HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060123
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 23, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I) Call to Order
II) Roll Call
III) Scheduled Public Appearances
a. Green Tree award to Aspen Skiing Company
b. Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
IV) Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT
on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V) Special Orders of the Day
a. Mayor's Comments
b. Council members' Comments
c. City Manager's Comments
d. Board Reports
VI) Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a. Resolution #5, 2006 - Contract with CDOT Highway 82 Maintenance
b. Request for Noise Variances - Core Parties
c. Minutes - January 9, 2006
VII) First Reading of Ordinances
a. Ordinance #4, 2006 - Skier's Chalet Alley Vacation P.H. 2/13
VIII) Public Hearings
a. Ordinance #53, 2005 - Brumder Plat Vacation
b. Ordinance #54, 2005 - Brumder Lot Split
c. Ordinance #1, 2006 - Limelite Final PUD
IX) Action Items
X) Information Items
XI) Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Februarv 13, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
iii,
THE CITY OF ASPEN
January 6, 2006
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Ms. Rebecca Hodgson
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Rebecca:
Congratulations! This is to let you know that your nomination for an Outstanding Employee
Bonus Award has been approved, and you will receive this award at the January 23,2006 City
Council meeting. Please plan to attend.
You bring a very organized, customer-oriented approach to the performance of your job duties.
Members of the City's management team, the Mayor and City Council routinely call upon you to
'perform urgent and extremely important job duties related to special events, visiting delegations,
and citizen needs. Your intelligence, creativity and attention to detail continue to serve you and
the City very well. Your versatility and cheerful willingness to take on new duties. make you a
true pleasure to work with. You have an uncanny sense of time management and know how to
juggle priorities very well.
However, your performance over the past six months truly has been "above and beyond the call."
You are deserving of an Outstanding Employee Bonus A ward because of your willingness to
accept a series of diverse special assignments and additional responsibilities far beyond what is
customarily assigned to an Executive Assistant, and because of your exceptional performance of
those difficult additional duties that were assigned to you during the times of staff shortage over
the past six months.
,
You were first called upon to serve as the Interim Financial Manager for the Wheeler Opera
House in June and July of2005. In that position, you worked with the outgoing Executive
Director to keep all of the Wheeler's financial transactions going smoothly and to prepare a draft
budget for 2006.
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET' AsPH" COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5199 . FAX 970.920.5119
, Printed on Recyded Paper
Rebecca Hodgson
January 6, 2006
Page 2
From late July through early October, you served as the Interim Executive Director of the
Wheeler. You did an outstanding job of working with the Wheeler staff and Wheeler clients to
keep operations and programming running smoothly. You pitched in wherever and whenever
needed to make sure that several key shows were successful. You communicated clearly with
staff, the Wheeler Board and the manager's office. You implemented a short-term marketing
plan, tilled a vacant assistant production manager position, and were instrumental in organizing
and conducting the very extensive search for a new Wheeler Executive Director. Five finalist
candidates were brought to Aspen for extended interview and arts community meeting processes,
resulting in an extremely thorough and open recruitment process and the successful hiring of a
new Executive Director.
As soon as the new Wheeler Executive Director assumed his position, you were called upon once
again to fulfill the responsibilities of a vital position serving the entire City. From October
through December you served as the Interim Community Relations Specialist. You did an
admirable job beyond routine job duties. You produced two new "City Vues" community
television programs, assisted with the development of public information for the City's Global
Warming Project and helped coordinate the search for the new Community Relations Specialist.
Through all 0\ the changes, interim assignments' and hectic pace, you have been a source of
stability, and all of us truly value your reliability, professionalism, and teamwork. Regardless of
your job duties at any given time, you always cheerfully made the time to assist the Mayor,
Council Members and Manager's Office staff with vital assignments. You made all the
arrangements for the City Council's summer retreat, made travel arrangements, and continued
throughout this entire time period with your Purchasing Officer duties.
The Mayor, City Council, Department Heads, and Manager's Office staff all commend you for
the job you did in taking care of our needs under often-difficult circumstances. You did a great
job in keeping everyone posted and aware of urgent information, and in keeping us all "on track."
We thank you for your tremendous display of versatility and for being such a true pleasure to
work with! Your smile and calm demeanor make this a better place for all of us to work.
Again, congratulations!
O~RmY
Asst. City Manager
December 20, 2005
.
Tara O'Bradovich
Paralegal
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Dear Tara,
Con&ratulations! This is to let you know that your nomination for an Outstanding
Employee Bonus A ward has been approved, and you will received this award at the
January 23, 2006 City Council meeting. Please plan to attend if possible.
You took on the enormous task of compiling and evaluating Goals and Outcome Measure
results for all City Departments after Janice Vos left. This time consuming task wasn't
easy: several electronic surveys had to be completed, posted, and then tallied; the results
then had to be checked and double-checked with each department and the 9ty Manager;
and each department had to be contacted with the results often resulting in discrepancies
lind new calculations.
You often came in very early to work without interruption and met with Janice Vos in the
evenings and weekends~for assistance while continuing all your regular duties as a
paralegal. City employees were able to receive the Outcome bonl,ls checks before the
holidays because you dedicated yourself and gave up personal time. Even when people
were unhappy with the outcome percentages and took it out on you, you remained polite,
helpful and courteous to everyone.
Sherry Young commented, "I had to make a special effort to keep my mouth shut when
some employees tried to 'brow beat' Tara when she was working so hard to~get the Goals
and Outcome Measures completed. She was far more patient with people then many of
them deserved. She was really good at keeping the end result in sight. She was gracious
when people did thank her. She's a good 'troop'. Retain and promote!!"
Tara, you are a pleasure to work with, have a very professional and pleasant manner, and
are a wonderful asset to the City of Aspen. Again, congratulations. .
Sincerely,
STf2A!€.-tM-
Steve Barwick
City Manager
~~
Rebecca Hodgson
Assistant to the City Manager
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197
www.aspengov.com
Prinll'd on Recyded Paper
Outstanding Employee Bonus Award.
.
THE CrTY OF ASPEN
We would like to recognize Richard Pryor with an Outstanding Employee Bonus A ward for the
fourth quarter of 2005. We would like to specifically draw attention to your extraordinary and
tireless efforts in completing the recent upgrade of the Police Department's fleet and its
accompanying equipment.
For the past several years, you have been carefully managing the Police Department's budget
with an eye on the replacement schedules for our equipment. You were able to put off prior
scheduled replacement of our radios, radar units as well as the in car video systems to coincide
with the replacement ofthe fleet vehicles. Your foresight was instrumental in the Department's
ability to complete this project.
Late in 2003, you came to City Council with a proposal for the replacement of the Police
Department's Fleet of Saabs. The relationship with Saab was no longer an option for the City.
You went through the City's bid process with Fleet Management and presented a proposal to
Council for the new fleet of police vehicles. After careful review, Council asked Richard and the
Department to pursue a different direction.
For most of 2004 and early 2005 you embarked on an exhaustive analysis of the Department's
vehicle and equipment requirements for the future. You searched the marketplace and carefully
scrutinized a multitude of vehicles, as well as each piece of necessary equipment to outfit these
vehicles
After determining that Volvo offered a vehicle that met the unique needs of the community, you
negotiated an exclusive relationship with the vendor to facilitate the cost effective acquisition of
these vehicles. This very unique LeaseIPurchase program has allowed the City to procure
incredible new Volvo XC90s at a significant long term savings to the taxpayer. The financial
agreement allows for an approximate saving to the City of $50,000.00 per year for three years.
The new fleet of V olvos offers a significant improvement in safety to both on duty officers and to
the public. They will prove to be an outstanding tool in our customer service efforts as they are
more readily recognizable, more visible and approachable by the public. They are ultra low
emission vehicles in keeping with .City goals to reduce carbon emissions.
You, Richard have demonstrated a commitment to the City, the public and your co-workers
throughout this process. Your commitment has taken this long process to a successful conclusion
exemplifYing exceptional performance and cost savings to the tax payer.
130 SOUTH GALFNA STREFT . ASl'F:-.J, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHO'JE 970.920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197
www.aspengov.com
I'rintedunRecydedParer
January 23, 2005
Ruben Medina
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Dear Ruben,
Congratulations! You have been selected for the City of Aspen's Outstanding Employee Bonus Award. It
is obvious that you take pride in providing quality customer service by envisioning environmentally
friendly and efficient methods. At your own initiative, you saw the need, and researched and implemented
an electronic form system that all city departments will use to save time, energy, ahd paper. You realized
that approving reqnired Personnel Action Forms (PAF's) and other paperwork that is routed among
departments could be greatly speeded up by doing them electronically. You developed an electronic PAF
and performance evaluation fortns that can be filled out online for the city to use initially as a pilot projeCt,
and developed a training program and budget.
By reducing paper use, this system will help meet one of the City Council goals, that of making
Aspen an environmental leader, and reducing resource use and global warming. This will help Aspen meet
its commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and serves as a powerful example for other
departments to follow. This initiative stands to:
· Reduce the need for paper file storage and office storage space
· Provide a cost-reduction since paper forms can be replaced with electronic forms. For one
city form alone (3-part PAF forms) the s'lvings in 2005 would have been $250. For all of
the city's many public and internal forms and applications, the potential savings will be
much greater.
· In one year, for one form only, use of this system will be able to eliminate 2800 pieces of
paper, along with the glo~al warming, energy use, water pollution and air pollution caused
by producing those 2800 pieces of paper. When used for other city forms, the savings will
be much greater.
. Increase the accuracy of forms
· Serve as an example of how to reduce resources
· Save time and increase employees' work efficiency
This is the kind of exceptional initiative that results in financial savings, resource and energy
savings, and a more efficient government. You have taken this initiative forward and have shown your
commitment to make this new process happen. In addition, this new process will result in significant
improvement by simplifying processes, bringing cost and time savings, and by making government
applications easier for customers. In summary, this innovation can be applied to all city departments, not
just in Human Resources.
Sincerely,
Id~ f, ~~
Director of Environmental Health G
j(fSOUTH ALENA STRLET . ASPEN, COIORAIXJ 81611-1975 . PHO~E 970.920.5000. F",x 970.920.5197
www.aspengov.com
PTi~t~d un I,~cyd~d Pap"r
1J:q
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
DATE:
Jerry L Nye, Superintendent of Streets
Randy Ready, ASSiS~ager
January 9, 2006
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
Contract Approval, State Highway Maintenance
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval ofthis contract to authorize the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) to compensate the City of Aspen Street Department for the
performance of routine maintenance duties on State Highway 82 within the Aspen city limits,
between mile post 39.0 (Maroon Creek Bridge) and milepost 42.44 (eastern City limits). CDOT
would pay the City the renegotiated sum of $30,000 per year to perform the maintenance duties
outlined in Section 5 and Exhibit A ofthe contract.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The last highway maintenance contract was approved in
1985. This was an annually-renewing contract in the amount 01'$15,860 that covered only snow
removal, sanding, drainage structure and landscaping maintenance within the CDOT ROW
between the Castle Creek Bridge and the eastern City limits. Staff approached CDOT to request
contract renegotiation several times in the 1990s, but CDOT was unwilling to renegotiate, stating
that the $6,500 per lane mile stipend was beyond the customary municipal reimbursement for
routine winter highway maintenance. CDOT does not reimburse municipalities for additional
maintenance activities (e.g., snow hauling, sweeping and flushing), beyond routine winter
maintenance.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT ISSUES: The pending construction of the new Maroon Creek
Bridge and the Street Department's ability to respond more quickly to pot holes that need to be
patched on the state highway within city limits prompted CDOT to open contract discussions last
fall. The new contract would make the Street Department responsible for snow hauling (not
plowing) if necessary from the new Maroon Creek Bridge. Between the Maroon Creek Bridge
and the Castle Creek Bridge the City would be responsible only for pot hole patching. From the
Castle Creek Bridge to the eastern City limits, the City would be responsible for pot hole
patching, snow plowing and hauling, sanding, landscaping and drainage structure maintenance.
Under the terms of the renegotiated contract, the Street Department would be compensated for
the fully-loaded cost of performing the maintenance duties. Since CDOT is planning to do a
major overlay of the highway from the roundabout to Original Curve this summer, the
assumption is that during the next five years there will be fifteen or fewer pot holes in need of
repair each year. The Street Department can respond more quickly to the pot holes that need to
be patched, thereby improving service to the traveling public. The Street Department can
perform these somewhat expanded duties with existing staff and equipment.
FINANCIAL IMPLlCA nONS: CDOT will pay the City $8,721.0 per lane mile or $30,000.00
per year over the next five years for performance of the highway maintenance responsibilities.
CDOT and the City will renegotiate this maintenance contract after the initial five-year term.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this contract with CDOT, authorizing
payment to the City of $8,721.00 per lane mile or $30,000.00 per fiscal year from CDOT for the
Street Department to perform general maintenance duties on SH 82 between mile post markers
39,00 and 42.44.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # 5 of2006 on the consent
calendar of January 23, 2006.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: q A" ~UAD....9
,d1o:t~ ~.
~ 1 'tzfl~
fI()
RESOLUTION NO. 5
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE
STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the State of Colorado Department of
Transportation a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the State of Colorado Department of Transportation, a
copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the
City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
23rd day of January 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
(State $HwyMtce)
Highway Maintenance (SH 82)
Aspen/Region 3/(NSO)
Rev 10103
05 HA3 00072
CMS ID 05-217
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT made this day of
20-, by and between the State of
Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation hereinafter referred to
as the State and CITY OF ASPEN, STATE OF COLORADO, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado,
81511, FEIN: 846000563, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" or the "Local Agency."
RECITALS
I. Authority exists in the law and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made
available and a sufficient uncommitted balance thereof remains available for payment of project and
Local Agency costs in Fund Number 400, Appropriation Code 010, Organization Number 9991,
Program 3000, Function 2390, Object 5410 I N, Reporting Category 3200, (Contract Encumbrance
Amount: $30,000.00)
2. Required approval, clearance and coordination has been accomplished from and with appropriate
agencies.
3. Section 43-2-102 and 103, C.R.S require the State to maintain state highways (including where
such highways extend through a city or an incorporated town), and S 43-2-135 describes certain
specific responsibilities of the State and affected local entities (respectively) with respect to state
highways that are also part of a local street system;
4. The parties desire to enter this Contract for the Contractor to provide some or all of the certain
maintenance services on state highways that are the responsibility of the State under applicable law,
and for the State to pay the Contractor a reasonable negotiated fixed rate for such services;
5. The parties also intend that the Contractor shall remain responsible to perform any services and
duties on state highways that are the responsibility of the Contractor under applicable law, at its own
cost;
6. The State and the Contractor have the authority, as provided in Sections 29-1-203, 43-1-106,
43-2-103,43-2-104, and 43-2-144 C.R.S., as amended, and in applicable ordinance or resolution
duly passed and adopted by the Contractor, to enter into contract with the Contractor for the purpose
of maintenance on the state highway system as hereinafter set forth; and
7. The Contractor has adequate facilities to perform the desired maintenance services on State
highways within its jurisdiction.
Page I of 12
THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT:
Section 1. Scope of Work
The Contractor shall perform all "maintenance services" for the certain State Highway
System segments described herein, located within the Contractor's jurisdiction, for a total length of
3.44 miles ("the Highways")
3.44 _ miles on State Highway 82 from MP 39.0 to MP 42.44
Such services and highways are further detailed in Section 5.
In addition, the parties agree to provide maintenance services specifically for the Maroon Creek Bridge
(MP 39.071 to MP 39.409) as outlined in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Order of Precedence
In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this contract and its exhibits, such conflicts
or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority:
I. Special Provisions contained in section 22 of this contract
2. This contract
3. Exhibit A (Scope of Work)
4. Exhibits C and D (Contract Modification Tools)
5. Other Exhibits in descending order of their attachment.
Section 3. Term
This contract shall be effective upon approval of the State Controller or designee, or on the
date made, whichever is later. The term of this contract shall be for a term of FIVE (5) years.
Provided, however, that the State's financial obligation for each subsequent, consecutive fiscal year
of that term after the first fiscal year shall be subject to and contingent upon funds for each
subsequent year being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available therefore.
Section 4. Project Funding and Payment Provisions
A. The Local Agency has estimated the total cost of the work and is prepared to accept the state
funding for the work, as evidenced by an appropriate ordinance or resolution duly passed and
adopted by the authorized representatives ofthe Local Agency, which expressly authorizes the Local
Agency to enter into this contract and to complete the work under the project. A copy of this
ordinance or resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
B. Subject to the terms of this Contract, for the satisfactory performance ofthe maintenance services
on the Highways, as described in Section 5, the State shall pay the Contractor on a lump sum basis,
Page 2 of 12
payable in monthly installments, upon receipt of the Contractor's statements, as provided herein.
I. The lump sum payments shall be based solely on the rate negotiated by the parties per
mile of the Highways, times the number of miles of the Highways - figured to the hundredth
of a mile, per fiscal year of the Contract term. Provided, however, that the total of such
payments during the term of the Contract shall not exceed the particular maximum amount
determined by that formula of "rate X miles", unless the Contract is amended or extended
accordingly.
a. The rate negotiated by the parties per mile for this Contract is $8,721.0 per mile,
and the number of miles of the Highways for which the Contractor will provide
maintenance services is 3.44 miles, for a total maximum amount of$30,000.00
per fiscal year. The negotiated rate per mile shall remain fixed for the full term
of the Contract, unless this rate per mile is renegotiated in accord with the
procedure set forth herein in Section 17. The total payments to the Contractor
during the term of this Contract shall not exceed that maximum amount of
$30,000.00 ("rate X miles"), unless this Contract is amended or extended
accordingly.
b. The parties further agree that the cost of maintenance services specifically for the
Maroon Creek Bridge, as outlined in Exhibit A, are included in the cost per mile
shown in Section 4, Paragraph B, subparagraph l.a. above.
2. The statements submitted by the Contractor for which payment is requested shall
contain an adequate description of the type(s) and the quantity(ies) of the maintenance
services performed, the date(s) of that performance, and on which specific sections of the
Highways such services were performed, in accord with standard Contractor billing
standards.
3. If the Contractor fails to satisfactorily perform the maintenance for a segment of the
Highways (or portion thereof), or if the statement submitted by the Contractor does not
adequately document the payment requested, after notice thereof from the State, the State
may deduct and retain a proportionate amount from the monthly payment, based on the above
rate, for that segment or portion.
Section 5. State and Local Agency Commitments
A. The Contractor shall perform the "highway maintenance services" for the certain State Highway
System segments described herein. Such services and highways are detailed in Section I (or Exhibit
A).
B. As used herein the term "maintenance services" shall mean only those maintenance services
normally performed by the State to comply with its responsibility under 99 43-2-102 and 43-2-
135, C.R.S., as described in the State's then current "Maintenance Management Information
Manual", as amended, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The Contractor shall obtain
Page3 of 12
a copy of that Manual from the State before it performs any maintenance services under this
Contract. ("Maintenance services" do not include reconstruction of portions of the highways
destroyed by major disasters, fires, floods, or Acts of God. Provided, however, that the
Contractor shall give the State immediate notice of the existence of any such conditions on the
Highways.)
I. Maintenance services to be performed by the Contractor, at State expense, for the
Highways under this Contract shall include (without limitation) the following services:
a. MP 39.00 - MP 40.00
Pot Hole Repair only
b. MP 40.00 - MP 42.44
Pot Hole Repair, Snow Removal, Sanding and Salting
c. Warning the State's representative of any "dangerous condition" (as that
term is defined in S24-1 0-1 03(1) C.R.S., as amended), and/or repairing
that condition.
d. Inspecting State Highway signing and regulatory devices on the Highways
at least weekly and notifYing the State's Region Transportation Director as
soon as the Contractor has notice of any State Highway signing and
regulatory devices in need of repair.
2. From MP 40.0 to MP 42.44 the contractor shall also continue to perform, at its own
expense, all activities/duties on
the Highways that Contractor is required to perform by S43-2-l35 (I) (a) and (e), C.R.S.,
as amended, including, but not limited to: cutting weeds and grasses within the State's
right of way; fence maintenance; cleaning of roadways, including storm sewer inlets and
catch basins; cleaning of ditches; and repairing of drainage structures, excluding storm
sewers.
C. The Contractor shall perform all maintenance services on an annual basis. The Contractor's
performance of such services shall comply with the same standards that are currently used by the
State for the State's performance of such services, for similar type highways with similar use, in
that year, as determined by the State. The State's Regional Transportation Director, or his
representative, shall determine the then current applicable maintenance standards for the
maintenance services. Any standardsldirections provided by the State's representative to the
Contractor concerning the maintenance services shall be in writing. The Contractor shall contact
the State Region office and obtain those standards before the Contractor performs such services.
D. The Contractor shall perform the maintenance services in a satisfactory manner and in
accordance with the terms of this Contract. The State reserves the right to determine the proper
quantity and quality of the maintenance services performed by the Contractor, as well as the
adequacy of such services, under this Contract. The State may withhold payment, if necessary,
until Contractor performs the maintenance services to the State's satisfaction. The State will
notity the Contractor in writing of any deficiency in the maintenance services. The Contractor
shall commence corrective action within 24 hours ofreceiving actual or constructive notice of
Page 4 of 12
such deficiency: a) from the State; b) from its own observation; or c) by any other means. In
the event the Contractor, for any reason, does not or cannot correct the deficiency within 24
hours, the State reserves the right to correct the deficiency and to deduct the actual cost of such
work from the subsequent payments to the Contractor, or to bill the Contractor for such work.
Section 6. Record Keeping
The Local Agency shall maintain a complete file of all records, documents, communications,
and other written materials, which pertain to the costs incurred under this contract. The Local
Agency shall maintain such records for a period of six (6) years after the date of termination of this
contract or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, or for such further period as may be
necessary to resolve any matters which may be pending. The Local Agency shall make such
materials available for inspection at all reasonable times and shall permit duly authorized agents and
employees of the State and FHW A to inspect the project and to inspect, review and audit the project
records.
Section 7. Termination Provisions
This contract may be terminated as follows:
A. This Contract may be terminated by either party, but only at the end ofthe State fiscal year (June
30), and only upon written notice thereof sent by registered, prepaid mail and received by the non-
terminating party not later than 30 calendar days before the end ofthat fiscal year. In that event, the
State shall be responsible to pay the Contractor only for that portion of the highway maintenance
services actually and satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of that termination, and the
Contractor shall be responsible to provide such services up to that date, and the parties shall have no
other obligations or liabilities resulting from that termination.
Notwithstanding subparagraph A above, this contract may also be terminated as follows:
B. Termination for Convenience. The State may terminate this contract at any time the State
determines that the purposes of the distribution of moneys under the contract would no longer be
served by completion of the project. The State shall effect such termination by giving written notice
of termination to the Local Agency and specifying the effective date thereof, at least twenty (20) days
before the effective date of such termination.
C. Termination for Cause. If, through any cause, the Local Agency shall fail to fulfill, in a timely
and proper manner, its obligations under this contract, or if the Local Agency shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the State shall thereupon have the right to
terminate this contract for cause by giving written notice to the Local Agency of its intent to
terminate and at least ten (10) days opportunity to cure the default or show cause why termination is
otherwise not appropriate. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports or other material prepared by the
Local Agency under this contract shall, at the option ofthe State, become its property, and the Local
Agency shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any services and supplies
Page 5 of 12
delivered and accepted. The Local Agency shall be obligated to return any payments advanced under
the provisions of this contract.
Notwithstanding the above, the Local Agency shall not be relieved ofliability to the State for any
damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Local Agency, and the
State may withhold payment to the Local Agency for the purposes of mitigating its damages until
such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from the Local Agency is determined.
If after such termination it is determined, for any reason, that the Local Agency was not in default or
that the Local Agency's action/inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a
termination for convenience, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as ifthe
contract had been terminated for convenience, as described herein.
