUE- LANDMARK DESIGNATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Arcades Associates
LLLC, requesting Historic Landmark Designation. The property is located at 501 E. Hyman Avenue,
Lots A-D, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at
the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 9, 2001
City of Aspen Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM. Steve Clay,Planner W
RE: 216 S. Monarch; Rustique Bistro Special Review, Public Hearing
DATE: June 26, 2001
APPLICANT: Rustique LLC
LOCATION: Lots A. B, C, Block 81,
City and Town Site, Aspen,
Colorado, Katie Reid
Building, 301 East Hopkins
Ave
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-82005
ADDRESS: 216 S. Monarch
ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District.
CURRENT
LAND USE: Restaurant with outdoors seating.
PROPOSED
LAND USE: Restaurant with outdoor
seating.
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this Special Review is to
allow for the continued use of required open
space for outdoor restaurant seating
associated with the Rustique Bistro. The
restaurant was allowed outdoor seating of 16
seats and now requests to expand the seating
to 32 seats. The area of use has changed from
along Monarch Street and Katie Reid Courtyard to a location totally within the
courtyard. The square footage has not changed.
k*AOF PROPOSED SEATING
The Special Review approval on July 5, 1994 was to utilize four two -person tables in two
different locations that would seat 16 people. The applicant would like to consolidate all the
tables and chairs in the patio area behind the Katie Reid House, by Mesa Bank. This
arrangement would allow all the tables to be grouped in one area allowing the restaurant to
use a total of 8 tables that will seat 4 people each to accommodate a total of 32 people. With
the new proposal no new seating will occur along the Monarch Street sidewalk.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A. General. An application for review of a special review shall be processed in
accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at
Chapter 26.304. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
B. Steps Required: One - Public hearing before Planning and Zoning
Commission
C. Notice Requirements: None.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove a development application for Special Review, after
recommendation by the Community Development Department.
REVIEW STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL REVIEW:
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all
standards and requirements set forth below:
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only
be approved if the following conditions are met.
1) The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping
and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not
limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane.
Staff Finding: The proposal will not have adverse impacts on the
surrounding uses and no mitigation will be required. The Monarch
sidewalk area will now be open to pedestrians, yet the "vitality" of the
outside dining will be visible.
B. Replacement of non -conforming structures. Whenever a structure, or portion
thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone
district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after
demolition, the following criteria shall be met: The proposed development shall
comply with the conditions of Section 26.430.040(A) above; and, there exist
2
special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from
other properties located in the same zone district; and, no dimensional variations
are increased and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that
will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and, literal enforcement of
the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship
upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property.
Staff Finding: The will be no replacement of non -conforming structures
therefore this requirement is not applicable.
C. Reduction of open space requirement in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district.
Whenever a special review is conducted to determine whether a reduction of the
open space requirement in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is to be
granted, it shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth at Section
26.575.030(B).
Staff Finding: There will be no reduction of open space from what was
granted approval in 1994.
D. Increase of Floor Area. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine an
increase in the external Floor Area Ratio, as provided in specified zone districts,
the development application is subject to the following criteria:
1) A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area shall be
affordable housing, with no more than forty (40) percent of the additional
floor area intended for other uses.
2) The development complies with the dimensional requirements criteria of
Section 26.430.040(A) above.
3) For Historic Landmark Structures the affordable housing portion of the
additional floor area may be provided either off -site or via a cash -in -lieu
payment, if the following criteria are met:
a. In order to ensure the addition is compatible with the Historic
Landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume, on -
site affordable housing mitigation is undesirable.
b. Any off site affordable housing mitigation is provided at a level
meeting or exceeding the provisions of Section 26.470.070(D)(5).
c. The amount of non -affordable housing floor area does not exceed forty
(40) percent of the additional Floor Area Ratio allowed by Special
Review.
Staff Finding: This requirement is not applicable
3
E. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in the off-street parking requirements, it shall be
considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
Staff Finding: There will be no change in the off-street parking
requirements.
F. Utility/trash service area. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in any utility/trash service area requirements, it shall be
considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.060.
Staff Finding: There will be no anticipated change in any
utility/trash service area.
G. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development,
which does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.480.050,
the development shall be approved only if the conditions set forth at Section
26.480.050 have been met.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable
H. Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards. Whenever a special review is
conducted to determine a change in the design standards required for
Accessory Dwelling Units, it shall be considered in accordance with the
standards set forth at Section 26.520.080(D).
Staff Finding: No Accessory Dwelling Units are proposed therefore
this requirement is not applicable.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Katie Reid parcel provides approximately 2,300 sq. of open space, meeting the
minimum 25% open space requirement for the CC Zone District
The current outside seating allowance calls for eight tables, but only provides for two
seats at each table. Rustique indicates that requests for tables of two are not as common
as request for tables of four; the need for tables of four seems appropriate.
The Liquor Licensing Board requires fencing and gates. The existing gates will be re-
used and are currently painted to match the rest of the building elements. Staff has
spoken with the Liquor Licensing Board representative regarding the change in seating
and was informed that Rustiqe Bistro's current liquor license would not be affected and a
new license will not be required.
The tables are to be thirty square inches, made of maple hardwood, waterproofed and
sealed, stained to match the structure of the building, which is a rustic brick red. The
chairs will be cast iron, with a rustic copper color and will be stored inside the restaurant
at night. Standard outdoor propane heaters, commonly seen throughout Aspen, will be
4
used to accommodate guests during cooler days. The outdoor furniture and appurtenant
heating is aesthetically appropriate for the site.
Staff has received a diagram from the Fire Marshal that indicates the appropriate and
proposed seating arrangement regarding safe evacuation if necessary. The applicant will
be using the proposed fire marshal seating arrangement per the submitted the plan.
Staff concludes that the proposed new seating arrangement and increase in seats per tables
complies with all standards and requirements set forth above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval to amend the original Special Review approval in July 5, 1994
regarding the outdoor seating arrangement and allowance at 216 South Monarch as proposed,
finding that the outdoor dining in this location will not inhibit pedestrian movement or
emergency access and the use is compatible and consistent with the summer activities found
in downtown Aspen.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1) The use of open space is for outdoors dining seating up to eight 32 people.
2) This approval may run with the restaurant until such time that the patio use is
expanded which shall require an amendment to this approval of the property
owners terminate the use of this area for outdoor dining purposes.
3) The fencing, gates, and access ways shall be in accordance with any
applicable Environmental Health, Building Department, Fire Department or
Liquor Licensing requirements.
4) All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to.
Recommended Motion:
" I move to approve Resolution No. Oct Series of 2001, allowing the outdoor dining seating
of 32 people in the Katie Reid courtyard required open space, finding that the review
standards have been met."
5
RESOLUTION NO.a9
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE FOR OUTSIDE
SEATING FOR RUSTIQUE BISTRO LOCATED AT 216 SOUTH MONARCH
STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-073-82005
r
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Charles Dale and Rob Ittner, applicants, for a change from the reduction in open
space requirements for placement of outdoor seating in the courtyard of the Katie Reed
Complex,
WHEREAS, in 1994 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a use of the
required open space for dining with eight two -person tables accommodating 16 people,
and now the new proposal will be eight four -person tables accommodating 32 people in
the same area,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.430.020, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a
development application for Special Review, after recommendation by the Community
Development Department pursuant to Section 26.430.020; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the Special
Review application for a change in the reduction in open space requirements for this
property in the Commercial Core Zone District pursuant to Section 26.575.030(B) and
recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 26, 2001, the Planning
and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered the recommendation of
the Community Development Director and took public testimony for a change in the
reduction in open space requirements in the Commercial Core Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
C�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Special Review application for a change in use reduction in open space requirements
to place outdoor seating serving the Rustique Bistro is approved with the following
conditions:
1) The use of open space is for outdoors dining seating up to eight 32 people.
2) This approval may run with the restaurant until such time that the patio
use is expanded which shall require an amendment to this approval of the
property owners terminate the use of this area for outdoor dining purposes.
3) The fencing, gates, and access ways shall be in accordance with any
applicable Environmental Health, Building Department, and Fire
Department or Liquor Licensing requirements.
4) All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 26, 2001.
7
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
t VIo A) aPri 1.1 A)G
�XISTrn�G, S�ryCK�
i
r
z
4. 1'Z. o i
5.
7
-13-1� u� ---- ���A-r) t,� G __ 2 LPqAj
0
Zf
t MoN -Av- c� s-r,
c-a
RjSTl QJE-
WE
RUSTIQUE BISTRO
M1
MAY 17 2001
Co°"V"Uia,jy DL%1ELOPMENT
April 16, 2001
City, of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
Re: Request for Amendment to outdoor seating disposition and allowance at 216 South Monarch
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an amendment to the outdoor seating allocated to spaces
A, B, and C, located at 216 South Monarch, the Katie Reid Building, currently occupied by Rustique
Bistro. Ratified in 1994, the current allowance provides for 8 tables, to be divided between the
frontage on South Monarch Street, and in the patio behind the Victorian House. In the past, four
tables of two were situated on Monarch Street, which necessitated the presence of a cast iron gate
that infringed upon the sidewalk and public right of way, as well as four more tables of two isolated
in the patio area, which is private land.
We are requesting an amendment to the disposition of these tables for the following reasons:
1. We would like to consolidate all the tables and chairs in the patio area behind the Katie Reid
House, currently occupied by Mesa Bank. This would give us eight tables grouped in one
area, accessible from the bar area of Rustique. We feel that the benefits are as follows:
♦ Benefits to the building and to the City of Aspen:
♦ By creating a more vibrant outdoor life in what is otherwise a little traveled, uninhabited
and often sterile area in the downtown core, we would be bringing a dynamic "cafe
e-xperience" to the edge of town during the Summer months.