D. Termination Due to Loss of Funding. The parties hereto expressly recognize that the Local
Agency is to be paid, reimbursed, or otherwise compensated with federal and/or State funds which
are available to the State for the purposes of contracting for the Project provided for herein, and
therefore, the Local Agency expressly understands and agrees that all its rights, demands and claims
to compensation arising under this contract are contingent upon availability of such funds to the
State. In the event that such funds or any part thereof are not available to the State, the State may
immediately terminate or amend this contract.
Section 8. Legal Authority
The Local Agency warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this contract and that
it has taken all actions required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable law to exercise that
authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this contract and to bind the
Local Agency to its terms. The person(s) executing this contract on behalf of the Local Agency
warrants that such person(s) has full authorization to execute this contract.
Section 9. Representatives and Notice
The State will provide liaison with the Local Agency through the State's Region Director, Region
3,222 S. 6th Street Room 317, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81501, (970) 248-7225. Said Region
Director will also be responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this contract and will
also issue a "Notice to Proceed" to the Local Agency for commencement of the Work. All
communications relating to the day-to-day activities for the work shall be exchanged between
representatives of the State's Transportation Region 3 and the Local Agency. All communication,
notices, and correspondence shall be addressed to the individuals identified below. Either party may
from time to time designate in writing new or substitute representatives.
If to State:
If to the Local Agency:
Page 6 ofl2
Weldon Allen
Maintenance Superintendent
CDOT Region 3
606 S. 9th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
(970) 248-7363
JerryNye
Superintendent of Streets
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5130
Section 10. Successors
Except as herein otherwise provided, this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 11. Third Party Beneficiaries
It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this
contract and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the State
and the Local Agency. Nothing contained in this contract shall give or allow any claim or right of
action whatsoever by any other third person. It is the express intention of the State and the Local
Agency that any such person or entity, other than the State or the Local Agency receiving services or
benefits under this contract shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only.
Section 12. Governmental Immunity
Notwithstanding any other provision ofthis contract to the contrary, no term or condition of
this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the
immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act, ~ 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended. The parties understand and agree
that liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising out of negligence of the State of
Colorado, its departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials and employees is controlled and
limited by the provisions of ~ 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended and the risk
management statutes, ~~ 24-30-1501, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended.
Section 13. Severability
To the extent that this contract may be executed and performance of the obligations of the
parties may be accomplished within the intent of the contract, the terms of this contract are severable,
and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason,
such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof.
Section 14. Waiver
The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this contract shall not be
construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or requirement,
or of any other term, provision or requirement.
Page 7 of 12
Section 15. Entire Understanding
This contract is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the
parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any
force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation, renewal,
addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a
writing executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal Rules.
Section 16. Survival of Contract Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that all
terms and conditions of this contract and the exhibits and attachments hereto which may require
continued performance, compliance or effect beyond the termination date of the contract shall
survive such termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the event of
such failure to perform or comply by the Local Agency.
Section 17. Modification and Amendment
A. This contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or State
law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be
incorporated into and be part of this contract on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth
herein. Except as provided above, no modification of this contract shall be effective unless agreed to
in writing by both parties in an amendment to this contract that is properly executed and approved in
accordance with applicable law.
B. Either party may suggest renegotiation of the terms of this Contract, provided that the Contract
shall not be subject to renegotiation more often than annually, and that neither parlyshall be required
to renegotiate. If the parties agree to change the provisions of this Contract, the renegotiated terms
shall not be effective until this Contract is amended/modified accordingly in writing. Provided,
however, that the rates will be modified only ifthe party requesting the rate change documents, in
accord with then applicable cost accounting principles and standards (including sections 24-107-101,
et seQ., C.R.S. and implementing regulations), that the requested increaseldecrease is based on and
results from (and is proportionate to) an increase/decrease in the "allowable costs" of performing the
Work. Any such proposed renegotiation shall not be effective unless agreed to in writing by both
parties in an amendment to this contract that is properly executed and approved by the State
Controller or his delegee.
Section 18. Change Orders and Option Letters
A. Bilateral changes within the general scope of the Contract, as defined in Section lA above, may
be executed using the change order letter process described in this paragraph and a form
substantially equivalent to the sample change order letter attached as Exhibit C, for any of the
following reasons.
I. Where the agreed changes to the specifications result in an adjustment to the
Page 8 of 12
price, delivery schedule, or time of performance.
2. Where the agreed changes result in no adjustment to the price, delivery schedule,
or time of performance. The change order shall contain a mutual release of claims
for adjustment of price, schedules, or time of performance.
3. Where the changes to the contract are priced based on the unit prices to be paid
for the goods and/or services established in the contract.
4. Where the changes to the contract are priced based on established catalog
generally extended to the public.
Other bilateral modifications not within the terms of this paragraph must be executed by formal
amendment to the contract, approved in accordance with state law.
B. The State may increase the quantity of goodslservices described in Exhibit A at the unit
prices established in the contract. The State may exercise the option by written notice to the
contractor within 30 days before the option begins in a form substantially equivalent to Exhibit D.
Delivery/performance ofthe goodslservice shall continue at the same rate and under the same terms
as established in the contract
C. The State may also unilaterally increaseldecrease the maximum amount payable under this
contract based upon the unit prices established in the contract and the schedule of services required,
as set by the state. The State may exercise the option by providing a fully executed option to the
contractor, in a form substantially equivalent to Exhibit D, immediately upon signature of the State
Controller or his delegate. Performance of the service shall continue at the same rate and under the
same terms as established in the contract.
Section 19. Disputes
Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact
arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement will be decided by the Chief
Engineer of the Department of Transportation. The decision of the Chief Engineer will be final and
conclusive unless, within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of a copy of such written decision,
the Local Agency mails or otherwise furnishes to the State a written appeal addressed to the
Executive Director of the Department of Transportation. In connection with any appeal proceeding
under this clause, the Local Agency shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer
evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Local Agency
shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract in accordance with the Chief Engineer's
decision. The decision of the Executive Director or his duly authorized representative for the
determination of such appeals will be final and conclusive and serve as final agency action. This
dispute clause does not preclude consideration of questions of law in connection with decisions
provided for herein. Nothing in this contract, however, shall be construed as making final the
decision of any administrative official, representative, or board on a question oflaw.
Section 20. Does not supercede other agreements
Page 9 of 12
This Contract is not intended to supercede or affect in any way any other agreement (if any)
that is currently in effect between the State and the Contractor for other "maintenance services" on
State Highway rights-of-way within the jurisdiction of the Contractor. Also, the Contractor shall
also continue to perform, at its own expense, all such activitieslduties (if any) on such State Highway
rights-of-ways that the Contractor is required by applicable law to perform.
Section 21. Subcontractors
The Contractor may subcontract for any part of the performance required under this Contract,
subject to the Contractor first obtaining approval from the State for any particular subcontractor. The
State understands that the Contractor may intend to perform some or all of the services required
under this Contract through a subcontractor. The Contractor agrees not to assign rights or delegate
duties under this contract [or subcontract any part of the performance required under the contract]
without the express, written consent of the State [which shall not be unreasonably withheld]. Except
as herein otherwise provided, this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding only upon
the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Page 10 of 12
Section 22.
(For Use Onlv with Inter-Governmental Contracts)
1. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS 24-30-202 (1)
This contract shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Controller of the State of Colorado or such assistant as he may
designate.
2. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS 24-30-202 (5.5)
Financial obligations of the State of Colorado payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated.
budgeted, and otherwise made available.
3. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent authorized by law, the contractor shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State against any and all claims, damages, liability and
court awards including costs. expenses, and attorney fees incurred as a result of any act or omission by the Contractor. or its employees, agents,
subcontractors, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this contract.
No term or condition of this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits,
protection, or other provisions for the parties, of the Colorado Govemmentallmmunity Act. CRS 24-1 0-1 01 et seq. or the Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. as applicable, as now or hereafter amended.
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 4 CCR 801-2
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ITS DUTIES HEREUNDER AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT AS AN EMPLOYEE.
NEITHER THE CONTRACTOR NOR ANY AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN
AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY WHEN DUE ALL REQUIRED EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND INCOME
TAX AND LOCAL HEAD TAXON ANY MONIES PAID BYTHE STATE PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS UNLESS THE
CONTRACTOR OR THIRD PARTY PROVIDES SUCH COVERAGE AND THAT THE STATE DOES NOT PAY FOR OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE
SUCH COVERAGE. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORIZATION. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO BIND THE STATE TO ANY
AGREEMENTS. LIABILITY, OR UNDERSTANDING EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND
KEEP IN FORCE WORKERS' COMPENSATION (AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SUCH INSURANCE WHEN REQUESTED BYTHE STATE) AND
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ACTS OF THE CONTRACTOR, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION.
The contractor agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of all applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair
employment practices.
6. CHOICE OF LAW.
The laws of the State of Colorado and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shaH be applied in the interpretation, execution, and
enforcement of this contract. Any provision of this contract, whether or not incorporated herein by reference, which proVides for arbitration by any
extra-judicial body or person or which is otherwise in conflict with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be considered null and void. Nothing
contained in any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other special provision in whole or in part shall
be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void
by the operation of this provision will not invalidate the remainder of this contract to the extent that the contract is capable of execution.
At all times during the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall strictly adhere to all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and
regulations that have been or may hereafter be established.
7. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION Governor's Executive Order D 002 00
No State or other public funds payable under this Contract shall be used for the acquisition. operation, or maintenance of computer software in
violation of United States copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. The Contractor hereby certifies that, for the term of this Contract and
any extensions, the Contractor has in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such improper use of public funds. If the State
determines that the Contractor is in violation of this paragraph, the State may exercise any remedy available at law or equity or under this
Contract, including, without limitation, immediate termination of the Contract and any remedy consistent with United States copyright laws or
applicable licensing restrictions.
8. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST. CRS 24-18-201 & CRS 24-50-507
The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State of Colorado has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the
service or property described herein.
Effective Date: August 1, 2005
Page II of 12
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS CONTRACT
CONTRACTOR:
STATE OF COLORADO:
BILL OWENS, GOVERNOR
CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO
Legal Name of Contracting Entity
By
Executive Director
Department of Transportation
846000563
Social Security Number or FEIN
LEGAL REVIEW:
Signature of Authorized Officer
JOHN W. SUTHERS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
By
Print Name & Title of Authorized Officer
CORPORATIONS:
(A corporate attestation is required.)
Attest (Seal) By
(Corporate Secretary or Equivalent, or Town/City/County Clerk) (Place corporate seal here, if available)
ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS 24-30-202 requires that the State Controller approve all state contracts. This contract is not valid until the State Controller,
or such assistant as he may delegate. has signed it. The contractor is not authorized to begin performance until the contract is
signed and dated below. If performance begins prior to the date below, the State of Colorado may not be obligated to pay for
the goods andtor services provided.
STATE CONTROLLER:
LESLIE M. SHENEFEL T
By
Date
Effective Date: August 1, 2005
Page 12 of 12
Exhibit A
MAROON CREEK BRIDGE
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. NEW HIGHWAY BRIDGE
1. BRIDGE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
a. CDOT Responsibility
. Maintain the Hydro carbon separator, per manufacturers recommendations
(Up valley end).
. Maintain inlet, pipes, ditch, and drywell (Down valley end).
b. City of Aspen Responsibility
. Maintain inlets, pipes, and forebay pond (Up valley end).
2. STRUCTURE/MAINLINE
a. CDOT responsibility
. Maintain bridge and all highway bridge related facilities.
. Provide snow plowing, deicing and trash removal.
. Making safe, repairing, spot reconditioning, spot stabilization and spot
seal coating including shoulders and damage caused by ordinary
washouts.
b. City of Aspen responsibility
. Provide snow hauling and sweeping.
. Provide Pothole Patching.
3. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (ON NEW HIGHWAY BRIDGE)
a. CDOT Responsibility
. Maintain Type 7 concrete barrier.
. Maintain bridge railing and surface.
b. City of Aspen Responsibility
. Provide snow removal.
. Provide sweeping, trash removal.
. Maintain pedestrian lighting.
4. UTILITIES
a. City of Aspen responsibility
. Maintain Waterline installed through bridge structure.
II. OLD HIGHWAY BRIDGE
a. CDOT is responsible for maintaining all aspects of the old highway bridge.
Page I of 12
Exhibit A
III. TRAIL SYSTEM
a. The City of Aspen will maintain the trail system on the highway bridge and
trail connections including snow removal pedestrian lighting, trail surface repair,
trash removal, sweeping and striping.
IV. DRAINAGE PONDS AND WETLANDS
a. The City of Aspen will maintain the drainage
ponds and wetlands.
V. MAROON CREEK BRIDGE ITEMS COVERED UNDER SEPARATE
AGREEMENTS
1. CDOT maintenance access to new and old bridges.
. Covered by separate License or Easement Agreement.
2. Landscape and Irrigation maintenance
. Covered by separate Landscape Agreement.
3. Golf Course Parking Lot
. Already in Project P, S, & E.
Page 2 of 12
Exhibit B
LOCAL AGENCY
ORDINANCE
or
RESOLUTION
Exhibit C
SAMPLE BILATERAL CHANGE ORDER LETTER
Date:
State Fiscal Year:
Bilateral Change Order Letter No.
In accordance with Paragraph of contract routing number , [ your agency code here]
_, between the State of Colorado Department of or Higher Ed Institution [ your agency name here
] ( division) and
[ Contractor's Name Here]
covering the period of [ July I, 20 through June 30, 20
suppliestservices affected by this change letter are modified as follows:
] the undersigned agree that the
ServicestSupplies
Exhibit , Schedule of Equipment for Maintenance or Schedule of Delivery, is amended by
adding -, serial numbers and
Price/Cost
The maximum amount payable by the State for r servicel r supplvl in
Paragraph _ is (increased/decreased) by ($ amount of change) to a new total of ($ ) based on the
unit pricing schedule in Exhibit_. The first sentence in Paragraph_ is hereby modified accordingly;
The total contract value to include all previous amendments, change orders, etc. is [ $ ].
OR
The parties agree that the changes made herein are "no cost" changes and shall not be the basis for claims for
adjustment to [price] [cost ceiling], delivery schedule, or other terms or conditions of the contract. The parties
waive and release each other from any claims or demands for adjustment to the contract, including but not
limited to price, cost, and schedule, whether based on costs of changed work or direct or indirect impacts on
unchanged work. Controller approval of this "no cost" change is not required. contractor initials.
Agency initials.
[ Include this sentence: This change to the contract is intended to be effective as of
approval by the State Controller, whichever is later. ]
, or on
Please sign, date, and retum all copies of this letter on or before
20
APPROVALS:
Contractor Name:
State of Colorado:
Bill Owens, Governor
By:
By:
Date:
Name
Title
For the Executive DirectortCollege President
Colorado Department of or Higher Ed Institution
ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS 24-30-202 requires that the State Controller approve all state contracts. This contract is not valid until the
State Controller, or such assistant as he may delegate, has signed it. The contractor is not authorized to begin
performance until the contract is signed and dated below. If performance begins prior to the date below, the
State of Colorado may not be obligated to pay for goods and/or services provided.
State Controller, Leslie M. Shenefelt
By:
Date:
Exhibit C - Page I of I
Exhibit D
SAMPLE OPTION LETTER
Date:
State Fiscal Year:
Option Letter No.
SUBJECT: [Amount of goods/Level of service change]
In accordance with Paragraph(s)
here ], between the State of Colorado
here ], [
of contract routing number
Department of or Higher Ed Institution
division], and
, [your Agency code
[ your agency name
[Add Contractor's name here)
covering the period of [ July 1, 20_ through June 30, 20_, ] the state herby exercises the option for [an
additional one year's performance period at the (cost) (price) specified in Paragraph _.]
and/or [increase/decrease the amount of goods/services at the same rate(s) as specified in
Paragraph/Schedule/Exbibit .]
The amount of funds available and encumbered in this contract is [ increased/decreased] by
[ $ amount of change] to a new total funds available of [ $ ] to satisfy services/goods
ordered under the contract for the current fiscal year [FY 0_]. The first sentence in Paragraph is
hereby modified accordingly. The total contract value to include all previous amendments, option letters, etc.
is [$ ].
APPROVALS:
State of Colorado:
Bill Owens, Governor
By: Date:
[ Executive Director/College President]
Colorado Department of or Higher Ed Institution
ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS 24-30-202 requires that the State Controller approve all state contracts. This contract is not valid until the
State Controller, or such assistant as he may delegate, has signed it. The contractor is not authorized to begin
performance until the contract is signed and dated below. If performance begins prior to the date below, the
State of Colorado may not be obligated to pay for goods and/or services provided.
State Controller
Leslie M. Shenefelt
By:
Date:
Exhibit D Page 1 of 1
1I6J
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE:
January 17, 2006
RE:
Request for Noise Variance
The Aspen Skiing Company has requested two noise variances for proposed
downtown concerts. On January 12,2005, the special event committee reviewed two
special event applications from the Ski Company. The special event committee may
approve these variances; however, since the concerts are downtown and one is scheduled
until 11 p.m., Council should have final approval.
One proposed concert is a new event is scheduled February II at 8 p.m. at Cooper
& Galena. The concert is free and open to the public and the venue will be identical to
that of the concerts held there the past two years and also the same as the next noise
variance request. The Ski Company is sponsoring an "open ski/snowboard event" at
Buttermilk. This event is open to amateurs and to locals to use the X-games venues at
Buttermilk. The Ski Company wants to include music at all their events and have
requested approval for a concert at Cooper & Galena. This concert is scheduled from 8
p.m. to 9:30 p.m., only 30 minutes over the 9 p.m. deadline. There will be tear down,
requiring about 3 hours.
This venue has worked well for the past two years. The parking is left open and
available until 4 p.m. The street is signed for "no parking" after 4 p.m. and the street is
not closed until then.
The other event for which a noise variance is requested is the Core Party in
association with Spring Jarn and scheduled for March 18 at the corner of Cooper &
Galena. This will be the third year of the Core Party in this location. The venue will be
set up the same as above and as in previous years. This concert request is to go from 8
p.m. to 11 p.m. with tear down until 2 a.m. There have been no complaints about
previous concerts.
Section 18.04.050(a)(3) allowed noises states (3) Special Events or other events
to which the public is invited with the following conditions:
(a) The maximum decibel level at the perimeter of the event does not exceed 100
decibels; and
(b) Amplified noise shall be created only between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m.; and
(c) Neighbors within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the site of the proposed
sound source are notified. Such notification must be in writing and be done
seven (7) days prior to the starting time of the event; and
(d) The arrangement ofloud speakers or the sound instruments must be such that
it minimizes the disturbance to others resulting from the position or
orientation of the speakers or from atmospherically or geographically caused
dispersal of sound beyond the property lines.
By approving the consent calendar, Council is approving noise in the core area
after the 9 p.m. deadline; on February II to 9:30 p.m. and on March lsth to II p.m. I
have attached a venue map as well as the letters for each event that the applicants deliver
to all adjoining property owners.
Venue map
Adjacent Property Owners Letters
~..Ji ~ d\ ~ )<...,)")'<5Q VaJ-t'tM.< L~j_
~v._~) c:t, ~iI~ ~
70 Q.v..A-.. ~~, /.1. _ T" ~
~~t;j ~ ~~ ~ (J
~
ll>
:-
~
~
.
out,! O.llt! ,OZ
'lS W:lJllD .
~
.
~: i ~
o . "" ~
~ . PI>
W ::;c '"
. 0 ~
. e
. "
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. I -
"'1 Z I
if ~.
~ ~
~
~
~
w
;"
~
! .~!!
. . .
llPr: , :
!!' ....,: :-
~ . >0' .0
.. '~" ,-
..... . . .
. .
" "
; : ,
~
~
~
"a
kr1
i 1 _;
kJ, ~:
! ! ~ l
UG.i " :
r'1~~
~"
::i ~mq aIH
m.......:........................................ :
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......;,:;.......................".................
-
j;j"j;jj;j
.....................................,."...........
-00
j;j~...j;j..
........................"".."...."..............
if.
~ 8
Iil
L!J
<:
~
G
t"""
~
a
~
.@l
~
~
I!
~
~
1!
....
a
~
~
II . I . 'lS U!Y\l
.
0 .
. ::
.
~'" ~ If. ! ~ II) /~
"'1 "Cl
~ ~ ~ ~ t""
::! ' g~ 0 I a!
a, 8."" ....,
f :9~ ~" 15 "tI~
@ ~ =. e;&l
" ... :>;g
~ ~ ....
00
"0
" ijl
~ ~
~ ~
a 3
s
o
(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~ t;i i ~i
~ [if~i
.
.
.
'lS W:l\1lf)
rn
I
January, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
Aspen Skiing Company wishes to inform you that the Aspen City Council has approved an ASC concert
production in downtown Aspen, The concert will be held on Friday, February 11, 2006 and will be free
and open to the public, While a concert can be held in many different locations such as conference
centers, nightclubs, stadiums or even on-mountain we want to showcase what is unique to our
comrnunity, our one-of-a-kind downtown core. A stage with lighting will be built on the mall at the
corner of Cooper and Galena and downtown Aspen will be turned into an exceptional spectator venue for
the world to see,
Please refer to the following information for an explanation of how the venue will be set up and how it
will operate,
A mobile 40' x 30' stage will be placed on the Cooper St maIl at Galena St. This stage is self contained
within a semi trailer, It takes about 3 hours to set up and take down, The stage deck is about 4' high and
there is a load bearing, hydraulic roof at about 25' high. Behind the stage will be one RV for band
dressing room and production, Two quiet generators will also be in this area,
The venue will run east along Cooper from the stage to Hunter Street and south along Galena Street to
Hyman, Within the designated venue there will be AspenSnowmass, Budweiser and other sponsor
banners, Eight port-a-potties will be placed within the venue at the corner of Cooper and Galena,
The stage, RVand generator will all be placed in position on Feb, 10, The stage will be removed from
the mall after the event on the night ofFeb, II by 1 am in the morning ofFeb, 12, The potties will be
removed on the morning of Feb. 12 by noon. The Generators will be removed from the Galena mall on
Feb. 13 by noon.
A security presence will be strong in and around the venue from I hour before the event until 1 hour after
the event, Security will be provided by private security crews, Private security will number 25-50
persons and will be placed in the following areas:
Stage I Production Area - Continuous frorn the time stage in place until it is out of the street,
Traffic barricades - Feb, 1 I from 6 pm until approximately 10 pm.
Front of stage barricade - Feb, 11 from 6 pm until 'h hour after show ends
Cardboard box trash containers lined with plastic trash bags will be placed about every 50 feet on Galena
between Hyman and Cooper, on Cooper between Galena and Spring. These will be removed after the
event
Street and parking closures will be as follows:
Feb. 10 AIl Day
No streets or parking will be closed.
Crowd control barricade behind the stage on the Galena and Cooper malls to create a production area.
Feb, 11
No Parking after 4 pm on Galena between Hyman and Cooper
No Parking on Cooper after 4 pm between Galena and Hunter
Galena closed to traffic after 4 pm between Hyman and Cooper
Cooper closed to traffic after 4 pm between Galena and Hunter
Feb, 11 10 pm
After the concert, once the street is clear of pedestrians, Cooper and Galena will be re-opened to traffic
and parking,
Feb. 12 By 1 am
Stage will be removed from Cooper St. mall
All amplified noise shall occur between 4:00 prn and 9:30 pm, Sound levels may exceed the zone-district
noise levels up to 100 decibels between 9 am and 9 pm, The Event Coordinator will notify the neighbors
at addresses in close proximity to the venue and do everything possible to contain the noise inside the
perimeter of the event. The maximum decibel level at the perimeter of the event will at times exceed 100
decibels.
The arrangement ofloud speakers or the sound instruments will be such that it minimizes the disturbance
to others resulting from the position or orientation of the speakers or from atmospherically or
geographically caused dispersal of sound beyond the property lines, All reasonable measures will be taken
to baffle or reduce noise impacts on the neighbors.
Event organizers agree to work with the Police Department in addressing noise complaints from
neighbors, which may include the termination of the event.