♦ Many locals and tourists park their cars on this side of town in the evening, and a
bustling patio serving reasonably -priced food and beverages is an attractive welcome to
them as they walk into the downtown core.
♦ The fence on the South Monarch side of the building is the only "Mall Lease"
arrangement with the city that is not on one of the malls. It is our opinion that the sidewalk
is not the best place for an outdoor cafe, as the view is primarily of parked cars, and not
actually of Bass Park. In addition, glare from headlights and automobile ex-haust is often an
annoyance to diners in this area.
♦ Benefits to patrons and staff:
♦ Research shows that people like to congregate in popular areas for their recreation. A
bustling little "cafe scene" where everyone is grouped together will be more successful than
one where people are separated from one another on two sides of the building.
♦ In the current situation, all table service needs to come through the front door as guests
216 SOUTH \•IONARCI-I ASPEN CO • 81611
PHONE: 970-920-2555 I<AX: 970-925-6634
2 _ April 16, 2001
are entering or leaving. This creates congestion and possible collision of wait staff with
patrons, and is a traffic problem. Given the popularity of Rustique with local Aspenites, we
would like to eliminate this potential disaster by placing all the outdoor dining in an area to
be serviced through a new door from the bar and kitchen, away from the entrance to the
restaurant
♦ The current situation takes twice as many employees to service, and is inefficient. This
hampers the experience for both guests and staff members. By concentrating all the dining
on the patio, the can effectively direct guests to one area, as well as create a more pleasant
and cohesive work environment for our staff.
2. The current seating allowance calls for eight tables, but only provides for two seats at each table.
We are asking that the seating allowance be increased to four seats per table, for the following
reasons:
♦ Rustique is a family restaurant, and tables of two are a rarity for us. We are much more
Likely to need tables of four.
♦ As mentioned above, people tend to gravitate toward busy areas. A dynamic patio with
eight larger tables creates an atmosphere of conviviality; and will bring more people to the
edge of the downtown core, thereby diversifying the community.
♦ The corner of East Hopkins and South Monarch has historically been a "fringe block"
of the downtown core, with little pedestrian traffic. Since the advent of Renaissance in
1990, eve have worked hard against the detriments of our location to increase traffic by word
of mouth. The presence of La Cocina, Cache Cache, Campo de Fiori, Jimmy's, and now
Elevation are assisting in establishing our block as "Restaurant Row". We believe the
expansion of patio dining on private land is an enhancement to the block and to dining
options for the public during the summer months.
♦ Precedent: Both Cache Cache and Campo di Fiori have considerably more than sixteen
seats for their outdoor dining. They, too, are situated on private land, and, in our opinion,
this outdoor seating contributes significantly to the desirability of their businesses in the
summer months.
3. Description of elements:
♦ Gates are required by the liquor licensing authorities. We propose to re -use the existing
gates, which have already been approved and which are painted to match the rest of the
elements of the building.
♦ Tables: to be thirty -inch squares, made of maple hardwood, waterproofed and sealed,
stained a rustic brick red to match the structure of the building.
♦ Chairs: Cast iron, stacking, rustic copper color. Will be stored inside the restaurant at
night.
♦ Heaters: Standard outdoor propane standing heaters, as are seen everywhere in Aspen.
♦ Umbrellas: if installed, umbrellas will be of a pleasing character, and well maintained.
12
-3—
April 16, 2001
We feel that our proposed modifications to the seating allo\vance and disposition at 216 South
Monarch will be of benefit to the Aspen community as a whole, and we ask for your consideration in
allowing us to pursue our vision for a vibrant, exciting, well -planned and attractive patio area on the
North side of the Katie Reid Building
Sincerely,
Charles Dale
Chef and Owner
Rob Ittner
General Manager and Partner
Attachments:
Diagram of e,.dsting conditions.
Diagram of proposed modifications.
13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director•
FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner r55 .
RE: Christiania Lodge Redevelopment: PUBLIC HEARING for Lodge
Preservation Redevelopment, Minor PUD, GMQS Exemptions, and
Conditional Use
DATE: June 26, 2001
REQUEST: 1) The Applicant is requesting appropriate land use approvals to redevelop
the Christiania Lodge which includes 1) relocating three buildings (the
Callahan Cabin and two Pan Abodes) to the front of the site, 2) demolishing
all other buildings, 3) reconstructing the main lodge, fourplex and duplex,
4) adding a new fourplex and triplex, and 5) condo miniumizing the lodge
ZONING: ➢ Office Zone District with Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay & Main Street
Historic Overlay
PROCESS: GMQS Exemptions for LP Overlay & Affordable Housing Units
Minor Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use for "Affordable Housing"
STAFF Approval with Conditions
RECOMMENDATION:
1
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The Applicant, LLC / Austin Lawrence Partners, represented by Mitch Haas, is
requesting appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the Christiania Lodge.