The impact of our event on the homeowners and businesses in this downtown area is of concern to us, If
you would like to talk to someone about any questions or issues please call Avalanche Productions at
544-2068 and leave a message with your name and number and we will call to discuss with you,
Thank you for your support,
John Rigney
Aspen Skiing Company
Managing Director, Event Marketing
-'--
asPeJLj5RDWTTlil.55
MARCH 16 - 19, 2006
FEATURING CORE PARTY IN DOWNTOWN ASPEN MARCH 18
January 10, 2006
This year's Spring Jam is full of events that will make the Aspen experience a memorable one for all that are visiting town
and for locals that have come to expect exceptional events from Aspen/Snowmass. The Core Party is scheduled for
Saturday, March 18 on the corner of Cooper and Galena streets, The Core Party venue is located on City of Aspen
property, which requires a special permit. ASC representatives appeared before the special events permit committee on
January 12 followed by an appearance before City Council on January 23 for permission to host the event. If you have
any concerns regarding plans in the venue please contact either Kathryn Koch with the City of Aspen at 429-2685 or
Event Manager Nancy Scheinkman at 925-2969 and we will be happy to address your questions. If you are interested in
learning more about the weekend's events, please visit www.aSDensnowmass.com for a complete schedule.
Saturday, March 18
8 - 11 pm
Core Party ~ 'Core' defines genres and takes on a Spring Jam twist as the heart of downtown Aspen is transformed into a
one-of-a-kind fete with live concert performances, dj's, dancers and special effects,
VENUE
. The venue, located at the corner of Cooper and Galena streets (please see attached layout), may feature graffiti artists
on platforms, a stage, lighting and sound systems, art exhibits TBD, an inflatable video screen and sponsor
banners/signage,
. A 40' x 24' stage will be placed on the mall at the comer of Cooper and Galena streets, The stage deck will be about
6' high and there will be a load-bearing, roof at about 20' above the deck, and 26' offthe ground. 2 wings measuring
8' x 16' will extend from the front ofthe stage, The stage will play north down Galena and east down Cooper. Two
quiet generators will also be in this area along with various trucks, forklift, equipment etc.
. Friday, March 17 (8 am - 6 pm) set up to include placement of stage, lights, forklift and generators etc. In addition,
the City of Aspen will remove the light poles and garbage bins within the stage area and the light poles across the
street. Some minor storage of materials and set-up may occur starting as early as the 16th,
. Saturday, March 18 (8 am -7 pm) set up continues to include build out oflighting and sound, front of house tent,
artist platforms, triangle towers, beer garden and video screen inflatable. See additional information below related to
parking and street closures.
. Saturday, March IS (8 pm - 11 pm) a sound system will be running. There may also be announcements earlier and a
sound check will be conducted from 5:30 - 6:30 pm,
· Saturday, March 18 (11 pm - 2 am) teardown to include sound, beer garden and any street tents/platforms/structures,
We will make best efforts to work with surrounding homeowners and lodges to keep loud noise to a minimum,
. Sunday, March 19 (Sam - 2 pm) teardown continues to include lighting, stage, trailer, forklift and generators.
· Monday morning the generators, forklift and any light plants will be picked up along with porta potties,
. All sidewalks, with the exception of the front of the stage area, will remain open and safely accessible to the public
throughout set-up/tear-down and the event.
. Porta potties will be provided for public use,
. An ALS ambulance will be on site for any medical issues,
. There may be I - 2 Nissan trucks featuring video screens and/or dancers placed in the venue.
. There will be sponsor tents and sponsor signage in the venue TBD,
. There will be a "Hollywood" type searchlight in use at the venue.
. 4 fire cauldrons with fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Marshall will be in use,
PARKING & STREET CLOSURES
. Parking and streets will remain open until 4 pm on March 18, with the exception of 10 spots requested for event use
from 8 am Saturday, March 18 until Noon on Sunday, March 19. (see attached venue layout), The spots will be used
for platforms for artists, lighting, and front of house mix location and some of them are already assigned for taxi use,
so removing those spaces will not affect public parking. We will post signs clearly explaining the parking regulations.
The public will be encouraged to continue with "business as usual" until 4 pm when the streets/parking are closed,
. At 4 pm parking will be prohibited from the comers of Hyman & Galena to Cooper & Hunter, Barricades will be
staged at those comers to close the venue to through traffic. These traffic barricades will be removed when the venue
is cleared by approximately 2 am, If any cars left in the venue are affecting set-up at 4 pm, then they will be towed at
the owner's expense, to a site determined by the City of Aspen, Any additional cars left in the venue will be towed at
7 pm prior to the event start, The parking plan/street closure plan was very successful last year with only a couple of
cars towed, Business was conducted as usual throughout the day.
SECURITY
. Approximately 25 - 30 private paid security personnel will be on site to handle crowd control from 8 pm - Midnight.
ALCOHOL
· A beer garden will be located in the venue with appropriate security and fencing. Location and management TBD.
TRASH
· BFI cardboard containers with liners will be placed throughout the venue approximately every 50 feet and paid labor
will be hired to keep the venue clean during and after the event.
The impact of our event on the homeowners and businesses surrounding these venues is of concern to us, so please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you for your support,
Nancy Scheinkman
Event Director, Spring Jam
Telos Productions, Inc,
925-2969
telosinclaJ.comcast.net
Kathryn Koch
City of Aspen
Event Permit Committee
429-2685
kathrvnklaJ.ci. aspen. co. us
.
Memorandum
4J
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council Members
John Worcester, City attorney and Steve Barwick, City Manager
Nick Adeh, City Engin/~
January 17, 2006"
Application for partial vacation of alley right of way
Reference:
SUMMARY: The owners of Skiers Chalet Lodge have asked for vacation of a public alley segment
under their current building. This alleyway is 10 feet wide and the lodge was built on it over 40 year ago
according to documents submitted with their request. City's utility departments have responded to this
application and request that this segment of public right of way become a public easement if vacation is
granted,
BACKROUND: Skiers Chalet Lodge was built on this public right of way and staff has no record of
existing City infrastructure within this segment of alleyway. The applicant plans to remodel and renovate
the existing structure but has no plan to replace it. This verbal statement was made by their representing
attorney Pat O'Callaghan,
DISCUSSION: Future redevelopments in this area will require adequate utility corridors to deliver
services to their projects, It is therefore necessary to preserve and keep our existing rights of ways free
and clear from underground, surface, and space restrictions to accommodate future utility service
demands. It is our intention to reserve any vacated right of way as a utility easement for the City's main
utility systems,
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: This project will have no financial impact on the City's current
resources and therefore, no funding is requested,
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of this vacation request to allow continuation of the
existing building, Staff requests a full easement along the vacated alley and no future structures upon it.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Vacation 2006-01
~~--
ORDINANCE NO, ~
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO
VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY SITUATED IN LOTS 4 THROUGH II OF BLOCK
9, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WITHIN THE CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the current owners and the contract purchasers of the Skiers' Chalet Lodge
in the City of Aspen have petitioned the City of Aspen to vacate a portion of the alley situated
adjacent to Lots 4 through II of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the right-of-ways or portions thereof proposed to be vacated are located
entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the Alley Vacation Plat and legal description, appended hereto as Exhibit A
has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and City Engineer and they have
made a determination that the exhibit complies in all respects with the City's Public Rights-of-
ways Vacation Policies and the land proposed to be vacated is eligible for vacation pursuant to
said policies; and
WHEREAS, the proposed vacation will not leave any land adjoining the same without a
means of access over an established public right -of-way connecting such lands to an established
public street,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I,
That the portion of the Alley adjacent to Lots 4 through 11 of Block 9, Eames Addition to
the City and Townsite of Aspen described and depicted on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is vacated subject to the conditions
set forth below,
Section 2,
That ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section
43-2-302, C.R,S,
Section 3,
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to
record a copy of this ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4,
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to
make all corrections necessary to the Official Map of the City of Aspen.
Section 5,
That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 6,
That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as
an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
2
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado,
,2006,
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2006,
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALL Y adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
,2006,
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
JPW- saved: 1/17/2006-542-G:\iohn\word\ords\vacation~Skiers Chalet.doc
]
Z
'"
""'
'"
'"
""
o
'"
'"
Ul
~
o
'"
'"
" '
Z""'
"'",
",~
",'"
-",
U",
"''''
~""
o
0",
"'",
E-< z "'0
<r: 0 "'C>
~EIO~
" C> "'0
~Cl~o-1
'" ,-,0
'" ZU
~"''''''''
~:::EO::;O
;2 r:i :i~ i
hOJ~~
-" '" 0",
'" U '"
Uooz
-" '"' -t<
'" PO '"
"- ,,,",-
~:::s::ll,
"'''''
,-, ~ Zo
..........., Cl ~
r_, '" 0",
f-I-j 0 f-<f-<
.....:1 '" eoZ
,'" -'"
-..; '" 0
-" ZU
'" '" 0
",to:
"'u
0'"
'"''''
Z""
-0
C>;.;;:
"'",
'"Z
"'",
t:",
"''''
C>
Z
j
""
o
'"'
'"
U
'"
'"
""'
'"
exlf/zs/r A
t~
c
l~
.,
~i
:5"
~ l
!:
i~
"
!,
,.
.'
.,
I:
"
,>
"
! "
"
!h
h
11.
II
j
~
_--1
01 I?ERT STREET
, ,
;.'1
;~~ 'I
"I
e~ t! I
al:~ ~
fIn i.
...~:S: !~
,1= 1
'Iii I
:"'~. I
Ii'] I, I
'III
il'l I.
~ Iii 'I'JI, 1,1
nli
;11:
! Ii III
,
,
,
I
'l
,
I
I
i,
iil
II! I
~ I I
I I
1- ,
, Ii I,
" I.
" I'
1; ,
-~-
c-o~o_o_o
,...~i
I/?"
~
......... !:!.
~
~
,"
-;~".. E
.....
w~
"
,
,
,
.
Gt,'a
~ 'lI:&..
,~:;;~
~
~
iJy .
73 f:-
I I"!' "
"j ......I"!!
H :: 12111 II'"
'!l'l "ll! l,lh.
'" ,I ~;111 :t' hI '~IIJ!
'" · j "lll~4~ .. l'l I .'
"'''' ' 1',M II, il' ~, ~l
, 0 z J' ,.", ....1 ! II!l
S ~ ~ ~ I ;::t,Hr~';~! h,Uj
CJ Q ~ 1 ~.l!~~:!;!~ ",;j. I ;H~
Z , >j*I' ;;.j' IJli'
---------.l3-..J i 1.lili If!~:iil !~_}ll
~ , . .
'.
'~
"
~;.. C>
~ ,';,,00:::
<0 ~
~hl
~lf~
!i~
Hr~
." ~'"
:l!h~
Ill"
1.1.,
ll,in
1'i1' !
ll~lll
qE'~ II
!lIlt I
'0.1 J
.;'c Il.l
~~Ia .t:.
~Hl" I'J
.1/" I
Ill"ll,il
"ll .
>
s
-"
(J) ~~
PrJ::a ~~
..,PrJIZl::>.......
:::Q::;'z ~~
st:3g$j ~ll:
rnzo ~~
~~o ...:...
tJoz ~~
tJ:slo.l
,
s
"''''
Q?r-
~~~
rnSJ...
"'o~
",C>
>Z
'"'0_
fnU-S-
,
,
s
'I
Iii
~ ii
. I~
ill
"
rli I'
,-.
Iii III.
;:' !I
~l I 11
h ~ t,
III f
i'l'~i ~
~ tJ i
~ .
i:
~. ~1
.
o
U
'"
'"
""'
o
'"
>
,
'!'
'j'
',!j
!Iii
:j:,
'!ii
1_.,
'-,
"Ii
Iii'
101
nn
Law Office of
R. J. O'Callaghan
125 East 7th Street, Suite 100
Pueblo, Colorado 81003
Phone: (719) 543-8371
Fax: (719) 543-8375
January 5, 2006
Nick Adeh
City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Skier's Chalet
Dear Mr, Adeh:
1 represent Skier's Chalet, LLC, the prior owner of the Skier's Chalet Lodge. The Lodge is located
on Lots 4 and 11 less the West 22' thereof, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and
on Lots 5-10, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen and on top of a portion of the alley through
Block 9 (the "Property"), Joseph E. Edwards, !II represents 710 South Aspen, LLC which has recently
purchased the Skier's Chalet Lodge from Skier's Chalet, LLC. His approval to this application is set forth
below,
We request that the City of Aspen enact an Ordinance vacating the portion of the Block 9 alley
running through the Property, It is our understanding that the portion of the alley in Block 9 located to the
west of the Property was previously vacated,
Enclosed for your reference are two copies of an improvement location survey showing the property
and the portion of the alley to be vacated. Also enclosed for your reference are copies of letters from all the
local utility providers which indicate that they have no objection to the City vacating the alley,
Please contact me if you need any further information,
Sincerely,
)~f
dTc:.:~ ~
~ R, J. Patrick 0'
Enclosures
APPROVED ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, 710 SOUTH ASPEN, LLC, BY
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, !II, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
KLEIN. COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
A lTORNEYS AT LAW
HERBERT S. KLEIN
LANCE R. cort, PC.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, Ill, PC
EBEN P. CLARK
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTl
hsk@kcelaw.net
Irc@kcelaw.net
jee@kcelaw.net
epc@kcelaw.net
mbk@kcelaw.net
20] NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700
FACSIMILE: (970) 925.3977
* alsoadmiltedinCalifomia
December 16, 2005
Mr. Walt Dorman
Holy Cross Energy
P,O, Box 2150
Glenwood Springs, CO SI602
Re: Alley, Lots 5, 6, 7, S, 9 & 10, Block 9, Eames Addition - Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Dorman:
We represent the contract purchaser of the Skier's Chalet Lodge in Aspen, Colorado.
The City of Aspen is the owner of the above-reference alley which bisects the Lodge building
(which has been in this location for approximately 40 years). The City has indicated to me that
they would be willing to vacate that portion of the alley that is on the Lodge property. Prior to
making a final decision, the City has requested written confirmation from each of the utility
companies which use that area stating that they have no objections to the City vacating the alley,
We do not believe this will affect any of your service lines.
An Improvement Survey dated November 1,2005, is enclosed, The portion of the alley
under discussion has been highlighted in yellow. I would appreciate it if you would review the
survey and let me know if you have any concerns with respect to the City's vacating the portion
of the alley which crosses through the Skier's Chalet Lodge,
If you do not have any concerns regarding this alley, I would appreciate it if you would
sign in the blank provided on the following page and return this letter to me, Thank you for your
consideration, Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
B
Enclosure
Mr. Walt Dorman
December 16, 2005
Page 2
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN VACATING THE REFERENCED
PORTION OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN,
By:
Name:
Title:
o lO fi-#l J<MI
~u-
cc:
Client
Hills\Ski\IAlley Vaca Itr-Holy Cross.doc
-----
MEMORANDUM
.V1l[ ~ II)
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
FROM:
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner /\ I .
Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development ~11tI)
THROUGH:
RE:
214 E. Bleeker Plat Vacation and Lot Split: Continued from 1.9.06
2nd Reading of Ordinance 53 and 54, Series of 2005
DATE:
January 23, 2006
SUMMARY:
Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C, representing William G, Srumder Florida Land
Trust, owner of2l4 E. Bleeker St, is requesting a plat vacation, a lot split and a
subdivision exemption.
Staff has scheduled two public hearings because the requested Lot Split and Subdivision
Exemption in Ordinance No. 54, Series of 2005 could not legally be granted without first
approving the Plat Vacation request in Ordinance No. 53, Series of2005, However, staff
is proposing that both public hearings be opened together, as the substance of the two
applications both relate to 214 E, Bleeker St.
The first public hearing is for the Plat Vacation request, The criteria for review states that
City Council City Council may approve a plat vacation if good cause is demonstrated,
Staff is continuing to recommend approval, based on mutual mistakes by applicant and
staff during a previous application for a Historic Landmark Lot Split and Subdivision
Exemption at 214 E, Bleeker St., and during the review and approval of Ordinance No.
29, Series of 1998.
The second public hearing is for the Subdivision Exemption Lot Split application, which
may only be granted if Council has first approved the Plat Vacation request. Staff
believes the lot split application meets all relevant standards and is recommending
approval.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH:
At the January 9 public hearings on the requested Plat Vacation and Lot Split, staff stated
that a "mutual mistake" was made regarding the 1998 approval of a Historic Lot Split for
214 E. Bleeker Street. Staff based this assessment on the fact that neither the applicant
nor City staff was aware that the applicant was entitled to the lot size ofrecord (12,000
square feet) rather than the 11,963 square feet calculated by a survey of the property. If
the case had proceeded on the basis that the lot size was 12,000 square feet, the applicant
would have been eligible for a regular Lot Split, allowing for substantially more FAR on
each lot. During the January 9 public hearing, Council asked staff to conduct further
research to gather more information on the matter.
--
In the recollection of the City Attorney's Office, spanning at least 15 years, the City has
taken the position that original townsite lots legally consist of 3,000 square feet each,
regardless of actual measurements on the ground, and property owners are entitled to that
full amount as they proceed through land use review,
Additional research shows that in a 2003 case involving the Charthouse, the City
Attorney's Office found that the Applicant was able to proceed based on the "record" of
lot size rather than a survey showing slightly less square footage than was allowed for a
Lot Split. In the Charthouse case, the staff memo states the following:
"In reviewing the application, a question arose as to whether the parcel legally contains
the 12,000 square feet needed to execute a Lot Split in the L/TR Zone District. The
survey that the applicant submitted shows that the Surveyor calculated the lot area as
11,979 square feet. However, the applicant is arguing that the property was intended to be
12,000 square feet because it is comprised offour (4) lots in the Eames Addition, And
according to the 1959 Official Map of the City and Townsite of Aspen, the lots were
supposed to be 3,000 square feet each. Thus, the applicant is further arguing that in 1959,
the property should have been 12,000 square feet and there have been no recorded actions
since 1959 that should have altered the size of the property, Therefore, the proposed lots
to be created through the lot split would be in conformance with the minimum lot size in
the L/TR Zone District, which is 6,000 square feet. Staff has reviewed the Applicant's
argument with the City Attorney's Office and is felt that the Applicants argument is
legally appropriate."
Regarding the Brumder case, staff has since determined that as part of the original 1996
application, and the subsequent 1998 re-application, the applicant conducted a survey of
the property,
The 1996 survey indicates that the property consisted of four original townsite lots,
measuring 12,000 square feet, according to the "record," The survey also showed the lots
on the ground measured 11,963 square feet "prorated." (Please see Exhibit A.) These
terms - "record" and "prorated" - were intended to note the difference between the
original townsite plat "record," and the actual amount of square footage measured on-site,
which was "prorated" over the assemblage of four lots, according to a representative of
the surveying firm,
The only document in the Brumder case record that shows a lot size other than 11,963
square feet is the original 1996 survey, which shows both the 12,000 square feet
"record," and the 11,963 square feet "pro-rated." All subsequent documents specify the
lot size at 11,963 square feet. The Brumder case record does not include any discussion,
debate or argument regarding lot size.
The case record shows that the original 1996 Brumder application (please see Exhibit B)
states the lot size to be 11,963 square feet, and requests a Historic Lot Split. It appears the
applicant's representative used the "prorated" lot size of 11,963 square feet from the 1996
-,._----.-..."'...~..,-"..-..,,<"'~~---
survey, and drafted an application according to the land use review options that lot size
allowed -- namely a Historic Lot Split.
Based on recent discussions with City planners, it is clear that applications involving
original townsite plats have routinely calculated lot size based on the 3,000 square-feet
per lot "record" n but without the staff s awareness that this approach was the legal
position ofthe City of Aspen. It is likely that when the application for the Brumder
Historic Lot Split was filed in 1996, it was not common knowledge among staff that the
applicant was entitled to a 12,000 square-foot lot size, versus the 11,963 shown on the
survey, It is important to note that current City staff can not recall a case prior to the
Charthouse (2003) that included a question regarding the lot size of "record" versus the
actual surveyed lot size.
At this time, staff is maintaining its original finding that a "mutual mistake" was made
regarding the 1996 Brumder case, The applicant may have erred in not fully investigating
the rights of the property owner, and the City may have erred in not encoding the position
of the City regarding the proper legal use the "record" regarding the lot size of original
townsite lots, or otherwise making that position common knowledge among staff and
applicants.
In summary, staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 53 and Ordinance 54, as well
as initiating a code amendment process to insert appropriate language to the Land Use
Code reflecting the legal use of the "record" lot size for original townsite lots,
The net result of vacating the existing 1998 plat and approving the lot split request is an
increase of allowable FAR on both Lot A and Lot B. Under the proposed lot split, each
lot size would be 6,000 square feet, allowing a future addition of approximately lJOO
square fcet to the existing historic structure on Lot B; and either a single-family home up
to 3,240 square feet, or two (2) detached dwelling units totaling up to 3,240 square feet,
or a duplex up to 3,600 square feet on Lot A, according to the current Land Use Code, as
follows:
Existing Ord. No. 29 (1998)
Proposed Ordinance
Lot A 2,344 3,240' -- 3,600'
FAR Single-family or 2 detached -- duplex
Lot B 1,913 + eligible for 500 s.f. bonus 3,240'
FAR
· Lots A + B would be eligible for a total of 500 s,f, in bonus FAR via HPC.
ApPLICANT:
William G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Oates, Knezevich &
Gardenswartz, P,C.
LOCATION:
214 E. Bleeker St.
ZONING:
R-6
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Criteria for Plat Vacation are noted in 26.480,OSO (C), stating that City Council may
approve a plat vacation if good cause is demonstrated,
The required conditions for a Lot Split are listed at 26.4S0.030 A(2); and review
standards for a Subdivision Exemption are outlined at 26.480,050.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings for Plat Vacation have been included as Exhibit
"A."
Review criteria and Staff Findings for Lot Split and Subdivision Exemption have
been included as Exhibit "B."
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed the proposal for a plat vacation and recommends that the City
Council find that good cause has been demonstrated to approve this plat vacation
for 214 E. Bleeker St.
Staff has reviewed the proposals for a Lot Split and Subdivision Exemption and
recommends that the City Council find that the criteria and review standards have
been met to approve the Lot Split and Subdivision Exemption applications for 214
E. Bleeker St.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
"j move to approve Ordinance No, 53, Series of2005, upon second reading."
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 54, Series of2005, upon second reading."
ORDINANCE No. 54
(SERIES OF 2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION
EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET (LOTS N, 0, P, AND Q,
BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
William G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz p,c.
requesting approval of a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split of the property to be known as Lot A
and Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split, located at 214 E, Bleeker Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480,030A(2), the Aspen City
Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by
ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for a
Subdivision Exemption Lot Split, after considering a recommendation by the Community
Development Department; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application for a
Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for the property to be described as Lots A and B of the Brumder
Lot Split located at 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, 0, P and Q, Block 72, of the City and Townsite),
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council 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, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots A and B of the property to be known and described as
the Brumder Lot Split located at 214 E. Bleeker St, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, is approved
with the following conditions:
I, The applicant shall submit and record a subdivision exemption plat that meets
the terms of Chapter 26.480, and conforms to the requirements of the Land
lJ sc Code, in the otlice of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder no later than
ISO days after approval of this ordinance, The plat shall indicate that no
further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor will additional units be
built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and
growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Furthermore, the
proposed Lot Split Plat shall clearly label the proposed lot line that separates
Lot A from Lot B and show all easements ofrecord.
2, The lot split plat shall exhibit two lots in conformance with the R-6 Zone
District regulations and shall include the following plat notes:
a. Upon redevelopment, all structures on these two (2) lots shall comply
with the R-6 Zone District provisions, as may be amended from time
to time, with respect to the newly created lot boundaries and setbacks.
Upon redevelopment, all encroachments into Public Right of Way
shall be removed or properly licensed,
b, Maximum potential build-out for the two (2) parcels created by lot
split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a
duplex and a single family home, Only one unit is allowable on Lot B.
c. The future development of Lots A and B shall be subject to Chapter
26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmarks Sites and Structures or Development in an "H" Historic
Overlay District.
d, Any setback nonconformity(s) created by the new lot line shall be
eliminated upon redevelopment or further development of the
applicable lot(s).
e. Vehicular access to either lot shall be from the alley only.
f. Upon redevelopment, the applicant shall construct sidewalk, curb and
gutters according to the specifications of the City Engineer.
g, Both lots are required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to
Section 26.4 70. 040 B(l).
3, Both lots shall comply with the applicable development regulations prior to
applying for building permits, including those regulations related to
Residential Design Standards, Accessory Dwelling Units, and GMQS
Exemptions.
4, The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing any trees
from the site for which a tree removal permit is required pursuant to Chapter
--.,,-,.............-..-.'-
~.....,~.",_.
13,20 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Any tree to remain on-site during
the development of Lots A and B shall have its drip line fenced off prior to,
and throughout construction. Tree Removal Mitigation may be required for
removal of trees pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.20.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rules and
regulations, No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains)
shall be allowed. All sanitation-related improvements below grade shall
require the use of a pumping station, The existing sewer line may be used to
service one of the new residences if it is inspected and determined to be
satisfactory by the Aspen Sanitation District, If the existing service line is not
used for the proposed development it must be abandoned and removed.
6, The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards,
with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as
required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Upon redevelopment of the
new lots, the applicant shall abandon the existing water service line prior to
receiving new water taps,
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 City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as iffully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity,
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing was opened on the 9th and 23rd day of January, 2006, at 5:00 PM in City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen,
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on this 12'h day of December, 2005.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FIN ALL Y, adopted, passed and approved by a
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
vote on this 23rd day of January, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ORDINANCE No. 53
(SERIES OF 2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLAT V ACA nON
AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET (LOTS N, 0, P, AND Q, BLOCK 72, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
William G, Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz P,C"
requesting approval of a Plat Vacation regarding the property at 214 E, Bleeker Street, City of
Aspen, Pitkin County; said plat based upon Ordinance No,29, Series of 1995; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.4S0,OSOC, the Aspen City Council,
in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by ordinance
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application for a Plat Vacation, after
considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application for a
Plat Vacation regarding the property located at 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, 0, P and Q, Block
72, of the City and Townsite), City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and recommended approval
with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plat Vacation
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plat Vacation 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 Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Plat
Vacation for the property located at 214 E, Bleeker St, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, is approved
with the following conditions:
I, The applicant shall submit and record a plat vacation that meets the terms of
Chapter 26.4S0, and conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code, in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder no later than ISO days after
approval of this ordinance,
.~ .___...............~,.~"~~..~~~r_.,..".._"_".._"'._.<'_._.___.~.___
Section 2:
This Ordinance 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 3:
I f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof
Section 4:
A public hearing was held on the 9[h and 23rd day of January, 2006, at 5:00 PM in City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on this 12th day of December, 2005.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a
vote on this 23rd day of January, 2006,
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
---..
--
,
,
I
i
,
I
,
I
,
;
. -~, - . ~-
1,'/;"
il,~ii:
l &;~': I g
~ d~lil~;II
, "I" ~
\I ~i ~. :;;
\. ~~!~~ S
~~t!5 ;;
_ Ol{i. Z
f !!!~~
!'i~1
'l,\"j:
IIi
: i i ~
'":'>R;L) -
'"\ -
(:) -
i~~
a..UJ
~~
c, p
~ iV
r1t
-;>'\
.
-:tit ~
~! I ~
-." ",' ,.
:->~"'.;';;~
. _ 0 ~ 'l"'l
"^ I & I :0.:
\/"001 ~! i ~
- ,~; .~
" ~
......... _ ::v
~. "
...(): ~
t'"
~
!q
~
f;i
~
.'ti
~
~
~
. 0 c
~.~ ~
., .
~ (<>
:< '! ...
, ..
o "
~ ~ :
& a R
<> '; "
';' ''::\'.:~'<''
.:. :'i~,;/. C;",~,.:,.>:, ,-'.'" .,
.U~~ ill
i II. _ .0
, !~ , iPI~I~!PI'
i-I - ~~. ,!"
i Ii il~~t~~.~:.1 f
:i ~H~,~i! ~
~ _~; ;8.0.' -I ~
;I~ ;.~i' ! ~ C7
!E1iii,. II-
. ~i(~ ~ ~
i ~Ii~ i --<
i Iii ~ ~
; m ~
"\
i
1"1
I"
I "
:: g& z~
i
-,
~
r:;
"<!
~
~
~
~
"
.'
,\
~ ". "-' ~.~I
~.~ :;;- ~
~ _ ("-J ,I
! ,~L
iff f
,
,
\
i1
i
#'Ii
~
~
7-
-
.
V
+-
::J>
.~
/
o
(i
~ "K~;~rl- rr
Brumder Residence
214 East Bleeker
Aspen, Colorado
Partial Demolition
Conceptual Development
Historic Lot Split
presented by
Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925 4502
I
(1
()
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPUCATION FORM
1. Project name &tuJJder I<e.r/dence '
2. Project location 011'f e, Nt~er~
Bloc):. 7~j t.f7/'.s M OJ P- Q A 7D~/~
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description)
3. Present zoning ;<- (p · 4. Lot size /1./ q~3.s19' ff-.
5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number 1tl.~. l3I'Uhlder J=!(){I{/Il t. (Viti.
7rus:t" a/I) Tom fftu;evald, SIoo B. W/SCt1l')..S//') .stTu:t"
Swit ,g001 mtlWtUvlr'u, WI.fCOI1.S'//')
L~epresentative'S name, address, and phone num~cI2en q,~
o,Soc.uu't'S, Inc. sz.o'W4Inur..IY-.' , co. /3/4-11
7. Type of application (check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Stream Margin
Subdivision
GMQS allotment
View Plane
Lot SplitlLot Line
Adjustment
----
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA
Conceptual PUO
Final PUO
TextlMap Amend.
GMQS exemption V
Condominiumization_
V Conceptual HPC,
Final HPC
Minor HPC
Relocation HPC
Historic Landmark
Demo/Partial Demo
Design Review
Appeal Committee _.
~ fh,*,c. LtJ-r.fit::ht
8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures,
approximate sq. fl, number of bedrooms, any previous aperovals granted to the
property)! IetS,dencG:t "S53 ..,.,. 3 /!/ub8DMJ
· ~SD~ 81 'a//') :..3 (, /nM ~t!JD/17
· Ie U9N,
9. Oooc_" ~~_..._" -su aJIluI,-d
~;;:ruc"f BI..y. Dn/fI
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
V'" Attachment 1- Land use application fom
v Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements fom
V Response to Attachment 3
.,/ Response to Attachments 4 and 5
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C,
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO. 81611
LEONARD M. OATES
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH
TED D, GARDENSWARTZ
DAVID e. KELLY
TElEPHONE (970) 920-1700
FACSIMILE (970)920-1121
OF COUNSEL
JOHN T KELLY
Imo@okglaw.com
MARIA MORROW
January 19, 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERED
Ben Gagnon, Staff Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO SI61l
Re: Affidavits to Supplement Record in Brumder Trust Applications for Withdrawal of Historic Lot
Split and Request for Lot Split
Dear Ben:
After hearing the comments from the some of the members of Council in connection with the
applications which we submitted on behalf of the Brurnder Trust, you will please find enclosed herewith two
affidavits. One Affidavit is from Thomas B, Fitzgerald, the Trustee of the William G, Brumder Florida Land
Trust and the other is from Mitch Haas in connection with the application, These are submitted to supplement
the record to demonstrate innocent lack of knowledge of both the Trustee and the then Staff Planner who
handled this application,
Very Truly Yours,
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.c.
~ ()Ju
Leonard M. Oates
By
Encl.
LMO/bab
C:ILMO Data & FormslDatalCIientslBrumder TrustlLtr to Gagnon 1.18.06.doc
AFFIDAVIT
OF
THOMAS B. FITZGERALD
THE UNDERSIGNED, Thomas B. Fitzgerald, being first duly sworn upon his
oath states as follows:
1. My name is Thomas B, Fitzgerald,
2, I am and at all times since 1995 have been the acting Trustee of the
William G, Brurnder Florida Land Trust.
3, The William G, Brumder Florida Land Trust (and its predecessors in
interest related to the Brumder Family) have been the owners of the
property at 215 W, Bleeker which is the subject of the Brumder Historic
Lot Split at all times since 1949,
4, That sometime in 1995 the Trust determined that it might want to remodel
the historic home situated on the Trust property,
5, At the time that that decision was made, I was referred, I cannot recall by
whom, to Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc. with whom I met in
the Spring of 1995, I dealt exclusively with Gretchen Greenwood of that
firm at all times,
6, I was advised by Gretchen Greenwood at that time that in order to
maximize the developability and value from the Trust's property that such
could be accomplished only through the historic lot split provisions of the
Aspen City Code ("Code"), Attached hereto is Exhibit A is the summary
of development of 214 E. Bleeker prepared at that time by Gretchen
Greenwood and given to me,
7, I did not have any discussion at that time with Gretchen Greenwood or
with any official the City of Aspen Community Development Department
with respect to whether or not Gretchen Greenwood was accurate in her
summary or whether there was available any alternative development
scenario such as a non.historic lot split as permitted by the Code,
8, I was not at that time aware, that it was the position of the City of Aspen
that all rectangular regular lots located within the original City and
Townsite of Aspen were treated as being 3,000 square feet and was not so
apprised of that position until I was advised by my counsel, Leonard M,
Oates of Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P,C, that such was the case in
late 2005.
9, To the best of my knowledge Gretchen Greenwood did not engage the
services of legal counsel for legal analysis of the developability of the
property, I did not have legal counsel in connection with the historic lot
split application for the Trust's property, I felt that based upon the
assertion of Gretchen Greenwood that the only available course of action
was the one that she recornmended; therefore, I did not feel the need to
engage legal counsel.
10, Based solely upon the advice of Gretchen Greenwood that proceeding
with an historic lot split would be beneficial and would be the only way by
which the property could be divided, I authorized Gretchen Greenwood to
process an historic lot split application which resulted in the current
historic lot split being completed,
II. I recently (on January 12, 2006) had a telephone conversation with
Gretchen Greenwood in which I attempted to elicit from her whether or
not she had investigated the availability of a straight lot split. In that
telephone conversation she asserted to me that she believed and still
believes that the only way which the Trust's property could have been
divided was by means of an historic lot split under the Code and that the
information which I had received through Mr, Oates as to the treatment of
original City and Townsite Lots was incorrect.
12. I specifically asked Gretchen Greenwood whether or not prior to the time
the application for the historic lot split was filed or at any time during the
process, she had had conversation with anyone in the City of Aspen
Community Development Department in connection with how original
Townsite Lots in the City and Townsite of Aspen are treated and she did
not answer the question,
13, It was my belief that from my conversation with Gretchen Greenwood that
she would not be cooperative with me in connection with the pending
applications,
14, Had I known at the time the historic lot split application was filed that I
could have filed for a non-historic lot split, I would not have filed an
application for an historic lot split, there being no incentive for me to take
that course, My understanding was that this was the only avenue by which
the split of the property could be pursued,
Affiant sayeth further not.
January {L, 2006, ~
-J]l~/> g __
Thomas B. Fitzgerald
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)ss,
)
OFFICIAL SEAL
MICAH M GIBBS
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:10127106
COUNTY OF COOK
Subscribed and sworn before me this 151'- day of January, 2006 by Thomas B,
Fitzgerald,
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 10- 1. 1- - 6(..
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MITCH HAAS
THE UNDERSIGNED, Mitch Haas, being first duly sworn upon his oath states as
follows:
I, My name is Mitch Haas.
2. In 1998 I was employed by the City of Aspen as a Staff Planner with the
City of Aspen Community Development Department.
3, Although I have no recollection thereof, I have been told that I was the
staff planner who processed the application of the William G, Brumder
Florida Land Trust for the historic lot split for the property at 214 E,
Bleeker, Aspen, Colorado,
4, In 1998, to the best of my knowledge, I was unaware of any policy of the
City of Aspen which provided for the treatment of regular original City
and Townsite of Aspen Lots as being 3,000 square feet regardless of the
survey measured size thereof,
5, To the best of my knowledge I never had any discussion with Gretchen
Greenwood in connection with the measurement or treatment of original
City and Townsite of Aspen Lots,
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn before me this l'lfday of January, 2006 by Mitch Haas,
Witness my hand and OffiCi~1 set
My commission expires: 1\ :n {J.[)()/O
G)
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Mayor Klanderud & City Council II I .
Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo\JN\ W)
.lames Lindt, Senior Planner ~L-
Second Reading of Ordinance No.1, Series of 2006- Limelight Lodge
Final Planned Unit Development and Associated Land Use Reviews-
Public Hearinl!:
January 23, 2006
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
.
PROJECT: LIMELIGHT LODGE REDEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting the appropriate land use approvals to
redevelop the existing Limelite Lodge, Snowflake Inn, and Deep
Powder Properties, which would include 1) a full demolition of the
existing structnres, 2) replacement with a lodge consisting of 125 rooms
and 17 free market residential units.
PROPOSED ZONING: Lodge Zone District with a PUD Overlay,
LAND USE Final Plauned Uuit Development. Associated requests iuclude Alley
REQUESTS: Vacation, Rezoning to include a PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Wheeler
Opera Honse View Plane Review, Commercial Design Staudard
Variauces on the lodge building, and Growth Management Review,
STAFF Staff recommeuds that the City Council approve the attached
RECOMMENDATION: ordinauce.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Applicants, Limelite Inc and Limelite Redevelopment LLC, represented by Steve
Szymanski, are requesting the appropriate land use approvals .to redevelop the Limelite
Lodge, Snowflake Inn, and Deep Powder Lodge properties into a traditional lodge
consisting of 125 lodge rooms and seventeen (17) free market residential condominiums.
LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
The Applicants received conceptual PUD approval from City Council on August 9, 2005
as set forth in Resolution No, 50, Series of 2005 (attached as Exhibit "F" in the first
reading packet). Therefore, the Applicants have applied for the following land use
actions to entitle the redevelopment of the three (3) lodges located on the west side of
South Monarch Street:
. Final Planned Unit Development
. Rezoning to include a PUD overlay on the site
. Subdivision
. Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review
. Variances from Commercial Design Standards
. Growth Management Review
. Partial Alley Vacation
The Applicants have requested and received consent from the Community Development
Director to combine the review of all of the land use actions being requested pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26,304.060(B)(l), Combined Reviews, In allowing for the
review of the land use requests to be combined, the Community Development Director
made a finding that combining the review of the requested land use actions will ensure
economy of time, expense, and clarity of the final decision on all of the land use actions
being requested. Therefore, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny
all of the requested land use actions after considering a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
There are actually four (4) separate parcels of land subject to this application, which are
all located to the west of South Monarch Street across from Wagner Park and are
currently located in the Lodge Zone District. The first property currently contains the
Snowflake Inn, which is comprised of easternmost 10 feet of Lot C, and Lots D- I, Block
76 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, The second property subject to the application is
the north parcel of the Limelite Lodge which consists of Lots O-S, Block 76, of the City
and Townsite of Aspen. Finally, the remaining two parcels of land subject to the PUD
request include the two (2) south parcels of the Limelite Lodge which are legally
described as Lots A and B, Block 77, of the City and Townsite of Aspen, and Lots C-l,
Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, respectively.
In total, the properties subject to the application are comprised of approximately 64,000
square feet and contain the three (3) lodges that were previously described, For the
purposes of reviewing this application, the Snowflake Inn parcel and the parcel
containing the Limelite Lodge's existing north building will be known as the proposed
"north parcel" and the parcels containing the Limelite Lodge's existing south building
and the Deep Powder Lodge will be referred to as the proposed "south parcel". The map
below identifies the properties subject to this application,
/
I .
s,oi""" '"0 ,,_ '_'_/'
/ " " /
"'. .C;o, ./... 8r "'-" "'"7 .
",/9/"0""'''''"'''' ~''''''''''''
r
I
.j,
MQunt,.",Ch",let
01
/
As was mentioned above, the Applicants received conceptual PUD approval on the
proposed project in August. The conceptual approvals were for an "incentive lodge" of
up to 128 lodge rooms and eighteen (18) free-market residential units, The conceptual
approvals had some requirements that the Applicants study changes to both the
residential building and the lodge building, That being the case, the Applicants have
made some amendments to the design of the development from the design presented at
the conceptual stage, The paragraphs below detail the final PUD development proposal.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The final PUD development plan proposes to fully demolish the existing Limelite and
Snowflake Inn lodges and move the Deep Powder cabins to either the Aspen Golf Course
or to the Lift IA Park, In place of three lodges, the Applicants propose a lodge
containing 125 rooms and seventeen (17) free market residential units, The proposed
north parcel is to contain the proposed lodge and one of the free market residential units
and the proposed south parcel is to contain one building consisting of sixteen (16) free
market residential units.
North Parcel-New Lodze:
The street level floor of the lodge is proposed to contain a lobby with a front desk and
office, a breakfast room/lounge facility, and twenty-three (23) of the lodge rooms ranging
from 395 square feet to 580 square feet each, The second and third floors are to contain
thirty-nine (39) and thirty. four (34) lodge rooms respectively, all between approximately
390 square feet and 630 square feet. And finally, the fourth floor is to include twenty-
nine (29) lodge rooms between 390 and 615 square feet and a free market residential
condominium of about 1,300 square feet. The free market condominium is anticipated to
house the Paas Family, the long time operators of the existing Limelite Lodge.
Beneath the proposed lodge, the Applicant is planning a parking garage that is to contain
fifty-four (54) parking spaces to be accessed from East Hyman Avenue. Additionally,
the application proposes a courtyard between the proposed lodge and the neighboring
condominium property located to the west.
South Parcel.New Residential Development:
The free market residential building proposed on the south parcel is to consist of three (3)
stories of condominiums, The street level floor is to contain five (5) free market
condominiums, On the second level, the Applicant has proposed another six (6)
condominiums and the third level is to contain five (5) units, All of the units are
proposed to be between 2,200 to 4,000 square feet. A subgrade parking garage
containing thirty-two (32) parking spaces that is to be accessed from the alley to the south
of the building is also proposed.
Dimensional Reauirements:
The proposed dimensional requirements for the entire PUD are as follows (Dimensional
Requirements required to be established from the underlying zoning through the PUD
process are shaded):
Dimensional Proposed Final Approved Underlying Zone
Requirement PUD Dimensional Conceptual PUD District
Requirements Dimensional Requirements
Reouirements
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet 60 Feet 60 Feet
Minimum Front o Peet o Peet 10 Peet
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard o Peet OPeet 5 Peet
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard o Peet o Peet 10 Peet
Setback
Maximum Height Lodge: 46 Peet for Up to 46 Peet for Primary 38 feet for sloped roofs,
Primary Roof Height, Roof Height, 50 Peet for 42 feet for flat roofs.
50 Peet for limited limited accent elements,
accent elements, elevators, mechanical
elevators, mechanical enclosures, etc.
enclosures, etc.
Residential: 42 Peet,
measured from existing
grade and 46 feet for
elevator head
enclosures, fireplace
flues, and vent
terminations.
Minimum Percent 76% Maximum Site 75% Maximum Site 25%
Open Space Coveraoe Covera~e
Allowable External 2.42: I 2,35:1 2.5: I
PAR
Minimum Off-Street .4 Parking Spaces per .4 Parking Spaces per .5 Parking Spaces per
Parking Lodge Unit Lodge Unit lodge bedroom
2 Parking Spaces per 2 Parking Spaces per I Parking Space per
Res idential Unit Residential Unit Residential Unit
STAFF COMMENTS:
CONSISTENCY WITH CONCEPTUAL PUD APPROVALS: HEIGHT AND MASSING
Staff believes that the final PUD application is consistent with the development plan that
was approved at conceptual and with the required changes that were mandated by City
Council in reviewing the conceptual PUD application, During the review of the
conceptual PUD application, Council requested that the Applicants reduce the fourth
floor of the lodge building on the E. Hyman Avenue fayade to provide greater visual
relief for the occupants of the Park Central Condominiums, In response to this request,
the Applicants presented several different options to Council for a reduced fourth floor.
The options presented to Council are shown below:
Council was divided on which of the options was most appropriate, but indicated that
both of the options for the reduced fourth floor would be an acceptable change, In
preparing the final PUD application, the Applicants have chosen the fourth floor option
(125 Room Plan) with the smaller roof terrace, Staff believes that there would be very
little visual difference between the two (2) options from street grade in that a pedestrian's
vision plane of the building will likely cut off at the third floor and will not get a
significant view of the fourth floor units in either scenario. Therefore, Staff favors the
125 room plan that will provide more lodge units than the 120 room plan as the
Applicants have proposed in the final PUD application.
Upon granting conceptual PUD approval, City Council also requested that the Applicants
explore the possibility of making the residential building of the incentive lodge
development satisfy the 42 foot height limit allowed by the underlying zone district. In
response to this request, the Applicants eliminated the partial fourth floor of the
residential building so that the entire structure now complies with the 42 foot height limit
that is allowed for all portions of an incentive lodge development.
In reviewing the final PUD application, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested
that the Applicants further reduce the height of the residential building by between 10%
and 15% and made their recommendation contingent upon such a reduction. In response
to this request, the Applicants have not reduced the height of the residential building per
the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission and instead have indicated that they
believe that they have complied with the condition of the conceptual approval that
required the Applicants to get the residential building below the Lodge Zone District's
height requirement of 42 feet for an incentive lodge development.
Staff agrees that the Applicants satisfied the condition of the conceptual approval
requiring that the residential building be reduced to under the 42 foot height limit as
measured by the land use code's height methodology. However, Staff does feel that it is
within City Council's legal authority to require a reduction below the allowed height
limit in the underlying zone district since the Applicants have applied through a PUD
process to establish the dimensional requirements for the property, If Council agrees with
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that a reduction in the height of
the residential building by between 10% and 15% is warranted and would make the
project more compatible with the surrounding development, Staff would suggest that
Council ask the Applicants to make such a reduction prior to granting final PUD
approval. The proposed ordinance currently contains the dimensional requirements of the
residential building as proposed in the final PUD application.
PUD CONIAINING MULTIPLE P ARcns:
Certain neighbors of the property challenged whether both of the components (residential
and lodging) of the "incentive lodge" development should be able to be considered under
one development proposal since each component is on a separate parcel of land and the
parcels ofland are not contiguous because they are separated by a City Right-of-Way, In
response to this concern, Staff believes that the Applicants have the ability under the
Planned Unit Development review process to apply for one development application on
multiple, non-contiguous areas of land.
The City has reviewed and approved development on multiple, non-contiguous areas of
land under single planned unit development applications in the past on many occasions,
Examples of other development where the City has reviewed and approved a single PUD
on multiple parcels of land include the Boomerang Lodge PUD, the Bavarian Inn PUD,
the South Aspen Street PUD, the Residences at Little Nell PUD, the Burlingame PUD,
thc Water Place Affordable Housing PUD, and the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD. Of
the aforementioned developments, the Boomerang Lodge expansion, the Bavarian Inn
affordable housing project, South Aspen Street townhome project, the Water Place
Aflordable Housing PUD, and the Lodge at Aspen conceptual development have been
approved on multiple areas of land that are non-contiguous as is the case in the Limelight
development application, Additionally, in each of the aforementioned examples,
subdivision has been requested and approved to amalgamate the areas of land subject to
an application as is the case with the Limelight, prior to then resubdividing the land into
multiple parcels.
The question of whether the residential component of the "incentive lodge" is allowed the
lodge dimensional requirements was also raised during the conceptual PUD rcview. The
idea behind the "incentive lodge" was to allow for lodge development with a residential
component to qualify for the incentive dimensions and growth management provisions,
Therefore, Staff believes that the residential component is part of the larger lodge
development plan and is afforded the dimensional allowances for an incentive lodge.