Specifically, the Applicant is requesting the ability to do the following:
1) On -site Relocation of two pan -abodes and the Callahan Cabin;
2) Demolition of 1) the existing main lodge building on the corner of Fourth and
Main Streets, 2) the existing fourplex and duplex located at the back of the site
on the alley, and 3) a one-story dark brown structure located on the corner of
5"' and Main Streets; and
3) Construction of five new buildings to include a triplex, two fourplexes, a
duplex, and the main lodge building for a total of 25 lodging units and 3
Affordable Housing Units.
BACKGROUND
The site is located at 501 West Main Street in the Office Zone District supplemented by
the Main Street Historic Overlay and Lodge Preservation Overlay District. The site is
comprised of Lots A — I, Block 31, and contains 27,000 square feet. The site currently
contains the Christiania Lodge which incorporates a main lodge building, a fourplex and
duplex, two pan -abodes, the Callahan cabin, a one-story structure, a pool, mature spruce
trees and lilac hedge, and an irrigation ditch (in the right-of-way) serving cottonwood
street -trees along the property's Main Street frontage.
As this property is currently maintained on the Historic Inventory of Sites and Structures,
the Applicant has worked extensively with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
regarding the current site design and architecture of the proposed buildings. In addition
to being reviewed by the HPC because of its place on the Inventory, this property is also
being reviewed by the HPC because the site is located in the Main Street Historic
Overlay. As a result of the initial review, the Applicant received Conceptual Approval
from the HPC on March 28, 2001. The Applicant is required to return to the HPC in order
to receive Final Approval.
PROCESS
As a matter of process, the Applicant is requesting approvals for 1) a Minor Planned Unit
Development, 2) Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions for being in
the Lodge Preservation Overlay and for the three proposed Affordable Housing units, and
3) and a Conditional Use approval in order to allow "Affordable Housing" units versus
"employee units." The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority regarding
the Conditional Use. The other aforementioned requests require a recommendation to
City Council.
F
STAFF COMMENTS
As mentioned above, the Applicant wished to completely redevelop the Christiania
Lodge while preserving the Callahan Cabin and the two Pan Abodes and moving them to
the Main Street frontage of the property. In total, there will be five new structures
constructed on the site to include the main lodge, two fourplexes, a duplex, and a triplex.
Currently, the Christiania Lodge contains 28 lodge units consisting of 35 bedrooms. This
redevelopment will result in 25 lodge units and 34 bedrooms. The Applicant is also
proposing three employee dwelling units (2 studios and 1 one -bedroom unit). Therefore,
the final result including the employee dwelling units will be 28 lodge units containing 37
bedrooms. Again, as mentioned above, the Applicant intends to condominiumize the
units after construction for sale to individual owners provided each unit must remain
available to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six months of each year.
As mentioned above, the HPC has provided the Applicant with Conceptual Approval for
the actions proposed for the historic resource as well as the design and location of new
buildings regarding their scale, massing, materials, relationships between structures on
the site and the way the entire site contributes to the surrounding properties. A brief
discussion below provides a bit of background information regarding the HPC action.
ON -SITE RELOCATION OF THE CALLAHAN CABIN & PAN ABODES
The Applicant proposes to relocate two pan -abodes and the Callahan Cabin, from their
current locations at the rear and center of the property adjacent to the alley to the Main
Street frontage. The Callahan log cabin, built in the 1880's, is a simple gable -roofed
structure made of hand hewn chinked logs with board and batten siding in the gable ends.
The cabin, according to the Architectural Inventory Form is of the Late Victorian
architectural style / building type.
The Callahan Cabin (shown to the right) remains as
the only original structure on the site; the lodge
buildings were developed around it in the 1950's and
remodeled in the 1960's and the pan -abodes were
constructed in 1962. The property was initially
placed on the inventory because of the Callahan
Cabin.
The current locations of the pan -abodes (shown
below) are at the rear of the site adjacent to the alley
and somewhat hidden by large spruce trees and the
NY
q •i #� pool area. The Callahan Cabin is located in the
center of the lot and also obscured by large spruce
trees. Staff finds that relocating the Callahan Cabin
E
and the two pan -abodes to the front of the lot on the
Main Street frontage will better promote their
historic significance and establish g a strong presence
3
to the Historic Main Street corridor similar to the L'Auberge adding to the pedestrian
experience.
DEMOLITION OF FOUR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES
During the Conceptual review with the HPC, the
Applicant received Conceptual Approval to
demolish all the building on the site except the
Callahan Cabin and the two pan -abodes.