Nonetheless, the Applicants have proposed to establish the dimensional requirements for
the entire development, inclusive of both the residential and lodging components through
the PUD process, That being the case, the underlying dimensional requirements are to
only be used as a guide in establishing the acceptable dimensional requirements through
the PUD, in concert with considering the other PUD review standards set forth in Land
Use Code Section 26.445, Planned UniI Development.
CONSISTF:NCY WITH CONCEPTUAl, PUD APPROVALS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LODGE AND
RESIDENTIAl, COMPONENTS:
There was a considerable amount of discussion about the relationship between the
residential component and the lodge component of the proposed "incentive lodge"
development during the conceptual review given that they are to be located on separate
parcels, As a condition of approval of the conceptual PUD, City Council required that
the Applicants provide discussion in the final PUD application about the relationship
between the two components of the development.
The final PUD application indicates that the residential component of the development is
the complimentary component for the redevelopment of the lodge. This relationship is
anticipated by language in the Land Use Code for "incentive lodging", Furthermore, the
application describes that the owners of the lodging parcel (who are also part owners of
the residential parcel) are going to set up a management company that will manage the
residential units. This will allow for the owners of the residential units to rent their units
through the management company on a short-term basis, The management company set
up will also afford the owners of the residential units and their guests or tenants with use
of the hotel amenities and housekeeping services.
CONSISTENCY WITH CONCEPTUAL PUD APPROVALS: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZES
As part of the conceptual PUD approvals granted to the project, City Council requested
that the Applicants explore the possibility of making more, smaller residential units than
was proposed in the conceptual development plan, Alternatively, Council requested that
the Applicants clearly demonstrate how the residential units lend themselves to being
leased out so that they do not sit empty the majority of the year. The Applicants did not
convert the residential units into smaller units, but have demonstrated that five (5) of the
units are configured such that they have the ability to be locked off into two (2) units
each for rental purposes as is allowed in the Lodge (L) Zone District.
CONSISTENC,)" WITH CONCEPTUAl, PUD ,1PPROVALS: DEEP POWDER LODGE BUILDINGS
During the review of the conceptual PUD application, the' Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) had indicated that they wanted the Applicants to make an effort to
preserve the two (2) oldest of the Deep Powder cabins that were originally slated to be
demolished as part of this project, even though the cabins are not designated on the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, In approving the conceptual
PUD application, City Council placed a condition of approval requiring that the
Applicants and the City make an effort to see if an acceptable preservation method could
be found without financially burdening the project.
In response to this condition of conceptual approval, the Applicants presented several
options for preserving the cabins. These options included moving the cabins to the golf
course at the Applicants' expense, where they would be combined into one larger cabin
to be used as a pump house adjacent to Parks Department otlices. Other options
identified were to move the cabins to the City-owned parking lot adjacent to Willoughby
Park at the Applicants' expense or to remove the exterior material on the cabins and affix
the materials to the outside of the proposed casita lodge units, HPC indicated that the
best of these options would be to move the cabins to the Willoughby Park parking lot, but
that the golf course option could be a decent reuse of the structures as well (HPC's
comments were attached as Exhibit "I" in the first reading packet),
Staff believes that City Council will ultimately have to determine which of these options
they would like the Applicants to enact. Nonetheless, Staff believes that the Applicants
have satisfied the condition of conceptual approval to work with the City to come up with
several acceptable preservation options for the cabins,
RI"SIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCF::
The residential building on the south parcel appears to satisfy all of the residential design
standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential DesiRn Standards, The
application addresses a request for a variance from the entry door requirement for a
multi-family residential building in the residential design standards, but the application
actually meets the design standard and no variance is necessary, The entry door standard
requires that the building have one street-oriented entrance per every four (4) units in the
building. The building has sixteen (16) units with four (4) street facing entrances (two on
South Aspen Street, one on E, Cooper, and one on S, Monarch Street),
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REV/~'W AND EMPUJYEE HOUSING IMPLICATIONS:
There were some initial discussions about employee housing mitigation requirements in
reviewing the conceptual PUD application. In the following paragraphs, Staff discusses
the proposed employee housing mitigation and analyzes the Applicants' compliance with
the mitigation requirements.
New Lodge- Employee Generation:
The final PUD application proposed that the Applicants would pay a cash-in-lieu fee of
$398,220.00. However, per a suggestion of the Planning and Zoning Commission and
Staff, the Applicants have proposed to provide a one-bedroom, Category 2 rental unit in
the residential building (application addendum was attached as Exhibit "C" in the first
reading packet) rather than paying the cash-in-lieu fee,
The application argues that the lodge portion of the proposed development will not
actually increase the number of full-time employees over that which is required to
operate the existing Limelite Lodge, Snowflake Inn, and Deep Powder Lodge, It has
been indicated that the existing three (3) lodges combined, have traditionally employed a
total of forty-eight (48) full-time employees to operate the 110 existing lodge rooms. The
Applicants have also represented that they anticipate employing a total of forty (40)
employees to operate the new lodge and to manage the new free market residential units.
The Applicants have expressed that they believe they can accommodate the 125 new
lodge rooms with only forty (40) employees because the new lodge will be more spatially
efficient to maintain, Additionally, the Applicants argue that the equipment in the
existing three (3) lodges varied greatly from property to property and the consolidation of
the rooms into the one new lodge will be more efficient in terms of maintaining the
equipment and amenities necessary to operate the lodge, thereby necessitating fewer
employees,
New Residential Development- Mitigation:
Given that the Applicants anticipate only requiring forty (40) full-time employees to
operate the new lodge and that the three (3) existing lodges (Limelite, Snowflake, and
Deep Powder) have traditionally required forty-eight (48) full-time employees to
accommodate the current day to day operations, the Applicants feel that the land use code
allows them an employee housing credit equivalent to eight (8) full-time employees to be
applied to mitigate for the free market development proposed on the south parcel.
Staff Evaluation of Employee Housing Requirements:
The recently adopted revisions to the growth management regulations require mitigation
on the additional employees being generated by the redevelopment of an incentive lodge
(incentive lodge is defined as a lodge that contains a minimum of one lodge unit per 500
square feet of lot area and that has unit sizes that do not exceed an average of 500 square
feet) at a mitigation rate of 30%, The growth management regulations also now allow for
the free market component associated with an incentive lodge to be mitigated for by
providing one ADU for each free market dwelling unit to be constructed within the
development, or by providing on-site or off-site category affordable housing units at a
rate of 30% of the total residential bedrooms in the development, or by paying the cash-
in-lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development that is
currently $66,37 per square foot offree market residential FAR,
The Planning Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing Board agree
with the Applicants' argument that the proposal will be more labor etlicient by
combining the lodge rooms in the three (3) existing lodges into one facility, The newly
adopted growth management language contains a chart that establishes that ,5 employees
are expected to be generated per lodge bedroom in the Lodge District. In looking at the
proposed lodge, using the Lodge District employee generation rate, the code would
predict that sixty-two and a half (62,5) full-time employees (125 lodge rooms multiplied
by .5 employees) would be employed by the proposed lodge, Another section of the
aforementioned chart suggests that .3 employees are anticipated to be generated for
Lodge Preservation (LP) lodge bedrooms which are typically smaller, traditional lodge
units. Using the LP employee generation factor, the proposed lodge would employ
thirty-seven and a half (125 lodge rooms multiplied by .3 employees) full-time
employees,
StatT feels that the lodge units being proposed are similar in operating characteristics and
size to the LP lodge units that are represented in the employee generation chart.
Therefore, Staff believes that it is realistic to assume that the Applicants' assertion that it
will take forty (40) full-time employees to operate the proposed lodge is reasonable.
In reviewing the growth management implications on the free market residential
component of the development plan, Statf agrees that the Applicants should receive
credit for the eight (8) (48 employees have been traditionally needed to operate the
existing lodges minus the anticipated 40 employees needed to operate the new lodge)
excess employees that would no longer be needed to operate the new lodging facility.
If an eight (8) employee credit is to be awarded to the residential component from the
lodge component as is allowed by the Land Use Code Section 26,470,050(A)(l)(f),
Calculations, the Applicants would be required to provide half of a unit or pay cash-in-
lieu in the amount of$398,220,OO. The cash-in-lieu fee calculation would be as follows:
. 17 Free-Market Residential Units multiplied by 30% mitigation requirement= 5,1
AH Units
. 5.1 AH Units minus credit for 8 FTEs (8 FTEs divided by 1.75 employees per 1-
bedroom unit= 4,6) equals .5 AH Units required after a credit of 8 FTEs,
. .5 AH units required after applying 8 FTE credit, divided by 5.1 total AH Units
required equals 10% of total mitigation required for this project with credits,
. 60,000 square feet of free market residential floor area multiplied by $66.37 per
square foot, equals $3,982,220 (cash-in-lieu fee if no credits were applied from
the lodging portion of the development).
. $3,982,220 multiplied by 10% required, equals cash-in-lieu fee of$398,220,OO.
The proposed ordinance contains a condition of approval that requires the
Applicants to deed 1/10 of 1 percent ownership interest in the proposed AH unit to
ensure that the Housing Authority can enforce the rental restrictions provided in
the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Additionally, the proposed ordinance also
contains a condition of approval requiring that the Applicants conduct an employee
audit within thirty days of the second anniversary of the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the lodge to demonstrate that they are not employing more than the
forty (40) full-time employees that they anticipate they will need to operate the new
lodge. The condition further requires that if the audit shows that the Applicants are
employing morc than the forty (40) full-time employees, the Applicants will be
required to pay a cash-in-Iieu affordable housing mitigation fee for thirty (30)
percent of the employees that are above forty (40) full-time employees anticipated to
be needed.
Alternatively, City Council could only allow for a credit of two (2) full-time
employees (42 full-time employees that arc now needed to operate the three existing
lodges minus 40 full-time employees anticipated to operate the new lodge) from the
lodging component to be applied to the residential component. If City Council were
to decide that the Applicants only deserve a credit of two (2) full-time employees, the
mitigation requirement would be 3.96 AH units or a cash-in-Iieu fee of
$3,066,309.40. And finally, if Council were to find that the no credit from the
lodging component to the residential component is warranted, the Applicants would
be required to provide mitigation for 5.1 AH units or pay a cash-in-Iieu fee of
$3,982,220.00.
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE VIEW PLANE:
A portion of the site is located within the designated Wheeler Opera House View Plane
and is subject to the Wheeler Opera House View Plane Review as is required pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. Discussion was
provided in the conceptual PUD review about the project's compliance with the
Mountain View Plane review standards, but formal action was not taken in association
with the conceptual PUD review. In reviewing the request, the proposal will not provide
a significant infringement into the designated view plane and will not block the view
from the Wheeler Opera House of the main focus of the view plane, which is Aspen
Mountain. The majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that the
proposal will not have a significant impact on the designated view plane,
OFF-STREET PARKING:
In refining the PUD application for final review, the Applicants have reduced the number
of off-street parking spaces for the lodge to fifty (50) parking spaces in the underground
parking garage that is proposed beneath the lodge that would be accessed from East
Hyman Avenue, This provides for a ratio of.4 parking spaces per lodge room, The land
use code requires a parking ratio of .7 parking spaces for each lodge bedroom in the
Lodge District unless otherwise established through the PUD process. It has been
expressed by the Applicants that they believe that the fifty (50) parking spaces that they
are proposing for the lodge will be well in excess of what the lodge units will really
demand. Additionally, the fifty (50) off-street parking spaces proposed for the new lodge
are considerably more than what exists currently for the 110 lodge rooms in the Limelite
Lodge, Deep Powder, and Snowflake Inn, The new facility would considerably decrease
the parking deficit that currently exists for the lodge, Given the convenient location of
the proposed lodge adjacent to Rubey Park and the Commercial Core, Staff agrees with
the Applicants that the proposed parking should sufficiently satisfy the demand generated
by the proposed lodge.
The Applicants have also proposed a subgrade parking garage under the residential
development consisting of two (2) parking spaces for each of the eighteen (18) free
lTIarket residential dwelling units, The underlying zoning requires two (2) parking spaces
for each residential dwelling unit of two or more bedrooms, Therefore, the Applicants
havc satisfied the residential parking requirements for the development.
1'1';f)ESTRIAN AMENln:
The Applicants are requesting for the pedestrian amenity requirement to be waived down
to 10% as is allowed by Land Use Code Section 26.412,060(B)(6), Pedestrian Amenity
Space. for well-designed projects that have a positive contribution to the pedestrian
environment. The Applicants are requesting that the pedestrian amenity requirements be
reduced down to 10% as is allowed by the code since they are proposing to install corner
bulb-outs along Monarch Street adjacent to both the lodge and residential buildings to
enhance the pedestrian streetscape along Monarch Street.
Staff believes that the bulb-outs are of value to the community and warrants the requested
reduction, The Applicants have further proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for a large
portion of the 10% requirement as is allowed by the code. Staff has included a condition
of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring a cash-in-lieu payment at the time of
building permit submittal. The amount of the cash-in-lieu payment will be $157,250.00
(37,000 square feet of land multiplied by the 10% requirement equals 3,700 square feet
required; minus 555 square feet of open space provided equals 3,145 square feet to pay
cash-in-lieu on; 3,145 square feet multiplied by $50 per square foot equals $157,250,00).
The Planning and Zoning Commission supported the waiver of the pedestrian amenity
requirements down to I 0% of the lot, but the Commission did not support the bulb-outs,
VLHI('ULAR A (,(,ESS:
The Applicants have proposed to access the subgrade parking garage in the lodge
development from East Hyman Avenue. The vehicular access to the lodge received
considerable discussion during the conceptual PUD review and it was determined that the
most appropriate location to access the parking garage for the lodge was from East
Hyman Avenue as the Applicants originally proposed.
The Applicants have proposed to access the underground parking garage in the residential
development from the alleyway located directly south of the subject development parcel.
This is the same alleyway in which the Dancing Bear Development has received approval
to use in order to access their underground parking garage and that the Towne Place
Condominiums use to access their existing parking, The Applicants have moved the
entryway for the residential development's garage west of where it was located in the
conceptual PUD, but it is still located off of the alleyway. In reviewing the location of
the proposed entry to the garage, it appears that the Applicants have located the entry in a
manner that wi II not create tratlic conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting the
. development and those utilizing the other parking accessed from this alley,
TRASII/RF:CYCUNG AND LOADING/UNLOADING AREAS:
The Applicants have proposed to locate the trash and recycling areas for the lodge
building on the alleyway that would remain open. As proposed, the trash/recycling area
is to contain a pull-in that will allow for a trash truck to turn around so that it would not
have to back up all the way back down the alleyway after picking up the trash. The pull-
in will also allow for snow plow trucks to turn around at the end of the alleyway so that
they too do not have to back up the length of the alleyway to remain open. For the
residential building, the Applicants are proposing to locate the trash/recycling area off of
the alleyway as well. Staff believes that the trash/recycling areas for both the lodging and
residential components of the development are sutlicient in size and are appropriately
located.
As far as loading and unloading of deliveries to the lodge are concerned, the Applicants
have proposed to take most deliveries from the alleyway and the remainder from East
Cooper A venue adjacent to the lodge, Staff does believe that there is sufficient delivery
area being provided since the project does not include retail or restaurant services
because there will be limited deliveries associated with the lodge operation.
CONSTR(fCT!ON MANAGEMEVT:
The Applicants submitted a draft construction management plan in the final PUD
application (attached as Exhibit "A" to the application that was included in the first
reading packet) proposing the construction management techniques to be used during the
construction process, Staff agrees with the majority of the provisions of the proposed
management plan, However, Staff would recommend that the Applicants be required to
provide phone contact information for the on-site project manager to the City of Aspen,
210 E, Cooper Condominiums, the Park Central Condominiums, and the Towne Place of
Aspen Condominiums as is consistent with the condition of approval of the conceptual
PUD application, Staff is reinforcing this as a requirement by including it in the
proposed ordinance.
The construction management plan also does not indicate that all of the delivery and
dump trucks used as part of the construction will meet the emission requirements of the
Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law, Staff has proposed a condition of approval in the
attached ordinance reinforcing this requirement. Staff has also provided a condition of
approval requiring that street closures not occur concurrently with significant public
events in Wagner Park,
The Applicants have also proposed to close the western half of Cooper Avenue
completely to use as construction staging, Many of the neighbors have expressed a need
and a desire for the Applicants to keep at least a pedestrian access open along E. Cooper
A venue trom South Aspen Street to Monarch Street. Staff believes that this is a detail
that should be addressed by City Council in the final PUD review.
DEVELOPMENT TIAIING:
In order to make sure that the lodging component is at least constructed in conjunction
with or prior to the construction of the residential component of the development, Staff
has proposed a condition of approval in the ordinance requiring that the Applicants obtain
a certificate of occupancy on the lodging component of the development prior to
receiving a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential units within the
development.
REFERRAL AGENCY ISSUES:
WIDENING OF MONARCH STREET:
The City Engineer would like the Applicants to widen Monarch Street to titty-tour (54)
feet where the diagonal, head-in parking is proposed because it is an alternate bus route
for RFT A. From a different perspective, the Planning Staff feels that widening Monarch
Street adjacent to the Limelight will cause there to be an inconsistent curb line along
Monarch Street and is somewhat contrary to the purpose of including the bulb-outs as a
traffic-calming mechanism, The Planning Staff believes that the curb to curb width
till1ctions safely as currently configured and does not believe that the pavement width
needs to be widened where there is head-in, diagonal parking,
USE OF MONARCH STREET FOR CONSTRUCTiON STAGING:
The Applicants would like to use the westernmost ten (10) feet of Monarch Street for
construction staging for most of the project. The Parking Department has requested that
the Applicants maintain the diagonal, head-in parking on Monarch Street during the
construction except for when the Applicants are reconstructing the curbs and constructing
the corner bulb-outs, if approved. The ordinance as written prohibits the use of Monarch
Street for staging per the Parking Department's request, If Council believes that the
Applicants should have the ability use the portion of Monarch Street for staging, Council
would need to remove the prohibition from Section 6 of the ordinance,
REMAINDER OF REFERRAL AGENCY COMML"NTS'
The remainders of the referral agencies' comments have been included as conditions of
approval in the proposed ordinance as deemed appropriate by Staff,
ST AfF' RECOMMENDATION:
As was detailed in this memorandum, Staff feels that the proposal has the ability to
further many of the City's lodging goals. Additionally, Staff believes that the proposal is
consistent with the changes to the design that were required by City Council as part of the
conceptual PUD approvals since the Applicants have reduced the height of the residential
building so that it is now in conformance with the height allowed for an incentive lodge
in the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District. As was also described in the Staff
Memorandum, the Applicants have proposed to provide lock-off capabilities in five (5) of
the residential units so that they can be rented out on a short-term basis.
If Council agrees with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that the
height of the residential building needs to be further reduced, Staff would suggest that the
Council require the Applicants to revise their plans prior to granting final PUD approval.
The attached ordinance represents the dimensional requirements as proposed in the final
PUD application. Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached ordinance,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to approve Resolution No, 38,
Series of 2005, recommending that City Council approve the Limelight Final PUD
application and associated land use requests, finding that the application meets the review
standards, However, as was described earlier in the memorandum, the Planning and
Zoning Commission's support is contingent upon the Applicants reducing the overall
height of the building by between 10% and 15% pursuant to the condition of approval
included in the Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution (attached as Exhibit "H" in
the first reading packet). The Applicants have not reduced the height of the residential
building per the Commission's request.
It should also be noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not support the
corner bulb-outs along Monarch Street and that some of the Commissioners expressed
concerns about the overall pattern of development in the City, but felt this application
complied with the rules and review standards that the City currently has in place,
contingent upon the height reduction requested by the Commission, The Planning and
Zoning Commission's minutes are attached as Exhibit 'T',
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"[ move to approve Ordinance No, I, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the
Limelight Final PUD and associated land use requests to construct 125 lodge rooms and
] 7 free market residential units on the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, Snowflake
Inn properties, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado,"
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B - ApPLICATION (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT C - ADDENDUM TO ApPLICATION (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT D - REFERRAL COMMENTS (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT E - LETTERS FROM PUBLIC (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT F - CONCEPTUAL ApPROV AL RESOLUTION (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING
PACKET)
EXHIBIT G - P & Z AND COUNCIL CONCEPTUAL REVIEW MINUTES (INCLUDED IN
FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT H - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINAL PUD RESOLUTION
(INCLUDED IN FIRST READING PACKET)
EXHIBIT 1- HPC COMMENTS ON DEEP POWDER (INCLUDED IN FIRST READING
PACKET)
EXHIBIT ,J - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
, --'- "-",""~",--"-_"""",,,,,,~,.-,,,.,,----,,--_,-,~"'."---"'-~'-"~-_.",--.,-~--- .
ORDINANCE NO.1
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
LIMELIGHT LODGE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS TO CONSTRUCT 125 LODGE ROOMS
AND 17 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE LIMELITE LODGE,
DEEP POWDER LODGE, AND SNOWFLAKE INN PROPERTIES, DESCRIBED
AS THE EASTERNMOST 10 FEET OF LOT C, LOTS D-I AND LOTS O-S,
BLOCK 76, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND LOTS A-I, BLOCK 77,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-182-19-001
Parcel No. 2737-131-05-001
Parcel No. 2737-182-18-001
Parcel No. 2737-073-42-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
Irom Limelite Inc, and Limelite Redevelopment LLC, owners, represented by Steve
Szymanski, requesting approval of a Final Planned Unit Development, Partial Alley
Vacation, Rezoning, Subdivision, Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review, Residential
Design Standards Variances, Commercial Design Standard Variances, and Growth
Management Review, to construct 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free market
residential dwelling units on the properties described as the easternmost 10 feet of Lot C,
Lots D-I and Lots O-S, Block 76, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots A-I, Block
77, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties contain approximately 64,000 total square
feet and are located in the Lodge Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined in
consultation with the Applicants that it would be appropriate for the review of all of the
land use requests associated with the final PUD application to be combined with the
review of the final PUD application to ensure clarity in the final decision pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(I), Combined reviews; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Sectio~ 26.445, Planned Unit
Development, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Final
Planned Unit Development request during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and
considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning
and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2005, the
Planning and Zoning Commission continued the review of the proposal to December 13,
2005; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2005, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No, 38, Series of2005, by a five
to zero (5-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Limelight
Lodge final PUD and associated land use actions to construct an in.centive lodge consisting
of 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free-market residential units; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 23, 2006, the
Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. I, Series of2006;by a_ to _ (_-
_) vote, approving with conditions, the Limelight Lodge final PUD and associated land use
actions to construct an incentive lodge consisting of 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free-
market residential units; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council 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 Plarming and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen City Council hereby approves the Limelight Lodge Final PUD application,
partial alley vacation, subdivision, rezoning to include a PUD overlay, Wheeler Mountain
View Plane Review, Commercial Design Standard Variances, and Growth Management
Review to construct 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free market residential dwelling
units on the properties described as the easternmost 10 feet of Lot C, Lots D-I and Lots
O-S, Block 76, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots A-I, Block 77, City and
Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Rezoninl! to include a PUD Overlav
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council
hereby rczones the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn properties to
include a PUD overlay.
,~."'.__."~h~"'-'-
.. . ____....".~,,,.,,.,..,....'._,','c ,._.._.~__'_.~..._,,~
Section 3: Subdivision/PUD Plat and Al!reement
The Applicants shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land
Use Code Section 26.480 within ISO days of approval. Additionally, a final
Subdivision/PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing: easements,
encroachment agreements and licenses (with the reception numbers) for physical
improvements, and location of utility pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
d, A final grading and drainage plan,
e, A final utility plan.
Section 4: Buildinl! Permit Annlication
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b, The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c, A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any
removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings
proposed on the site,
e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff plan,
prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and
debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is
required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-
year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
f. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in
Section 6 of this ordinance,
g. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Department.
h. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer.
_~~W"_"__'____ ._ .._~__,~_"-...-._
Section 5: Dimensional Requirements
The dimensional requirements established in this PUD are as follows:
Dimensional Approved PUD
Requirement Dimensional
Requirements
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet
Minimum Front o Feet
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard o Feet
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard o Feet
Setback
Maximum Height Lodge: 46 Feet for
Primary Roof Height,
SO Feet for limited
accent elements,
elevators, mechanical
enclosures, etc.
Residential: 42 Feet,
measured from existing
grade and 46 feet for
elevator head
enclosures, firep lace
flues, and vent
terminations.
Minimum Percent 76% Maximum Site
Open Space Covera,e
Allowable External 2.42: I
FAR
Minimum Off-Street .4 Parking Spaces per
Parking Lodge Unit
2 Parking Spaces per
Residential Unit
Section 6: Construction Manae:ement
A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application
that meets the requirements of the current "Components of a Construction Management
Plan" handout that is available in the City of Aspen Building Department. The
construction management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking plan, a
construction staging and phasing plan, a construction worker transportation plan, a plan
for accepting major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the
designation of haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other
neighboring developments under construction to limit the impacts of constmction. This
agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community
Development Director. .
As part of the construction management plan, the developer shall agree to require all
dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission
requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law, Any regulations regarding
construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application
for a building permit for this project shall be applicable,
The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be
reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed areas
(including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of
adjacent right-of-ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request
additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction, A temporary
encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of-way for construction
purposes. The Applicants shall not be allowed to close Monarch Street during
construction except when doing utility work in Monarch Street and constructing corner
bulb-outs,
The Applicants shall coordinate with the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) and the
City to schedule a closure of Monarch Street. Street closures concurrent with significant
public events in Wagner Park shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Additionally, the Applicants shall not be allowed to close off and use the western 10 feet
of South Monarch Street for staging through the entirety of the construction process as
was proposed in the application, but rather the Applicants can do so subject to a
temporary encroachment license for periods of time not to exceed three (3) months,
The Applicants shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project
management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the 210 E. Cooper
Condominiums, the Park Central Condominiums, the Park Central West Condominiums,
and the Towne Place of Aspen Condominiums,
Section 7: Pre-Construction Meetinl?:
The Applicants shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community
Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application, This meeting
shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings,
the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building
Department, and the Community Development Department's case planner.
Section 8: Fire Mitil?:ation
The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshall in both the residential and lodge developments. The
water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler
System. The Applicants' design team shall meet with the Fire Marshall to formulate a
plan for fighting fires in the below-grade parking garage structures prior to building
permit submittal.
........--.-~._---_._"---,<"'-_..,~~-,_..~
Section 9: Water Department Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units, Each residential
unit shall have an individual water meter but the Applicants will be required to pay only
one tap fee for the residential unit building and one tap fee for the lodge building,
Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (root foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed, Oil and sand separators meeting the ACSD's requirements shall be
installed in each of the parking garages. In addition, the driveway entrance drains shall
drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator.
One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed for each of the buildings within the
development. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right-of-way above ACSD
main sewer lines. The Applicants shall enter into a shared service line agreement.
Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
Section 11: Sewer Line Relocation
The Applicants shall fund the relocation of the main sanitary sewer line that serves the
Prospector Lodge,
Section 12: Transformer Relocation
The Applicants shall relocate the existing transformer onto their 'property. The location
for the transformer shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior
to installation, The Applicants shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility
Personnel to access the relocated transformer for maintenance purposes.
Section 13: Growth Manal!:ement Implications and Emplovee "oRsinI!: Mitil!:ation
The Applicants shall provide a I-bedroom affordable housing unit, deed restricted as a
Category 2 rental unit to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirement of ,5
affordable housing units (mitigation requirement calculated after providing an 8 FTE
credit from the lodging component to the residential component of the incentive lodge
development and based on the assumption that 40 FTEs will be needed to operate the
new lodging component as is more fully described in Section 14 below). Income and
asset restrictions from the Aspen/Pitkin Affordable Housing Guidelines shall be waived.
The Applicants shall convey a 1110 of I percent, undivided interest in the affordable
housing unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy on any portion of the development. The Applicants shall file the
deed restriction on the affordable housing unit in conjunction with filing a condominium
plat for the property and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the affordable
housing unit.
An employee audit on the lodge component of the development shall be conducted after
two full fiscal years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy to verify
that only 40 FTEs are needed to operate the new lodge, pursuant to the following terms:
a, The Applicants shall provide an up-to-date report on the current employees at the
time of final plat.
h. The Applicants shall retain an auditor and shall gain prior approval from the
Housing Office Operations Manager for the selection of the auditor.
c. The Applicants shall be fully responsible for all fees associated with retaining an
auditor.
d. The audit shall occur after two full fiscal years of operation,
Section 14: Lodee Emplovee Audit
Should the housing audit referenced in Section 13 indicate that the new Limelight Lodge
is employing more than the forty (40) full-time employees (the Limelite Lodge, Deep
Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn to be demolished had 48 full-time employees prior to
consolidating ownership, of which 8 FTEs shall be credited to the free-market residential
component in order to lower its employee housing mitigation requirement to the .5 of an
employee housing unit required in Section 13 above) that are anticipated to operate the
new lodge, the Applicants shall return to the Housing Authority under the following
terms:
a. The Applicants shall provide deed restricted, affordable housing or cash-in-lieu
thereof to mitigate for 30% of the additional employees above 40 full-time
employees,
b. The Applicants shall abide by the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing
Guidelines in effect at the time of the audit.
c. The term employee shall include all full-time payroll and non-payroll employees
generated by the application.
Section 15: Deep Powder Relocation
The Applicants shall pay $20,000,00 towards, schedule, and supervise the relocation of
thc two (2) oldest deep powder cabins to a site provided by the City. The landing site of
the cabins shall be identified by the City in a timely manner to allow for the relocation of
the cabins on or around May I, 2006, to accommodate the demolition plans of the
Applicants,
Section 16: Landscapine
The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit
application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of-way landscaping and
irrigation without trenching under the roots of trees to be preserved to the extent possible. If
trenching is necessary it shall be done by hand. The plan shall also include a parkway
landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting public streets of at least five (5) feet in width.
Appropriate street tree plantings are required along all streets adjacent to the property.
;.,__.^.,.___,..__,._...~"".,"~""~_~~~___~~>""___''''_''''''~,_.__..., __~..,.,__,_.~~__~,~.___..,..,."'~._...~._._.__'.."_.~_..O"~"'"~"~'__"W ..
The Applicants shall preserve the existing Cottonwood tree located on the corner of South
Monarch Street and East Hyman Avenue and the large Cottonwood tree that exists between
the Deep Powder Lodge and the Limelite South Building that were slated for removal in the
conceptual PUD application. Additionally, the stand of large Spruce trees located to the
north of the existing Limelite South Building shall be thinned for health and preserved, The
Applicants shall also install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any
trees to be saved subject to the following provisions:
a. The City Forester or his/her designee must inspect this fence before any
construction activities commence,
b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment,
construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip line.
The Applicants shall also remove the three (3) conifers located adjacent to the proposed
parking garage entrance to the lodge building along East Hyman Avenue. A 2-year
maintenance bond shall be secured by the Applicants for any trees to be preserved in which
there will be planned excavation within or adjacent to their driplines.
Section 17: Pedestrian Amenity
The Pedestrian Amenity requirement is hereby reduced to 10% (approximately 3,700 square
feet) of the site's square footage because the project will have a positive contribution to the
pedestrian environment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.4l2,060(B)(6), Pedestrian
Amenity, Of the 10% pedestrian amenity requirement, the Applicants are proposing to
provide pedestrian amenity for 1.5 % (approximately 550 square feet) of the site and pay
cash-in-lieu for the remainder of the requirement. Therefore, the Applicants shall pay a
cash-in-lieu of providing pedestrian amenity in the amount of$157,250,OO prior to building
permit issuance,
Section 18: PM-I0 Miti2ation
The Applicants shall execute the following methods ofPM-lO mitigation:
a, Sell the residential units with only one parking space per unit and require that
purchasers of a unit be required to purchase a second space at an additional cost.
b. Provide free RFT A bus passes to employees that live outside the City of Aspen.
c. Advertising to potential guests that a personal or rental car is not necessary due to
the extensive public transportation system.
Section 19: Corner Bulb.Outs
The corner bulb-outs shall contain tapered curb lines of 15 degrees leading into the corner
bulb outs proposed in the South Monarch Street and East Hyman Avenue right-of~ways for
snow plowing purposes, Additionally. a street width of 28 feet, from the face of curb to the
face of curb. shall be maintained on South Monarch Street where the corner bulb-outs are
proposed,
Section 20: Ril!ht-of-Wav Imnrovements
The Applicants shall reconstruct E Cooper Avenue between South Aspen Street and South
Monarch Street and split the drainage flows to South Aspen Street and Monarch Street.
Additionally, if it is necessary to install a new storm drainage pipe in E. Hyman Avenue and
resurrect the storm sewer inlet on the southeast corner of S, Aspen Street and E, Hyman
Avenue, the Applicants shall reconstruct the south half of E, Hyman Avenue. The
Applicants shall also reconstruct the west half of S. Monarch Street and pave the alleyway
of Block 77. All of the improvements set forth in this section shall be made prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any part of the development.
Section 21: Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter
Sidewalk, curb, and gutter meeting the City Engineer's design requirements shall be
constructed in the right-of-way adjacent to all of the property subject to this development
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the development. On
Cooper A venue between South Aspen Street and Monarch Street all curb and gutter shall be
replaced. The sidewalk locations shall be in substantially the same location as is depicted on
the site plan in the final PUD application submittal, The north-facing curbs shall be heated,
Section 22: Park Develonment Imnact Fees
Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance
on both the new residential bedrooms (including the affordable housing bedrooms) and
the lodging bedrooms to be added to the subject properties p\lfsuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fees, The Park Development Impact Fees
shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at
the time of building permit application.
Section 23: School Land Dedication Fees
School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building
permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,630, School Lands Dedication,
because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family
residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code, The school lands
dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee
schedule in place at the time of building permit application,
Section 24: Exterior Lil!htinl!
All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26,575.150, Outdoor Lighting,
Section 25: Wildlife Trash Containers
The Applicants shall install a wildlife-proof trash container for the residential building
that meets the requirements of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicants
shall install a trash compacter for use of the lodge building to 1imit solid waste pick-ups
in the alleyway of Block 76.
Section 26: Food Service Facilities
Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health
Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a
Colorado Food Service License.
Section 27: Pool and Soas
All design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa shall comply with the Colorado
Department of Health's "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations", The Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District shall review and approve the drain size for the swimming
pool facility prior to installation,
Section 28: Develooment Timinl!:
The Applicants shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all the lodge component of the
development prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential units
within the development. A certificate of occupancy shall also be obtained on the affordable
housing unit before or in conjunction with receiving a certificate of occupancy on the lodge
component ofthe development.
Section 29:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances,
Section 30:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 31:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, in the City
Cowlcil Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, .
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of January, 2006,
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of _ to _ L-_), this 23rd
day of January, 2006,
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
In accordance with Section 26.445,050 of the Land Use Code, an application requesting
conceptual PUD approval requires that the following review standards be met.
A. General Requirements.
I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with and satisfies many of the lodging objectives
established in the AACP. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would
aid in maintaining and adding to the City's inventory of moderately priced, short-term
accommodations that have been severely declining over the past decade, Additionally,
the properties subject to this application have been identified on the AACP's future land
use map as being appropriate for lodging development. Staf~ finds this criterion to be
met.
2, The proposed development shall be consistent with the character (!( existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
StatTFinding
Staff believes that the proposed lodge use is consistent with the character of uses in the
immediate vicinity in that the properties are located in the Lodge District and many of the
properties in the immediate area serve as short-term accommodations, Staff further feels
that the moderately sized and presumably moderately priced units provide a good
transition between the high end units in the Aspen Mountain Base area and the smaller,
moderate lodging establishments located north of Durant Avenue, Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3, The proposed development shall not adversely affect thefuture development
of"the surrounding area,
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed request will adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding properties, Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final
PUD development plan review.
StatTFinding
As is described in the growth management implications section of this memorandum, the
Applicants have proposed to mitigate for employee housing by providing one on-site
affordable housing units, which would more than meet the mitigation requirements if
City Council were to determine that an eight (S) employee credit from the lodge
component of the development should be applied to the residential component of the
proposed incentive lodge, That being said, the Applic~ts have applied for the
appropriate growth management reviews in association with the final PUD application,
StafI believes that sufficient growth management allotments exist for the proposed
dcvelopment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Establisltment {!f Dimensional Requirements:
Tlte final PUD development plans sit all establislt tlte dimensional requirements jiJr
all properties witltin tlte PUD. Tlte dimensional requirements (!f tlte under(vinf:
zone district sltall be used as a f:uide in determining tlte appropriate dimensions/fJr
tlte PUD, During review tJ{ tlte proposed dimensional requirements, compatibili(V
witlt .mrrounding land uses and existing development patterns sit all be empltasized,
1. Tlte proposed dimensional requirements for tlte subject property are appropriate
and compatible witlt tlte following influences on tlte property:
a) Tlte cltaracter of, and compatibility witlt, existing and expected future
land uses in tlte surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made Itazards,
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 {!f the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, tra.tfi~, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
Stafffeels that the proposed lodge use and associated free market residential development
is compatible with that of the existing lodge and multi-family residential uses in the
immediate vicinity. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposal preserves the important
natural characteristics of the property in that many of the mature trees that exist on the
site and adjacent to the site are to be preserved throughout the construction process, The
Applicants have also proposed to improve the parking situation on the site and in the
immediate vicinity by providing the proposed parking garages under both the lodge and
residential portions of the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2, The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
tlte proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have proposed a maximum principal building height of forty-six (46) feet
with a limited amount of accent elements that would top out at fifty (50) feet tall on the
lodge building within the incentive lodge development. On the residential building, the
Applicants are proposing to meet the maximum height limit for an incentive lodge in the
Lodge Zone District. As was mentioned previously in the staff memorandum, the overall
heights of the lodge PUD buildings approved in the immediate vicinity are primarily
between 47 and 60 feet tall. The lodge PUD's that Staff is referring to include the St.
Regis (lower 60's), the Mountain Chalet (51 feet), the Grand Aspen Hotel (46 feet), the
approved Dancing Bear (46' 6"), and the Residences at Little Nell Conceptual PUD (47
feet), Therefore, StafT feels that the proposed height is consistent with that of other lodge
PUD's in the immediate area,
Additionally, Staff believes that the design included in the final PUD application is
consistent with the conditions of the conceptual approval peitaining to height and
massing that required the Applicants to look at reducing the height of the residential
building to beneath the 42 feet as measured by the City Land Use Code, Staff also
believes that the height and massing of the lodge building is consistent with the height
and massing that was conceptually approved. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3, The appropriate number of off-street parking .\paces shall be established hased
on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The proposal calls for 125 lodging units and 17 free market ,residential units. The
Applicants have proposed to provide fifty (50) parking spaces for the use of the lodge,
which equates to a parking ratio of.4 parking spaces per lodging bedroom, Staff believes
that the proposed parking ratio decreases the parking deficit on the parcels subject to the
application, Staff feels that the parking proposed for the lodge is sufficient given the
location of the development properties in close proximity to the Commercial Core, Rubey
Park Transit Station, and the base of Aspen Mountain.
Staff would recommend that the Applicants be required to provide a shuttle van and a
f1eet of bicycles for the convenience and use of guests to further promote alternatives to
having a vehicle in town that requires a parking space, Staff is also recommending that
the Applicants bc required to market the transportation alternatives that Aspen has to
possible visitors at the time of room bookings, The above recommendations have been
included as conditions of approval in the proposed ordinance, Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
4, The maximum allowable density within a pun may he reduced !f there
exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density l!fa pun may he reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
h) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed developltlent.
StatlFinding
Statl believes that sufficient intfastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the
proposed development. The adjacent public right-of-ways of South Monarch Street, East
Cooper Avenue, and East Hyman Avenue are approximately seventy-five (75) foot right-
ol~ways and are already sufficient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow
removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire
Marshall, Streets Director, and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate
for any insutliciencies. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a pun may he reduced !f there
exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the
maximum density of a pun may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls ,or avalanche dangers.
b) The f!;ffects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollation.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Statl Finding
Stall feels that the proposed site is suitable for development, The site IS already
developed with existing lodge structures. Staff does believe that the proposed
development will increase the amount of impervious surface on the sites; however, the
City Engineer requires the Applicants to submit a drainage plan to ensure that the historic
drainage rates will not be increased. In addition, Staff does not believe that the proposed
development would enhance the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, or avalanche dangers.
Staff also does not believe that the development will produce extensive negative impacts
on the air quality within the City, Staff has proposed conditions of approval rcquiring
transportation alternatives including a fleet of bicycles on-site 'for use by guests and
employees and an airport shuttle service available to guests of the lodge. That being the
case, the City Environmental Health Department has expres:;ed that they are satisfied
with the Applicants' PM-lO mitigation tactics. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists u significant community goal to be achieved through such increase
and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding
development patterns and with the site's physical constraints, Specifically,
the maximum density ola PUD may be increased il:
a) The increase in densi(y serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
The Applicants are not requesting to increase the allowable density through the proposed
PUD because no density requirement exists for lodge units in the underlying Lodge Zone
District. Staff finds that this review standard is not applicable to the proposal.
B, Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public .\paces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the ad;acent
public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safe(v, The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
I, Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to
tlte identity of tlte town are preserved or enltanced in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have proposed to preserve the many mature trees that exist along the
south side of East Cooper Avenue during the construction of the development.
Additionally. the Applicants have proposed to save as many existing trees on the interior
of the development site as possible, Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures Itave been clustered to appropriately prefierve significant open
.\paces and vistas.
Staff Finding
There is only one building proposed on each of the two (2) development parcels,
However, the site is located in the western extent of the designated Mountain View Plane
from the Wheeler Opera House. For Staffs opinion as to whether the proposal meets the
_<'"_----.,.~,_,_,.__^.___,,_.__-_..__~___"_____._____-.........._~'"____...c,,_,_.
Wheeler Opera House Mountain View Plane Standards, please refer to the body of the
staff memo for Staff s comments regarding the Wheeler Opera House View Plane issues,
3. Structures are uppropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
enf?af?ement '!l vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Stat{ Finding
Staff believes that the proposed application appropriately orients the structures towards
the public right-of-ways that surround the development parcels to engage people's visual
interest that are walking to the mall or other lodges in the area from the gondola plaza.
Additionally, the facades of the lodge development are visually oriented towards
Monarch St, East Cooper Avenue, and East Hyman Avenue. The facades of the
residential development are primarily oriented towards South Monarch Street and East
Cooper A venue, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4, Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal situates access ways in a manner that allow for emergency
vehicles to easily access the development parcels. In addition, the lodge development
property is surrounded by seventy-five (75) foot public right-of-ways on the east. south.
and north sides, The residential development property is surrounded by seventy-tlve (75)
foot right-ot~ways on the north, east, and west sides of the property. The Fire Marshall
was consulted and believes that the proposal meets emergency access requirements with
the conditions proposed in the attached ordinance, In order to satisfy the Fire Marshall's
concerns about emergency access on the lodge building, the Applicants have put in a
secondary emergency access to the parking garage that is located off of the alleyway.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5, Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have consented to satisfying all pedestrian and accessibility requirements
that exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6, Site drainage is accommodated/or the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal does provide an increase in the amount of impervious
land on the development parcels, The Applicants are required to submit a site drainage
plan that has been designed in a manner that ensures that historic drainage rates will not
be increased as a result of the proposed development. Staff has included a condition of
approval in the attached ordinance requiring that the Applicants submit a drainage plan as
part of the building permit application, Staff finds this criterion. to be met.
7, For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Findin..:
The Applicants are not proposing to construct more than one structure on each of the
development parcels. In addition, the Applicants have proposed a courtyard area as part
of the lodge development that is to contain a swimming pool. This courtyard is to
provide the recreational functions associated with the lodge use. Additionally, a terrace
is proposed to be provided on the corner of South Monarch Street and East Cooper
A venue that lodge guests can sit on an eat breakfast and drink coffee in good weather.
Therefore, Statl tinds this criterion to be met.
C. Landscape Plan:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and
with existing and proposed features of the sub;ect property. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
/, The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatl1lJ!nt of exterior spaces,
pres,erving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety (jf ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Stall' Finding
The Parks Department is requiring that any proposed landscaping in the right-of-way be
in compliance with the requirements for right-of-way landscaping that are set forth in the
Municipal Code. The Parks Department has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and
believes that the species of vegetation proposed on-site are appropriate, Statl tinds this
criterion to be met.
2, Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner,
Staff Finding
As was mentioned above, the Applicants have proposed to maintain the mature trees that
exist along the south side of East Cooper Avenue. Staff feels that these trees are the most
signiticant natural features on the site to be preserved, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3, The proposed method (}{protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Findin..:
The Applicants have consented to following the recommendations of the City Forester in
regards to protecting the mature trees to be preserved. That being the case, the City
Forester has recommended that the Applicants install construction fencing around the
drip line of any trees to be saved and to limit trenching for irrigation as much as possible.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D, Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identi(v 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, ,jrientation to public
,'paces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
,,'ignificantly represent the character (!f the proposed development, There shall
be approved as part of the .final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development, The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
/, be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
Please see Stafrs comments related to the proposed massing in the response to PUD
Review Standard B(2) above,
2, Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, ~'hade, and vegetation and by u"e
of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding
The Applicants are considering geothermal, hydronic, and photovoltaic energy sources
building HV AC purposes and for heating the pool/spa, Additionally, operable windows
will be installed to allow for summer breezes to cool the units, Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
3, Accommodate the storage and ,,'hielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
StafT Finding
The Applicants have proposed appropriate shielding of snow, ice, and water from the
entrances to the lodge by providing awnings and canopies with snow guards over the
entranceways. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Lighting:
The purpose ,,(this stundard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns. Thefollowing standards shall be accomplished:
/, All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to ad;oining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner,
StafIFinding
The Applicants are required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting
Code for any exterior lighting that is proposed, Therefore, the proposed development
will be lighted in a manner that will not provide direct glare on adjoining streets or
property, The Applicants will be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to
the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance, Staff believes that the
Applicants' required compliance with the City Lighting Code ensures that the
development will be lighted in an appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
document~.. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development,
StafIFinding
The Applicants have committed to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the
proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G, Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
~f the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD,
the following criteria shall be met:
], The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
.\pace, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed
development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural
landscape features of the property, provides visaal relief to the property's
hailt form, and is available to the mutual benefit (}f the various land uses
and property users {}f the PUD.
StafIFindinc:
The Applicants are not proposing any common park or open space on the site, However,
the Applicants are proposing the courtyard that is associated with the lodge development,
which is to contain a recreational area with a swimming pool and sitting areas for hotel
guests, The terrace area on the corner of East Cooper Avenue and South Monarch Street
will also provide visual relief from the built form on the site, Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
2, A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park flnd recreation areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a numher of years) to each lot or dwelling
unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
StafIFinding
The Applicants are not proposing any public common park or open space on the site.
However, Staff has proposed a condition of approval that allows each residential owner
access to the common open space within the residential portion of the development.
Guests of the lodge will have access to the recreational facilities provided by the lodge
development. Additionally, owners of the residential units will be afforded access to the
lodge's amenities and common areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3, There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrumentfiJr the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development,
Statl Finding
There is no proposed public open space or common park on the development parcels.
However, provisions will be made in the PUD agreement to ens'ure the maintenance of
the open space areas on both the parcel to contain the residential development and the
parcel to contain the lodge development. Future development of any of the open areas
would require review of a PUD amendment because this development is being reviewed
as a site-specific development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose (Jfthis standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an uniust!fied .financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1, Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal if the
Applicants make the improvements required by the City Water Department and the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2, Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost (!f the developer.