Specifically, these buildings proposed for
demolition include 1) the existing main lodge
building on the corner of Fourth and Main Streets,
2) the existing fourplex and duplex located at the
back of the site on the alley, and 3) a one-story
dark brown structure located on the corner of 5"'
and Main Streets. None of these structures are the
LOCUS of the Architectural Inventory Form as
having any significance. In the past, the fourplex, duplex, main lodge building and single
story structure have served as lodge units.
Once demolished, the Applicant proposes to replace
the fourplex with a new fourplex, the duplex with a
new duplex, and the main lodge with a new main
lodge structure. The applicant requests to construct a
new triplex where the single story brown structure is
located on the corner of Fifth and Main Streets. The
HPC is the final decision making body that allows
these structures to be demolished..
MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The Minor PUD provides a mechanism to adjust the underlying zoning's dimensional
requirements for particular developments which is appropriate for a site that is 27,000
square feet or larger. Indeed that is the case for the Christiania Lodge site. In general, the
Applicant is proposing to only vary a few
M dimensional requirements of the underlying Office
_ zone district in order to achieve the proposed
r rr design. Otherwise, the Applicant will continue to
meet or exceed the minimums of the underlying
y f f
zone district. Specifically, the requested variances
z X4"^rr
ie
�r. w to the underlying zone district include the
following listed in the matrix on the next page.
The main reason for the request to vary the height
New Fourpiex is to accommodate the tallest structure on the site
as shown to the left.
4
Maximum Height
25 feet
29 feet (for the new fourplex on alley)
Allowable Floor Area (FAR)
0.75:1 (20,250 sq. ft.)
0.81:1 (21,800 sq. ft.)
Minimum Front Yard Setback
10 feet
5 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback
5 Feet
2 feet on the East
5 feet on the West
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
15 feet
As per the Final PUD Plan
Minimum Distance b/w Buildings
10 feet
6 feet (between the Pan Abodes)
Minimum Off Street Parking
0.7 Spaces per
bedroom or via PUD
0.54 (Same as current amount)
EMPLOYEE GENERATION MITIGATION
When the Christiania was last in full operation, it employed between eight to ten Full
Time Equivalent (FTEs) employees. As a result of this redevelopment, the number of
lodge units will remain the salve while the number of bedrooms increase from 35 to 37.
However, three employee dwelling units containing three bedrooms are also factored in
to that number.) The end result will be that the "lodge units" will go from 28 to 25 and
the "lodge bedrooms" will go from 35 to 34. In addition, this redevelopment proposes no
accessory commercial square footage.
As there is no net increase in units and bedrooms, there is no net increase in employee
generation. (The overall lodge will increase in size by 1,550 sq. ft. in FAR.) However, the
Applicant is proposing to create two new employee dwelling units (one bedroom each).
Currently, the Christiania Lodge has a 600 square foot 1-bedroom Resident Occupied unit
located in the lower level of the alley fourplex. The Applicant would like to spit this unit
into two Category-2 studios of approximately 370 square feet each. In addition to this, the
Applicant would like to convert the Callahan Cabin into a 1-bedroom employee dwelling
unit. These units will provide for 4.25 employees (at 1.25 employees per studio unit and
1.75 employees per one -bedroom unit).
The Applicant proposed this mitigation arrangement to the Housing Board and received a
recommendation of approval to City Council. Essentially, the Applicant is proposing a
net gain in housing for 2.5 employees. The Housing Guidelines require that the proposed
employee units be deed restricted to the Category 1 or 2 levels. The Applicant believes
this requirement to be too confining if the units were rented to employees of the lodge.
Instead, the category designation for each of these units will need to accommodate the
salary levels of the Christiania Lodge employees who need to be housed. In light of this,
the Applicant requests that it have the ability to adjust the categories from time to time as
necessary to accommodate the income levels of the employees to be housed. If any of the
units are to be rented to qualified persons who are not employees of the Christiania, then
the Applicant agrees with the Category 2 lease requirements. Regardless of the time -to -
time category designations, rental of the units will comply with the APCHA minimum
lease requirements and will be overseen by the Housing Office.
The Housing office Staff agreed that the deed restricted units will provide housing for a
total of 4.25 employees, but the existing unit should not be included in the calculation for
mitigation purposes since it was required under a previous . growth management
exemption request. The existing one bedroom unit mitigates for 1.75 FTEs: the two
proposed studios mitigate at a level of 1.25 FTEs each, for an additional mitigation of
only 0.5 FTEs. With the addition of the one -bedroom unit proposed for the Callahan
Cabin, this would provide a mitigation figure of another 1.75 FTEs, for a total additional
mitigation of 2.25 FTEs. In the end, the Christiania does not need to mitigate because
there is no increase in units.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to allow the employee units to become "affordable housing units" which is a
conditional use in the office zone district whereas employee dwelling units are a
permitted use.
The Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District allows "affordable housing for
employees of the lodge" as a permitted use, but requires conditional use review for
"affordable housing." The Applicant suggests that employees frequently own their own
homes or are simply not interested in moving from their existing domiciles, the Applicant
desires to maintain a degree of flexibility with regard to the available market for rental of
the proposed affordable housing units. That is, if it is found that none of the employees
of the lodge either need or desire to rent the units on the project site, then the applicant
wishes for the units to be available to other qualified renters.
PARKING REQUIREMENT
As proposed, the current number of on -site parking for the Christiania Lodge will
continue to be located primarily along the adjoining alley and 4th Street. The eleven
existing off-street parking spaces located along 4th Street in a "head -in" configuration
(outside of the property line/in the right-of-way) will be maintained. Along the alley
frontage, there are eight to nine more off-street spaces already existing, some of which
are parallel to the alley and a few are "head -in." The Applicant intends to provide ten
clearly marked and delineated spaces accessed from the alley.
The underlying Office zone district has no requirement regarding off-street parking for
lodge uses. However, the Christiania Lodge must adhere to the Lodge Preservation
Overlay requirement of 0.7 spaces per bedroom unless otherwise established by PUD. In
total, nineteen to twenty off-street parking spaces serve the existing Christiania Lodge,
providing a ratio of approximately 0.53 to 0.56 spaces per bedroom (including both
lodging and residential/employee units). As per the Land Use Code, the current bedroom
count of 35 requires 24.5 spaces and the proposal is to go to 37 total bedrooms (which
includes the employee units) which requires 25.9 spaces where they only have 19 — 20
spaces.
C,
The proposal includes twenty parking spaces, providing a ratio of 0.54 spaces per
bedroom (including both lodging and residential units). According to Section
26.470.070(M)(4) of the Land Use Code, the GMQS Exemption standard indicates that The
"An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment."
A licant's proposal maintains this deficit, but does not increase it. The redeveloped
Pp
utilize a Frias Properties van shuttle service that will e
Christiania Lodge intends to
available to the occupants of the Clu istiania Lodge on an as -needed basis for airporthoot
pick-up and drop-off, as well as for transportation to various destinations throughout
town.
Give
n this discussion, the Commission should be aware that the spaces currently
pro
vided for the Christiania Guests along Fourth Street are located partially in the Fourth
Street Right -Of -Way. The Engineering and Parking Departments have provided4th
condition of approval that requires the Applicant to lease the existing 10 spaces on
ft wide
street from the City of Aspen In addition,
the Applicant shall maintain
alleywaybehind the Christiania Lodge and repaint parking lines so as to fall within the
property lines The current rate is $1.90/square ft / month.
The Environinental Health Department used the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip
Generation Rates to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development,
t, compared
bedrooms
to existing conditions. The change in units, with virtually the
ica
and virtually the same use, is not expected to cause a significant increase in PM-10 or
ose for short-term lodge
traffic. Trip generation rates for condominiums are less than those generation.
units, so condominiumization should not negatively affect trip
7
Pp
In addition, the applicant has taken a number of exemplary measures to reduce traffic
m the project. These include providing van service, an onsite employee �core,
and
from p J
bicycle storage. The proximity to free, frequent mass transit, and to the commercial alternatives e,
Y
music tent, and W. Hopkins pedestrian/bikeway, will also encourage
to
driving.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reco mmends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the the Conditional Use
request and recommend approval to City Council for the Minor Planned Unit
Housin
Development, GMQS Exemptions for the Lodge Preservation and Affor aI Block ing
Units for the Christiania Lodge located at 501 West Main Street, Lots
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. That the
Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a
requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department;
pp
2. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and
PY a the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
3. That the Applicant shall either remove any encroachments into the public rights -of-
e subj ect to current encroachment license requirements as required by the
way orb J
Engineering Department;
pp
4. That the Applicant shall install a sprinkler system for the entire Christiania Lodge as
required by the City of Aspen Fire Department;
pp
5. That the Applicant shall provide Structural Verification for all portions of existing
fou
ndations to be used for new building as required by the Building Department. In
ad, dition p p Y
the 2 Pan Abodes, that are to relocated, must comply with UBC 3 the first
As
the ro ert is going to be condominumizied, fair housing requires that 4o are to first
floor units will have full accessibility and the remaining 11 first floorunits