Staff Finding
The Applicants are required to upgrade sidewalk, curb, and. gutter to meet the City
Engineering Department's standards in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment.
In addition. the Applicants will be required to mitigate for the existing trees to be
rcmoved ti'om the public right-ot~way and install landscaping that meets thc City's
requirements. Statl finds this criterion to be met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
The Applicants are not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is
not anticipated that the Applicants will be required by the City to provide oversized
utilities. Statl does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application,
_....c"".___.""'..O~n""""""."'.____~_.,,~_____>..._~__...."
1. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications):
The purpos'e of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible,
does not undu(y burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate
pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimh.es the use of security
gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the
following criteria:
1, Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have proposed to access the subgrade parking garage in the lodge
development from East Hyman Avenue, During the conceptual PUD review it was
determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that E, Hyman is
the most appropriate location to access the lodging building even though Staff had
recommended that access be explored from the alleyway.
The Applicants have proposed to access the underground parking garage in the residential
development from the alleyway located directly south of the subject development parcel.
This is the same alleyway in which the Dancing Bear Development has received approval
to use in order to access their underground parking garage and that the Towne Place
Condominiums use to access their existing parking. However, in reviewing the location
of the proposed entry to the garage, it appears that the Applicants have located the entry
in a manner that will not create tratlic conflicts between vehicl~s entering and exiting the
development and those utilizing the other parking accessed from this alley. Planning
Staff, the City Engineer, and the Fire Marshall have reviewed the proposed means of
vehicular access to the parking garages and believe that they are sufficient with the
conditions that are proposed in the ordinance. Staff does not anticipate considerable
queuing issues, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2, The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular access points and parking arrangement
will create traffic congestion as was described in Staffs response to the previous
criterion, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not
create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners
and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequfl..tely. If phasing of the
development plan is proposed, eaeh phase shall be defined in the adopted final
PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases', including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases,
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupant.\' ()f initial phases from the construction of later pha.\"'es.
3, The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu,
construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation
measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
The Applicants are not proposing to phase the construction, However, Staff has proposed
a condition of approval requiring that the Applicants obtain a certificate of occupancy on
the lodge building prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential
units, Staff finds this criterion to be met. .
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,310, in reviewing an application for an
amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council shall consider the following:
I. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this Title.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that the proposed rezoning application in itself is not in conflict with the City
Land Use Code, The proposed use of the property is as an incentive lodge, which is
consistent with the allowed uses in the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District. The
Applicants require rezoning simply to add a PUD overlay to the property, In addition,
the Applicants have simultaneously proposed to establish the permitted dimensional
requirements for the property through the PUD process in order to redevelop the property
with an incentive lodge consisting of moderate lodge rooms. Staff believes this is
consistent with the intent of the incentive lodge code language that is established in the
land use code. Therefore, if the PUD is approved, the proposed dimensional
requirements will be legal by virtue of obtaining approval of a site-specific development
plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application to include a PUD overlay on the
Limelight site is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use
composite map that is included in the AACP establishes that the subject property is to be
used as lodging or short-term accommodation, which is consistent with the incentive
lodge use that is proposed. In addition, the subject property is located in close proximity
to the amenities of the downtown core and the ski mountain as well as the transit center
and is conducive to supporting the incentive lodge use of the property. StatT finds this
criterion to be met.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
StatT Finding
StatT feels that the proposed PUD overlay is compatible with the surrounding uses.
Please see Staff s responses to the PUD review standards for Staffs finding on the
compatibility of the proposed PUD with the surrounding land uses and developments.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
StatI finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed development will have a significant adverse
ctJect on traflic generation and road safety. By reducing the parking deficit on the site,
the traffic congestion in the area would be alleviated somewhat because patrons would
not be circling the block in search of parking spaces as the application pointed out.
In addition, the subject property is extremely close to the Rubey Park Transit Center, as
well as, the commercial core, which is conducive to pedestrian travel. Furthermore, the
property is within easy walking distance of Aspen Mountain and the ski lifts. This
convenient location should provide for easy access to the amenities within the City and
encourage the patrons of the Limelight to use other means of transportation while they
are staying in Aspen, The Applicants have also proposed to market the ease and
convenience of the public transportation system and the alternative transportation options
available to guests at the time of room bookings. Staff feels that traffic generation and
congestion will be kept to a minimal level because of all the traffic mitigation methods
being required by the City, StafJfinds this criterion to be met.
5, Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but
/lot limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medicalfacilities.
Staff finding
StafJ does not believe that the proposal would exceed the existing capacity of public
facilities. Staff has consulted the City Water and Electric Departments, and the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District and feels that for the most part, sufficient public
facilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. Staff is requiring that the
Applicants upgrade certain utilities and infrastructure related to the development as can
be seen by reviewing the proposed conditions of approval. Staff finds this criterion to be
met as long as the conditions of approval in the proposed ordinanc.e are adhered to,
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment,
Staff finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning of the subject parcel to include a PUD
Overlay will have a considerable adverse impact on the natural environment. The
Applicants have proposed to mitigate for any additional vehicle trips generated, by
methods deemed acceptable by the City Environmental Health Department. StatI finds
this criterion to be met.
7, Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character of the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Please see Staff s responses to the PUD review standards for compliance with the
compatibility of the area and the community character of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that there are changed conditions within the City of Aspen that support the
proposed rezoning of the Limelight properties to include a PUD overlay. Rezoning the
property to include a PUD overlay allows for the proposed incentive lodge development,
which will help maintain 125 moderate, traditional lodge rooms within the City's lodging
inventory. This development responds to the changed condition in the community that
there has been a dramatic reduction in lodge beds over the past decade. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest
and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application in itself is in conflict with
the public interest. Staff believes that the rezoning of the properties to include a PUD
overlay will allow for the redevelopment of the properties as an incentive lodge that will
maintain 125 moderate lodge units in the City's inventory, which Staff believes is in the
public's interest to maintain Aspen as a viable resort community given the recent loss in
short-term accommodations. Staff finds this criterion to be met:
Subdivision
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements:
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the A5pen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that many aspects of the proposed development are consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan, The sole reason that subdivision approval is required in
this instance is because the Applicants are proposing an incentive lodge development that
contains a residential component and a lodging component, which by definition is a
subdivision under the City's land use code. Staff feels that subdividing the properties to
allow for the multi-family residential units to be constructed within the proposed
incentive lodge development is consistent with the intent of the incentive lodge code
amendments that came about as a goal of the AACP. Stafffind~ this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
Staff Finding
Please see Staffs response to PUD review standards B(l)(a) and B(2), StatI finds this
criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
The sole reason that subdivision approval is required in this instance is because the
Applicants are proposing an incentive lodge development that contains a residential
component and a lodging component, which by definition is a subdivision under the
City's land use code. Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision of the property
will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding. areas, Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all the applicable
requirements of the Land Use Code as long as the establishment of the dimensional
requirements being proposed in the PUD section of this application are approved by City
Council. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the PUD section of the application
is approved in conjunction with this subdivision request.
-,-",,-,---,~"'''''''~-'''''''''''-'''-~-~---',,"~"''.''-''' - "' '~'.....-_._-~-"'~'
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of jlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hl/zard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension
of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
The subject site is currently developed and is not located in an area of geological hazard
that would put the inhabitants in of the proposed development at risk, In addition, staff
does not believe that the proposal will require duplication or extension of public facilities.
Staff finds these criteria to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
I. A unique situation existsfor the development where strict adherence to
the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or
the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and
provide justification for each variation request, providing design
recommendations by professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicants will be required to meet the applicable City Agency requirements for site
improvements such as landscaping; sidewalk, curb, and gutter; and sewer line
improvement. Staff believes that these criteria to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which
is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have concurrently applied for growth management review to develop an
incentive lodge, Please see Staff s responses to the review standards for growth
management review for an incentive lodge contained herein. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication
Standards setforth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
Staff has required a condition of approval that requires the applicable school land
dedication fee to be paid by the Applicants prior to building permit issuance. Therefore,
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter
26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable
Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without" first obtaining growth
management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth
management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to
the Ci(y Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, 92)
Staff Finding
The Applicants have concurrently applied for the required growth management review to
construct an incentive lodge, Please see Staff s responses to the growth management
review standards contained herein. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Mountain View Plane
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless it is determined
that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
I. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the
maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title,
development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a
planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building
design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian
space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the
above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane
does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects
of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is
located in front of another development which already blocks the same view
plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the
proposed development will further infringe upon the. view plane, and the
likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the
view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe
upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be
anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commisrion shall approve the
development.
Staff Finding
Stafl' believes that a portion of the proposed development is located within the designated
Wheeler View Plane as was discussed as part of the conceptual PUD at length, However,
Staff feels that the Wheeler View Plane has already been infringed upon by several other
structures that exist to the southwest of the proposed development such as the Lift One
Condominiums and the South Point Condominiums, The Southpoint and Lift one
condominiums are both three to four story buildings that are located on land that is at a
higher elevation than the land on which this project is proposed and already impede on
the designated view plane in much the same location where this project would impede on
the view plane. That being said, Staff does believe that the proposal will further impede
on the designated view plane to an extent, but that the portion of the view plane that will
be further impacted is simply a stand of trees on the western extent of Aspen Mountain
and is not the major focus of the designated view plane. Therefore, Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
_',~""~,,,,,,,_"~""~__~M_""'~_""""",,,,""''"'."'_''''
COMMER'CIAL DESIGN VARIANCES
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing a variance from the commercial design standards, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall grant a variance if the following review standards are
satisfied:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides
a more-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard.
Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial
use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section
26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical.
Amendments to the fa,ade of the building may be required to comply with
this section.
Stafl Finding
The Applicants are requesting two variances from the Commercial Design Standards,
First, the Applicants have requested a variance to allow for the vehicular access to the
parking garage for the lodge building to provided from E, Hyman Avenue rather from the
alleyway as the Commercial Design Standards require, During the conceptual PUD
review, the Planning and Zoning Commission had significant discussions about the
access for the lodging building and was determined that access from E. Hyman was more
appropriate than access from the alleyway because of the traffic conflicts that would arise
from guests maneuvering through the alley onto South Aspen Street, which is a major
bus route. Therefore, Staff believes that proposed access is configured such that it
provides a more appealing access configuration from a safety point of view.
The second variance that thc Applicants are requesting is from the requirement for
pedestrian amenity, The Applicants are requesting that the pedestrian amenity
requirements be reduced down to 10% as is allowed by the code since they are proposing
to install corner bulb-outs along Monarch Street adjacent to both lodge and residential
buildings to enhance the pedestrian streetscape along Monarch Street. Stafl believes that
the bulb-outs are of value to the community and warrants the requested reduction, The
Applicants have further proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for a large portion of the 10%
requirement as is allowed by the code. Staff has included' a condition of approval
requiring the cash-in-Iieu payment at the time of building permit submittal. StafT finds
these criteria to be met.
"---_-........--..",,,+""'-'"
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INCENTIVE LODGE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470(C)(3), Incentive Lodge Development, in
reviewing a growth management application for incentive lodge development, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following:
(1) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development
Allotments.
Staff finding
There are currently enough annual development allotments remammg for 2005 to
accommodate the approval of the seventeen (17) residential allotments that are being
sought by the Applicants. Currently, there are eleven (II) residential development
allotments that have been approved and a total of thirty-seven that are allowed in a year.
StatI'finds this criterion to be met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff finding
As was discussed in Staffs responses to the PUD review standards, Staff believes that
the proposal satisfies many of the lodging goals established in the AACP by maintaining
125 moderate lodge rooms in the City's short-term accommodations inventory, Please
see Statlresponse to the PUD review standards for more information on the application's
compliance with this criterion. Statl finds this criterion to be met.
c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500)
square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500)
square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and
the unit-size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the
limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still
meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in
excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be
required to meet the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge
which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not current(y
meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit-size standard of the new
units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting
the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to
26.470.040.C.2 - Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development.
Staff Finding
The proposed development contains one lodge unit per 515 square feet of lot area and
average 489 square feet each, As is described in the application, the Applicants had to
rcmove several lodge units during the conceptual PUD review at City Council's request
to make the massing of the lodge building acceptable, The majority of the Council
members indicated that removing the units was beneficial to the design and felt that it
was appropriate to allow for the Applicants to still get the growth management and
dimensional requirement incentives afforded to an incentive lodge, That being said Staff
finds this criterion to be met if City Council grants relief from the density requirement in
the associated PUD request.
d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to
the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit
basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall
require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one '?l the
following methods:
i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House
for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached
or entirely above grade to meet this criterion.
ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30%
of the free-market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable
housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger and be provided as
actual units (not as a cash-in-lieu payment). Affordable housing
units provided shall be approved pursuant tp Section 26.470. 040. C. 7,
Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units
outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
iii) Paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee normal(y associated
with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for
the free-market residential development to be associated with the lodge
operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. An
efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge
component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit
towards the mitigation requirement for the free~market component of
the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.I - Employee Generation.
Staff Finding
As was discussed in this memorandwn, the Applicants believe that they should be
afforded a credit of eight (8) full-time employees from the . lodge component of the
development applied to the required affordable housing mitigation for the residential
component of the development due to the anticipated reduction in employees need to
operate the new lodge related to the amount required to operate the existing lodges. That
said, the Applicants have proposed to provide one on-site affordable housing unit after
the credits are applied to the residential component. Staff has reviewed the proposed
,-,..........._..,."..,..,_.,~,~~~.~-.-.,._-
mitigation and believes that it is acceptable as long as an employee audit is conducted
after 2 years of operations on the new lodge to determine that the new lodge indeed only
requires 40 full-time employees to operate. If the audit shows that the new lodge requires
more than the 40 FTEs to operate, the Applicants would be required to mitigate 30% of
the full-time employees over 40 FTEs. The Housing Board reviewed the request and
agreed with the Planning Staff s analysis, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge,
timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial
development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates,
are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu.
thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger
units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional
development and shall not be required for replacement development. The
Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or
efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements
pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.l - Employee Generation. Affordable
housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section
26.470. 040. C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as
defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the
City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section
26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower Category designation.
Staff Finding
As has been discussed in this memorandum, the Applicants believe that there will be
reduction in the number of FTEs needed to operate the new lodge due to the efficiency
gains of the putting all the units into one building and having new, up-to-date equipment.
Staff has included a condition about an employee audit as is discussed in Staff" s response
to the preceding standard, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure
or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as
part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water
supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage
control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road
and transit services.
Staff Finding
The City's utility agencies, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire Marshall.
and other impacted agencies have reviewed the development proposal and believe that
the public improvements required in the attached ordinance are necessary to mitigate the
demand on the public infrastructure, Staff finds this criterion to be met if the conditions
of approval are adhered to.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW
CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.470,040(C)(7), Affordable Housing, of the City Land Use Code provides that
development applications must comply with the following standards and requirements.
a. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
Staff Finding
Affordable housing units do not have an annual allotment cap and the City's inventory of
affordable housing still contains significantly less units than the development ceiling of
2.428 affordable housing units, Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Please see Staff's responses to the PUD criteria, Staff finds this criterion to be met,
c. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. A recommendation from The Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin
County Honsing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the
Board of Directors.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed affordable housing unit meets the requirements of the
afIordable housing guidelines, with the exception that the Housing Board has waived
income and asset requirements, Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
d. Affordable Honsing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of
actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided
within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be
accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040 D.2.
Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the
discretion of the Planning and Zoning commission upon a recommendation
from the Aspen/Pitkin County Honsing Authority. Required affordable
housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have proposed to provide one on-site affordable housing unit as employee
housing mitigation as has been described throughout this memorandum, Staff finds this
requirement to be met.
e. The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred
to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Honsing
Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal
instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent
l!lfordability of the units,
StatfFinding
The Applicants has requested that the deed restricted unit be a Category 2 rental unit
rather than a "for sale" unit. Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that the
Applicants deed III 0111 of I percent of an ownership interest in the affordable housing
units to ensure that the units will remain affordable, Staff finds this criterion to be met,
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
subdivide the property without having a development plan if it was granted by
Council.
Speck echoed the same sentiments by supporting the subdivision but the alley was
of concern and required more information, Speck said not knowing what was
going there with the dead end aspect was of concern,
Tygre agreed an this was a significant parcel because it was important to residents
as well as visitors nd it was an important street as the entrance to the West End.
Tygre commended t e applicant for wanting to restore the house but shared the
commissioners conce s about what was going to be on that property, Tygre said
there were quiet offices d noisy offices and the commission did not have the
right to say who could ren the property. Tygre said the East Bleeker entrance was
not that wonderful either bu 't preserved the Monarch Street side of the property;
there was a lot to be considere
Lindt said at the time a specific de e]opment proposal comes in for the Growth
Management portion of the applicatl n that access could be looked at again to
determine if access was appropriate 0 the alley at that time or if it was still
appropriate off East Bleeker for the pro sed development.
Johns suggested striking the alley access se ion from the resolution at this time.
The other commissioners supported Dy]an's s gestions.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Reso ion #37, series of2005,
recommending City Council approve with condition the 202 North Monarch
Subdivision to divide the property described as Lots 0, Block 78, of the city and
townsite of Aspen into a 9,000 square foot parcel and a 000 square foot parcel
without any alley improvements or reference to the alley, conded by Ruth
Kruger, Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes;
Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes, APPROVED 6-0,
PUBLIC HEARING:
LIMELIGHT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPEMNT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Limelight Final PUD. James
Lindt provided the proof of notice and mailing.
Lindt distributed letters from Jim French and Les Roos for the record. Lindt stated
that John Worcester, the City Attorney, said the Planning & Zoning Commission
had jurisdiction to proceed with the public hearing,
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
Lindt explained the application was submitted by Limelite Inc and Limelite
Redevelopment LLC to redevelop the Limelite Lodge, Snowflake Inn and Deep
Powder Lodge properties into a traditional lodge of 125 lodge rooms and 17 free
market residential condominiums, Lindt said the conceptual approval by City
Council included up to 128 lodge units, up to 18 free market residential units; the
lodge portion of the building was approved at 46 feet in height; to work to a 42
foot height limit on the residential building; conditions to rent out the
condominiums on a short term basis as well as a good faith effort to preserve the
Deep Powder buildings.
Dale Paas thanked the commission for hearing them and said that they have
listened to P&Z and Council and think that they have a project that will be
workable and benefit the community,
Steve Szymanski stated this project was driven by the moderate priced lodge
returning as the Limelight Lodge owned by the family with the residential side as
the financial engine.
John Cottle said the boards in the packet and the boards brought by the architects
were the same. Cottle gave the basic orientation of the project with the relation to
Wagner Park and the residential changes. Cottle said the first change was pulling
back the Hyman side of the project (done during Council) eliminated some rooms,
now at 125 rooms; changed the setback from 7 feet to 21 feet on the fourth floor of
Hyman Avenue; setbacks on the comers of Hyman and facing the Wheeler. Robin
Schiller presented a color coded roof plan depicting the heights of the building,
Cottle said the materials took their clues from the historic buildings with sandstone
or heavy rough materials at the base and the rest of the building was predominately
brick. The fourth floor had a green stucco; there were dark grey windows and sun
shades with similar materials to tie into Aspen's history as does the scale and
rhythm of the building. The building had a variety of 2 story and 3 story elements
and 1 story and 4 story elements; the fenestration of the windows in particular and
the articulation of the building, Cottle said there were 2 barrel vaulted elements
(one faced south) only 3 feet above the flat roof setback from the street and come
under the heading of architecture elements meant to soften the building,
Robin Schiller said the heights were measured from the grade, which were
different grades; the height of the lodge building was set at 42 feet at the entrance
off of Monarch, which was as tight as they could get the building with 4 floors of
marketable hotel rooms with the depth for infrastructure. The heights were at
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
42.25; 43.35 and 43,68 with a pull back so the frontal element seen (3rd story) is at
34.25 and around the comer on Hopkins because of the grade it is 45,68. Schiller
said they proposed the dimensional limitations the height of the building should be
limited to 46 feet and accent elements and the elevator heads should be allowed to
go to 50 feet, which was a function of the elevator; the roof plan was in the packet.
Schiller said that the alley was used for trash pick up, Schiller reiterated that the
goal was still moderately priced lodging with a minimum of 125 rooms; the
average room size was below 500 square feet per room. Schiller said the site area
per room does not quite meet the incentive standard of 1 room for every 500 feet of
site area; they were at 1 room for every 503 feet of site area. Schiller said that
council's direction was to make a reasonable move to pull back.
Schiller said the residential building incorporated into 6 of the 16 condominiums
. lock-off units; there were a total of22 keys. Schiller said they offer the rental of
those units through a management company being set up by the Limelight Lodge,
Cottle said the evolution of the residential building was all since Council; the were
no gable roofs; the 4th floor was removed with significant setbacks around the 3rd
floor. Cottle said that there were smaller scale elements made up of units that
relate to the Aspen lot size; the idea of this building was to tie in the materials of
sandstone or heavy masonry elements with the top part wood or stucco, There
were still 3 primary entrances with the vehicular access off the alley. The building
steps down a total of 6 feet. Cottle stated the trees were 64 feet, 57 feet and about
55 feet and all trees will be saved, Cottle said the heights and scale were less than
42 feet with the exception of the elevator shafts.
Cottle said the view plane was updated and showed the illustration with the comer
of the hotel showing a significant reduction in the absolute intrusion into the view
plane.
Szymanski said that Dale and he went to HPC to make an effort for an acceptable
preservation method could be found for the Deep Powder without financially
burdening the project. Szymanski stated that HPC acknowledged that it was not on
the registry and was not in their jurisdiction but would like to explore the potential
site for relocation; the applicant proposed $20,000.00 toward the relocation and
HPC would look for an acceptable site by May 2006,
Schiller said they would like the P&Z comments on the proposed bulb outs on the
street comers for additional landscape area and a traffic calming gesture; the city
streets department has asked to eliminate those bulb outs. Schiller asked for a
direction from P&Z.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
Ruth Kruger asked the square footage of the lodge. Szymanski replied that it was
approximately 94,000 square feet. Kruger asked where the current in lieu payment
of $66.37 per square foot came from, Lindt replied it was with the Council In-fill
Code Amendments there was a growth management requirement of the single
family cash-in-lieu payment; it was a mitigation option available to the applicant.
Steve Skadron asked what factors drive the necessity of that 10% variance that was
allowed in the lodge room ordinance (500 square feet per I lodge room). Lindt
replied that it was for flexibility for P&Z and Council.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes; seconded by
Dylan Johns, All infavor, motion carried.
Skadron asked for purposes of clarity the reduction in height along Cooper Avenue
where 210 Cooper was most impacted; how has that been lessened. Cottle utilized
an old roof plan with the new plan indicating the building was now 3 stories; the
gable was deleted.
Tygre asked the material of the shallow barrel vault. Cottle replied the fascia was
the only part that would be seen and that was not determined; it would either be a
pre-finished sheet metal or a membrane roof. Schiller said the color would be a
charcoal grey,
Mr. French asked for a written statement from the city attorney regarding his
concerns,
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Limelight Final PUD to December
13th; seconded by Dylan Johns, All in favor, motion carried.
Meetin adjou ed at 7:20 pm.
.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
II
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13, 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission in Council Chambers at 5:00pm, Members Steve Skadron, Brian
Speck, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland
was excused, Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier and James Lindt,
Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk,
COMMENTS
Steve Skadron complimented the people who clear the trails for the walkers and
Joggers,
Ruth Kruger asked how speed bumps were requested, Joyce Allgaier responded
that a letter from the neighborhood to the city engineer or to the city council during
the public comment section,
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
John Rowland had a conflict on the Limelight.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/06/05):
THE LIMELIGHT FINAL
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Limelight Final. Notice was
provided at the meeting on December 6th,
James Lindt provided a memo from John Worcester regarding Mr. French's
concerns about the Limelight ownership,
Lindt began with the growth management implications, Lindt stated the applicant
currently utilized 48 full-time employees to operate the 3 lodges and believed they
would only need 40 full time employees to operate the new lodge because of
efficiencies gained. The housing board agreed with the efficiency argument as
long as an audit was done after 2 years of operation of the project to verify only 40
full-time employees, Staff and the Housing Board would like to see if the
applicant could provide one affordable housing unit on site rather than paying the
cash-in-lieu fee; if the commission agrees with that there could be a change or
addition to sections 13 and 14 of the proposed Resolution, The applicant's could
add a unit in their design before going to City Council.