be
T e B. All common areas are to be accessible including the storage e facilities in
YP a
basement. Alternative storage must be provided to substitute for the basement i
accessibility to the basement is not a desirable option;
6. That the Applicant shall lease the existing 10 spaces on 4th street from the City of
b the Parking and Engineering Departments. In addition, the
d
Aspen as required Y behind the Christiania Lodge an
Applicant shall Maintain a 20 ft wide alleyway
property lines The current rate is
repaint parking lines so as to fall within p p
$1.90/square ft / month;
7. That the Applicant submit the following plans and reports to the Engineering
department prior to the issuance of building permits:
8
➢ Full Soils Report
➢ Drainage Plan
➢ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for both during and post construction
➢ Dust and Noise Mitigation Plan is to be submitted during construction
8. That the Applicant shall pay the appropriate Street Impact Fees to the City of Aspen
for excessive wear to the streets caused by construction traffic to be determined by
the Engineering Department;
9. That the Applicant shall provide a site improvement survey, prepared by licensed
professional which will include the following:
➢ Monuments
➢ Setback lines
➢ Utilities Lines, Pedestals, Poles,
➢ Easements
➢ Existing features: irrigation ditches, sidewalks, driveways, buildings,
➢ Surveyors Seal dated within the last 12 months
10. That the Applicant shall be required to show plans for all improvements, snow
storage areas, utility pedestals, districts, curb and gutter, and sidewalk improvements;
11. That the Applicant shall be required to provide pedestrian access in the form of a
sidewalk to the lodge along 4th Street in front of current head in parking;
12. That the Applicant shall submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the Environmental
Health Department which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of dirt
roads and disturbed areas, cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has
been carried out on a daily or more frequent basis, speed limits, or other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a
nuisance;
13. That the Applicant shall notify the state prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of
these buildings, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., and a licensed
asbestos inspector must do an inspection. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can
proceed. If asbestos is present, a state licensed asbestos removal contractor must
remove it. The Applicant shall report these findings to the Environinental Health
Department and Building Department prior to the issuance of demolition and
building permits;
14. That the Applicant shall submit a more detailed tree plan which will include tree
diameters and species. In addition, the Applicant shall clarify the surface of the
"paths" within drip lines and provide an excavation plan to the City Parks
Department prior to the application for building permit;
I
15. That the Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of
the trees;
16. That the Applicant shall not plant low shrubs or evergreen trees on 5th Street. The
Applicant shall consult with the Parks Department as to a more traditional
streetscape plan. In addition, the Applicant shall install a root barrier system in order
to keep roots away from the sidewalk to prevent up lifting;
17. As a result of the current water line configuration serving the site, it appears there are
3 and possibly 4 water service lines on the property. The one serving the lodge is a
new 2" line coming from the water main on Main Street and should be adequate to
serve the remodeled lodge. Apparently this line also serves other structures on the
property which abut the alley way. That Applicant shall eliminate these connections
and provide a new service line. In addition, there are two older service lines that also
originate from the Main St line and shall be abandoned. Each structure should be
individually metered; and
18. The Applicant shall design an internal sewer service system with a manhole
connection to the District's main in the alley as required by the Aspen Consolidated
Waste District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to approve Resolution No go, Series of 2001, approving the Conditional Use
request and recommend approval to City Council for the Minor Planned Unit
Development, GMQS Exemptions for the Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing
Units for the Christiania Lodge located at 501 West Main Street, Lots A — I, Block 31,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions set forth in the Resolution."
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A — MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT B — GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS
EXHIBIT C — CONDITIONAL USE
EXHIBIT D — APPLICATION
10
6k
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
} AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
} SECTION 26.304.060(E)
Gregory P . Hills I, , 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 Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the 6 day of June , 200 1 (which is 2 0 days prior to the public
hearing date of June 26, 2)001 .
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 6 day
of June , 200 1 , to the 2� C, day of June , 200 1 . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
t /
Signa O
/ye-117
Signed before me this ( day of ]'U ilk
200 1. by
0- k.J
� s
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
I.- ILO-7 005
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
Y'P6
VIRGINIA
WINSTON
RICE .�
L*eOp
'Q
voi uai u1 iuL ub :10 kAA M i U bL5 7395
501 WEST MAIN LLC
408 AASC #202
ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN MTN RESCUE
630 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
BECK GLENN A
PO BOX 1102
VICTORVILLE CA 92392
CARINTHIA CORP
633E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
COSCARELLO ROBERTS, ELIZABETH
515 E LAS OLAS #800
FT LAUDERDALE FL 33301
r"®'SOON S MICHAELE `/
ENHAGEN DAVID A
.V MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611.1619
GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J
430 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
IGLEHART JIM
617 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
JOHNSON STANFORD
PO BOX 416
ASPEN CO 81612
Haas Land Planning, LLC
ALH HOLDING COMPANY GUNNISON
A COLORADO CORPORATION
435 W MAIN ST V/
ASPEN CO 81611
BAILEY MIRANDA 1994 TRUST 50%
CIO JANUS CAPITAL
620 E COOPER V-11
ASPEN CO 81611
B ERR LLC ✓
611 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN •/
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN CO 81611
CROCKETT ANN R TRUSTEE OF THE
PRICE LIVING TRUST
1089B MORA OR
LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94024
FEL0 ANNE S
1700 PACIFIC AVE STE 4100
DALLAS TX 75201
HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS &
HAISFIELD 0SA YERKE
616 WEST HOPKINS
ASPEN CO 81611
1GLEHART JIM
610 W HALLAM ST
ASP'EN:.CO 81611
JOHNSTON DANIEL R 8 MARGARET S
2018 PHALAROPE
COSTA MESA CA 92626
AOYAMA TETSUJI Y
AOYAMA AKIKO
6105 NE KESWICK DR
SEATTLE WA 98105
BARTON META PACKARJ,---
6507 MONTROSE AVID
BALTIMORE MD 21212
BOOMERANG LTD
500 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
COMCOWICH WILLIAM L
420 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO INC
2461 F 1/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-1203
FERGUS ELIZABETH DAWSON
PO BOX 1516
ASPEN CO 81612
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO N A TRUSTEE
C/O NATIONAL CITY BANK ATTN CE
WIGHTON
155 E 13ROAD ST 5TH FL
COLUMBUS OH 43251
ILGEN EILEEN L & JACK D & ELOISE
ILGEN IN JOINT TENANCY
518 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
KAPLAN BURTON B
1997 LAKE AVE
HIGHLAND. IL 60035
�KLI:IN DEBBIE
A* COLORADO CORPORATION KOELLE ALICE
F -SKIMMING RE) PO BOX 2871 LEVIN WILLIAM A REV LIVING TRUST
I CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 1 PENN PLZ STE 725
NEW YORK NY 10119-0799
_. .- �..y vv yv • caaa .i i V i/�.�.b LailU Ylann1119, LLC10004
4AC DONALD BETTE S TRUST
M
5 BLACK►yER RD aDSEN, MAR THA W.
NGLEWOOID CO 80110 ✓ 608 W HOPKINS AVE. APT. 9 MANCLARK DARLEEN L�
ASPEN, CO 81611 313 SAY FRONT
BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662
ARCUS RENEE A 1/
2 W HOPKINS MCGILL LEGACY LTD ✓ ,
OPEN CO B1611 11800 OLD ICA7Y RE)OSULLIVAN MIKE & LISA
HOUSTON TX 77079 PO BOX 4476
. ASPEN CO 81612
iATERSON CHARLES G
00 W HOPKINS
5PEN CO 81611
COTT MARY HUGH
C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC
7000 E 8ELLVIEWAVE STE 120
ENGLEWOOb CO 80111
rASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CIO JOHN STATON
191 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 4900
ATLANTA GA 30303-1763
EDGE INC ✓
-)RADO CORPORATION
20 W MAIN ST
SPEN CO 81611
:ARI JOHN TRUST
BOX 2941
'EN CO 81612
BUNG PAUL 111
3355 NOEL RE) LB 28
ALLgS TX 7524()
RANKIN CONSULTING LLC
336 VINE ST
ASPEN CO 81611
SHADOW MTN CORP ✓
C/O OATES HUGHES & KN{ZEVICH p C
533 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
STRANDBERG JOHN J & JANE T v
2510 GRAND AVE APT 2403
KANSAS CITY MO 64108
VERLEGER MARGAREI' 8 & PHILIP K JR
15 TORREY PINES LN
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5139
v i
WEST ALFRED P JR
WEST LORALEE S
12 GREENBRIAR LN
PAOLI PA 19301
S
RUDOLPH RICHARD L/
PO BOX 3060 E
CAREFREE AZ 85377
SMALL AND LARGE FRIES LLC
1265 MOUNTAIN VIEW
ASPEN CO 81611
THROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 IN1`
THROM DOUGLAS 112 ►Ni
617 VV MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST
14AL.L TERESA 50% INTEREST
6D5 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
YOUNG DONALD L
617 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CG-E716j 1
�c
- DATE START
JUN-05 09:26 Al
P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
JUN-05-2001 TUE 09,26 AM �c
nECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
Vt
-- m
99257395 0 SEND BUSY 007 001 %K
m
TOTAL OS PAGES: 0 �K
�K �c
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CHRVTIANIA LODGE EXPANSION
NPTICETSI
EREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be field on Tuesday, Ruie 26, 2001 at a
meetiiag to bn at 4:30 p.rn, before the Aspen Plarmins and Zoning Commission, City Council
Chambers, CMall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 501 W.
Main LLC reesting Minor Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use, GMQS Lxemptions for
Affordable ;ing and bodge Preservation, and Subdivisiol� approval to expand the C1lristiaizi��
Fudge. Theperty is located at 501 W. Main St, and is legally described as hots A -I, Block 31,
City Emd To site of Aspen. For further inl'oimation, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspeli/Pitkin
Community E ovelopment Department, 130 S. Galena St,, Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102.
s/Robert 131a a Chair
Aspen Plan+ g and Toning Commission
Published in tte Aspen Times on June 9, 2001
---------------
Pity of Aspen Account