Lindt said that the next issue was the pedestrian amenity requirements; 25% of the
lot be retained as open space and the applicant's requested a waiver down to 10%
of the lot area and will provide corner bulb outs proposal along Monarch Street,
The applicant's would pay a cash-in-lieu for about 9% or about $157,000,00,
2
,. m ^_.~._.~~__.....==---.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13.2005
Lindt said the widening on Monarch Street was where the head-in diagonal parking
was proposed; the City Engineer requested that Monarch be widened to 54 feet.
The planning staff believes that this will conflict with the intent of the bulb outs;
for pedestrian safety and traffic calming,
Lindt said the Wheeler view plane had to do with the western extent of the project;
staff believed the main focus ofthe view plane was Aspen Mountain, Staff
supported the view plane exemption as requested,
Lindt said the construction management was included in the resolution with on-site
contacts to neighbors of the project and the applicant would like to use 10 feet of
Monarch for construction staging but the city parking department would not like to
see those spaces closed off during the construction of the project.
StaffbeJieved the project satisfied the AACP Lodging goals and recommended
approval.
Dale Paas said that they were there to answer questions, Paas said that some
kitchenettes would be included,
Steve Szymanski said that they would like to study the potential placement of an
employee unit but they have lost square footage since conceptual. Szymanski said
they would like the option of cash-in-lieu if it did not work but like the idea to
move forward,
Public Comments:
I, Shellie Roy, public, stated that she cared greatly for this community and
have worked to keep this community with the small town flavor, Roy spoke of the
buildings built with 8 to 10 foot ceilings that were outdated and guests did not want
to stay in these types of rooms, Roy urged the commission to go forward and build
this project as suggested, Roy said the county down-zoned all properties outside of
the urban growth boundary with the intention of increased density in the city
including height.
2, Bill Tomcich, public, stated that he was the president of Stay Aspen
Snowmass; he said the results of a number of redevelopments were happening,
Tomcich said a lot of the older properties were not remodel able and were not up to
the standards of today, Tomcich said the board of directors supported this project
that modernizes this certain niche oflodges in town,
3
'--'~~"--~".'-'~ ..,~.~.~,.,-,--"_.----"....-....----~..._,.~.~-"""",~.,,,-~~....">' ,'"
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13.2005
3, Bob Leatherman, public, stated he was on the board of managers for 210
Cooper Condominium Association; most of the owners have sent letters,
Leatherman said the period of construction will be about 18 months along with
construction of the Dancing Bear, Chart House and the Shadow Mountain project,
which affect their living standards; they hope they can alleviate some of the
negative effects from all that construction, Leatherman was concerned about the
alley, truck traffic, deliveries and the height of the project; there was no way that
the owners could be compensated for loosing their views of Aspen Mountain,
4, Melissa read a letter from her brother-in-law Peter Loring with 3 concerns
about the project the height of the private residences; the creation of a dead end
alley; and the affect on the residents of 21 0 Cooper with a construction period of
18 months, The loss of rents on the units because of the construction was also of
concern along with the large spruce tree,
5, Alan Bush, public, owns property at 210 East Hyman; he commended the
Paas family for the changes in the project and it was a project that was desperately
needed this moderate priced lodge rooms, Bush said the residential building had
substantial impacts on the views of the mountain, Bush said placing the parking
garage entrance on Hyman Street would increase the traffic load and the cars
exiting the garage would have their headlights shine directly into their building,
Bush said the city changed the rules on them with this project.
6, Andrea Clark, public, 210 East Cooper stated that she had problems with the
information provided in the packet and said that she transcribed the last city
council meeting and quoted from it. Clark spoke ofthe construction time, dangers
of diesel, obliterated views, the character of the surrounding area and the
underlying zoning determining the heights,
7. Jim French, public, provided written comments and said that the Limelight
project was the wrong project made by the right people, the Paas family, French
said that the project was extremely large and questioned the housing audit 2 years
down the road, French said they were requesting rezoning with a PUD overlay and
have not provided information and what it takes to put theses two parcels together
from Ordinance 9; the height limit on free market was 28 feet.
8. Carl Hanson, public, stated the project was build able the way it was
presented and do able, Hanson said the Paas family had an obligation to protect
their interests,
4
...c...__'""..".,__".._......_.......__M.""~__,.._._,__,,_~~..<___~~_'''."---.'''', ....---.--.-.-...,
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13,2005
9, Rich Wager, public, said the city and county changed a lot of zoning over
the years and this was one of the better ski resorts,
James Lindt read letters into the record from Mr. and Mrs, Robert Jacobnson, Mr.
Josh Mondry, Ron Christian, Linda Singer Froning and Diana Sirko, the Aspen
School District,
Steve Skadron asked for additional information on Ordinance #9 and the
applicant's involvement in this ordinance, Lindt responded that Ordinance #9 was
a rewrite as part of the code infill amendments; the applicants attended those public
hearing for the review ofthat ordinance as did others from the community, Lindt
stated those were public hearings so anyone has the ability to come, Skadron
asked for staff to comment on the rezoning versus the PUD overlay, Lindt replied
that in order to place a PUD overlay on the property a rezoning was required as
was this application, Lindt stated this was part of the incentive lodge code
amendments and that intent had a free market residential component to help drive
and fund the lodge redevelopment. Skadron asked if this was in the spirit of the
decision, Lindt answered that staff made an interpretation at the conceptual level
that verified the conceptual approvals that were granted and the residential
component was part of the incentive lodge project. Joyce Allgaier said that when
rezoning comes into a project there needs to be history attached; about 5 years ago
the city through community development took on an analysis to study the
downtown revitalization, Allgaier said that it was about the impediments of
redevelopment and reconstruction of the vital economic developments of Aspen;
there were numerous impediments as to why Aspen was stagnating such as the
rents were too high, the zoning code was too difficult to navigate through, it was
too expensive to redevelop in Aspen and the incentive lodging was one of the off-
shoots as were many others, Ruth Kruger said that in a project such as this you
have to have a financial engine because the lodging industry will not support the
land, construction and development costs that were needed to see a project
through, Skadron said that he looks back at the projects approved since his tenure
on the commission with projects that were over the allowed heights and variances
to setbacks; he said it was circumspect for the commission to look at the whole
rather than individual projects to not get weighted down by the individual projects,
Skadron said that he spoke to the St, Regis regarding floor to ceiling heights at 8
feet at conceptual and this 8 foot height had no negative impact on the sales; he
asked the applicant what was their response to that ceiling height. Robin Schiller
replied that they sat with various realtors that would market project like this and
others and without exception they would have an easier time selling property for a
higher dollar value if it had higher ceilings. Schiller said that many potential
purchasers in Aspen and other markets expect higher ceilings, Skadron said in his
5
_.~""_"""~'_.>~'__'''''~~'' ,.~,,..,...,_,,,,.___,_~.~_____~,,~,.w____",,"..,_..
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13,2005
decision making process he weighed factors like this against the impacts on the
neighbors, Skadron asked the height be reduced to 28 feet on the residential to
lessen the impacts on the neighborhood, Lindt responded that staff made the
interpretation that the 42 height limit for the lodge applied to both properties based
on the lodge district code amendment. Jasmine Tygre said that if all of the
buildings had some lodge rooms in them then the 42 foot height limit would not
even be a question,
Dylan Johns asked for an understanding of the residential floor to ceiling heights,
Robin Schiller responded the height was focused on the 42 foot limit and divided
into 3 sections to respond to the grade changes; on the eastern end the ground floor
was slightly above grade, Schiller said that there was 12 feet floor to floor on the
two lower levels to allow for beams, floor deck, radiant heat, pipes and ducts
would allow for 9 foot 6 inch ceilings and the top floor had 14 foot floor to floor to
allow for the spacious feel of single family residences, John Cottle responded that
the residential building was less than 42 feet everywhere; it goes from 28,8 to 41.8
feet. Cotttle said there was a tremendous amount of height variations in the
buildings,
Ruth Kruger asked about a model for this project. Cottle replied that they haven't
planned on bringing one in, Schiller said they had concerns if a 3-dimensional
model would in fact serve that purpose, Kruger asked where the parking was for
210 East Cooper. Schiller responded that they entered off the alley; there was an
underground garage and spaces in the alley with one space for each unit. Kruger
asked if the applicant was blocking all of Cooper Street during construction,
Szymanski said that it was only in front of the buildings (half of the block); access
to 210 Cooper and the alley would stay open, Kruger requested that applicants in
the future to be more paper contentious; the packet was difficult to haul around,
Brian Speck stated that he supported the project and the design would revitalize
downtown helping with the balance of the town, Speck noted it was difficult to
overcome the objections of 21 0 Cooper. Speck said that there was nothing that
would show that the Paas family was not consistent in what they have done in this
community; the town needed to stay competitive in the world of skiing,
Jasmine Tygre stated that the character ofthe applicant was not part of the criteria
to judge a project and was unfortunate in this case with an applicant that was liked
and respected, Tygre stated that thousands of hours were spent on infill and she
was still shocked by buildings that were so large and that was the rule set by the
code, Tygre said that she personally did not believe that 42 foot buildings were the
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13,2005
community that Aspen was all about but this application followed the rules that
they were told to fulfill,
Dylan Johns stated that the rules changed to respond to the set of conditions which
in the long term will help fulfill the community goals that have been identified and
needed to be addressed, Johns said that because there were 2 detached buildings
we were looking at the rules in a different light from what was the original thought,
Johns said he understood the residential part ofthe project; hopefully the lodge
incentive program will achieve what they were intended to do, which was
moderately priced hotel rooms, Johns said that the ultimate community goal was
to have moderately priced rooms, Johns said the lodge itself has come along way
from where it started; he stated the lodge itself was good but felt the residential
components of floor heights could be reduced and did not feel that it would detract
from the sale ability ofthe project or the financial engine of the property, Johns
said the difference between a 10 foot and 9 foot ceiling was not all that great when
this was a downtown infill type of space; he did not feel that was the intent of the
change in those rules, Johns said the purpose of the infill changes was to allow
development downtown; part of that was that development was going to be more
compact then what would be allowed to happen elsewhere, that was what we were
trying to avoid, sprawl. Johns said there was still room to bring the building down
in height to respond to meet the neighbors halfway between what was allowed and
what was there, Johns commented that the 42 foot height regulation was intended
to allow for projects to happen and become functional as overall projects but if a
component could function at a lesser height, the height limit was not guaranteed
and felt the residential building could come down several feet. Johns felt strongly
enough about the PUD process and what was allowed to happen with the lodge and
it was more important to have the height in the lodge then it was in the residential
building,
MOTTON: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7: J 5; seconded by Ruth
Kruger. All infavor, motion carried,
Allgaier stated that the commission had purview over the height because it was a
Planned Unit Development; she urged the commission to use the components of
the PUD to judge the project. Allgaier said there were criteria for compatibility,
Kruger stated that she agreed with Dylan on taking a few feet off of the residential
component, which would be more likely to pass with Council. Kruger did not
want to pass another project onto Council in such a way that they will not like it
and will not approve it. Kruger said she would like to pass a project onto Council
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13,2005
that was more in sync with their view of what the commission should be
approvmg,
Skadron agreed because the height had been a concern since the beginning,
Lindt said the pedestrian amenities with the reduction to 10% instead of 25% with
the justification that the project will provide bulb outs on Monarch Street comers
of Cooper and Hyman; staff bel ieved this provided greater pedestrian safety, traffic
calming and an added benefit to the project. Lindt said that the applicant would
pay about 9% of that 10% cash-in-lieu, which can be used elsewhere to provide
other pedestrian elements, Kruger asked why 9% and not I 0%, Lindt said because
the bulb outs were provided, Johns, Tygre and Kruger did not think that the bulb
outs belonged in the downtown area and they interrupted the flow oftraffic, Tygre
asked how much ofthe percentage was used by those, Lindt replied that would
account for the 25% requirement with a combination ofthe cash-in-lieu, the I Y, %
that would be provided with open space on site, The commission had consensus
on not wanting the bulb outs,
Lindt said the city engineer felt it would be more appropriate to widen Monarch
because it was the secondary bus route, Schiller said the sidewalk was on the
applicant's property, Szymanski said this (in front of their project) was the only
place on Monarch that would be widened, The commission did not support the
widening of Monarch in front of this project.
Four commissioners did not feel the Wheeler View Plane was significant enough
and supported the variance, Steve Skadron did not support the Wheeler view plane
variance to keep the small town feel.
There was no construction management plan to approve or not approve but there
were suggested construction techniques proposed by staff and conditions in the
resolution, Lindt said this was a council discussion item,
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7:30; seconded by Steve
Skadron. All infavor, motion carried.
The housing board requested that the applicant study the possibility of on site
employee housing, Kruger stated that the housing language would not require the
housing to be built but only studied, Kruger said that she did not want to lose any
more lodge rooms and would rather see a cash-in-lieu payment. Cottle said that
studying the possibilities was a viable notion, Kruger stated that she would be very
impressed ifthey came up with more lodge rooms, Dale Paas said they realize that
more hotel rooms the better and are pushing for that as well as the employee
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Minutes December 13,2005
housing, Tygre agreed with Ruth even though she was a proponent for onsite
employee housing but to keep the building at a size that was more compatible with
the neighborhood would be better. Skadron asked if the cash-in-lieu was
earmarked, Lindt replied that the cash-in-lieu would go into the affordable housing
fund for the development of atTordable housing by the city,
Szymanski said this entire project was in the lodge zone district; the new code
requirements provided up to 42 feet in height. Tygre said this was no longer a
discussion item and the commission wanted to see the residential portion height
reduced,
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to extend the meeting 10 minutes; Ruth Kruger
seconded. All infavor, motion carried,
Cottle said that they would rather have a goal to go to council with even if they
cannot achieve that goal but will have a clearer goal. Cottle said 10 to 15% was a
massive change,
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #38, series of2005
recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Limelight Final
PUD and associated land use requests to construct 125 lodge rooms and 17free
market residential units on the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, Snowflake Inn
properties, City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado conditioned upon an overall
reduction in the height of the building on the south parcel by 10% to 15% from the
building heights that were proposed in the Limelight final P UD application dated
November 4, 2005 and study the on site affordable housing as proposed. Seconded
by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes: Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes;
Tygre. yes. Approved 5-0.
Discussion of motion: Steve Skadron voiced concern about the encroachment
into the Wheeler view plane and a further concern about the pattern of
development and impact these type of buildings have on the Aspen Experience,
Tygre agreed with a lot of Steve's comments and would like to include Steve's
second comment in the work session,
9
Page I of2
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Helen Klanderud
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:01 PM
James Lindt
Subject: FW: Limelight Plans
James.
For public record.
Helen
From: Ricki Newman [mailto:rickinewman@yahoo,com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Limelight Plans
To the City Council-Aspen,CO:
[ am writing in reference to the planned reconstruction of the Limelight Lodge. While [totally
understand & support their need to up-grade & refurbish their unique & mid-priced lodge (which is a
valuable asset to this community), some of the plans they have made will totally change the lives of all
21 homeowners at 210 Cooper on 3 sides of our building.
There are 3 aspects of their plans that trouble me the most;
I. Naturally I hate to loose the fabulous views we have of Aspen Mountain (part of the reason we
bought our condo), & hope the biggest compromises possible can be made in their Free Market
(financial engine) area on the south side of Cooper so as not to totally exclude us from that beauty.
2. We have a tall, healthy, & one of the oldest & most beautiful of Spruce Trees on our property
adjacent to their lodge, that has stood proud & given it's environmental assets to this community for
probably way over 100 years. Also, the Limelight property across Cooper has several tall, healthy
Spruce/Pine & Aspen Trees too. It would be a crime in many ways to destroy these trees by ruining
their root structures during excavation or cutting them down to replace them with brick & concrete,
3. I'm also concerned about what may end up to be an endless number of trucks with exhaust &
noise entering our back doors & windows as they make deliveries & take services to the Limelight in the
proposed closed off alley behind our building.
The Limelight Lodge & the Paas Family have always been exceptionally good neighbors & very
congenial & helpful in many ways. We certainly want to see them continue to succeed in their business
& truly hope their new building plan won't destroy the quality of life, environmentally, that we now
enj oy at 210 Cooper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ricki Newman 210 Cooper--2G
Aspen, CO
1/17/2006
January 15,2006
City of Aspen Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
RE: Limelite Proposal
[ feel a responsibility, as a homeowner at 21 0 E, Cooper A venue I E, to participate in the
process and to advise the City of Aspen of how I feel and how the project impacts me.
[ have reviewed the Limelite proposal as it has evolved over the last year. [very much
appreciate all the hard work the City of Aspen has put into this process. I feel my
interests are being represented,
The lodge itself will be an asset to the city, both from income standpoint, and
aesthetically, as the existing property is decaying and becoming an eyesore. My extended
family and [ have stayed in both the Limelite and the Snowflake many times over the last
thirty years, The old buildings are just worn out. It is time to replace the old property(s)
with updated and more modern structures.
The most recent renderings of the Monarch Street (east) elevation show a monolithic type
profile that, while not "unattractive", does not add much in the way of architectural
diversity/friendly appearance to the Aspen "scene", The lot seems burdened with too
much building. When I walk from the Cooper Street pedestrian mall across Wagner Park
toward the property and try to envision the new landscape, 1 feel a bit overwhelmed with
the size ofthe project. There is a nostalgia about Aspen which I enjoy that is being
displaced, [suspect some of this is inevitable. It is sad, nevertheless. [appreciate your
efforts to keep the height at 42 feet. Something lower would be better.
The height, by itself, will change the character of the block, I wish the City could
exercise some control over proportions, character, and "flavor" of development. As
much as the Paas family talks the talk about wanting to contribute to the community,
economics is driving the project, not any pretense of aesthetics or pleasing design. It is
sad that such an opportunity to shape the West side of Wagner Part for the next 30 years
is passing us by while we haggle over setbacks, heights, access and egress, etc,
The height issue is only one of my concerns. Even after the entire hullabaloo about
height, zonings, etc., it seems that the City did not get a substantial increase in "hot
beds". Have we lost sight ofthe "prime directive" here? 1 do think, however, that a
consolidation of the "bed" issue from four parcels (Limelite, Snowflake, and the two lots
comprising the Deep Powder Lodge) to one consolidated site on Monarch is progress in
the planning issues in Aspen. Everything is a compromise and overall, I am satisfied
with the proposal for the new "Limelight" Lodge as it will be renamed at the corner of
Hyman and Monarch.
,-.-"....,..,.-'"
This brings us to the structure on the northwest corner of Cooper and Monarch aka 17
"free market" condominiums, This process has been fraught with deceit by the
developer, with some concern as to who the actual developer really is - the Paas family,
or some guy from Denver - whether a partner or separate entity. A review of the
credentials of Mr. Biehl reveals he could be either one or both. This distinction goes to
the heart of the "free market" project and impacts me most directly as I have a ground
level unit at 210 E. Cooper A venue.
I am unclear how one makes the connection between the "Lodge" property as owned by
Limelite, Inc (Paas Family)and the Cooper Avenue "free market" Condominium project
owned by Limelite Redevelopment, LLC (Jerry Biehl), The PUD concept and the way
the developers have presented it (Condo Project is the economic engine) causes me
consternation as to what they are really doing here,
The complexity of ownership in the submission should require more disclosure of
purpose. A deed oftrust could have memorialized the agreements of the parties as
expressed by Mr. Biehl at previous meetings, An ownership transfer, plus a deed oftrust,
as actually happened, short circuits due process in favor of Limelite Redevelopment, LLC
(Biehl), In the event of default on the agreements by Limelite, lnc, (Paas Family), the
developer becomes Limelite Redevelopment, LLC (Biehl) only as to the "free market"
portion ofthe PUD.
One must ask the question, in consideration ofthis PUD proposal, do the councillP & Z
approvals, once considered, inure to the benefit of potentially disparate parties, or do we
have to relive this process with the separate and non-aligned owners again? What a
tough position the City of Aspen is being put in, If the project(s), become two instead of
one (PUD), certainly 42 feet cannot be a consideration, This point or position is most
important going forward, It is only by looking forward, that we can evaluate
consequences of real-time decisions.
There are no "hot beds", commercial applications, etc., in this "mixed use" condo
proposal. There is no pretense by the developer - (s?) that there is commonality within
the PUD zoning. Will the condo owners share in the common areas of the main lodge?
Will the "free market" condo association dues be offset by the income ofthe lodge?
What tests can be applied to the project to assure the PUD designation is applicable in
this proposal?
This proposal seems a sham, whose sole purpose is to increase the condo square footage
by raising the height of the project from the 28-foot residential restriction to a 42-foot
limit that lodge mixed use zoning allows. I can find no reason to believe there is any
commonality of purpose between the "lodge" project and the Cooper A venue "free
market" condos that would tit within the parameters of the PUD zoning,
What happened to the "hot beds" mandate that promulgated the zoning initially? A
"lock-off' unit (no separate legal description or commercial access provision) in a 3,500
SF residential condo to accommodate a City zoning provision is surely a transparent
-.--.
proposal that has no enforceable and realizable "hot bed" benefit going forward. The
developer has not proposed hotel units on the ground level, offered to legally segregate
the "hot beds" lock-off units from the Condo units and in fact, is proposing just the
opposite, in a race to fulfill the promise of an "economic engine" by insisting on a
variance trom 28 feet residential height to 42 feet mixed use height, while not proposing
a viable mixed use component.
On the basis that the City is not getting, at least from the "free market" project, a "hot
bed" component, this part ofthe PUD does not qualify for the 42 feet zoning for lodging.
To consider otherwise does not pass the test of reason. In fact, I can tind no basis for
PUD zoning as it applies to all 4 existing lots. Additionally, the proposal leaves some
unclear gaps in the erasing of lot lines, alley vacation issues, setback requirements, etc.
These issues are commonly known as variances. There are just too many here. The
project is put forward in bad faith. They are not asking for minor issues, they are trying
to transform the intent of the zoning laws - and without much humility, I might add.
I have visited with the Paas/Woolery families on three occasions. They have been most
gracious and solicitous. However, each time they have told me that the economic engine
(free market units) is necessary for the economic success of the lodge itself. They have
remonstrated, both to me and to the City, that they absolutely could not diminish the
height of either project and still meet their lender's requirements as if their ability, or
perhaps lack of ability, to fund the required equity, as ifthis issue, their issue, should
somehow impact the neighbors and the city's approval process to their benefit.
The argument is disingenuous at best. The "free market" project has gone from over 54
feet down to 43 feet, loping otT nearly 5000 square feet of "penthouse" space and an
attempt has been made to "step down" the Aspen/Cooper street corner elevation to
accommodate councils' previous mandate/recommendations. The Paas family told me/us
this was untenable 6 months ago. Today they are taking the position that a 10% to 15%
reduction in height asked for at the most recent final Planning and Zoning meeting is
"simply not possible". They continue to claim they would have to sell the entire project
if they cannot have the needed square feet to sell.
I know I spcak for the majority ofthe owners of 21 0 E. Cooper when I say that 43 feet in
height is not in our best interest. This issue for most of us is quality of life. The improved
value argument promoted by the developer is not unique to this developer and thus is not
part of our formula. I also feel that a majority would support new residential
development across the street that is reasonable and prudent. To the extent that the code
for multi family residential buildings is now 28 feet, it seems that councillP & Z
consideration of 42 feet for a project that envisions no "hot beds" on East Cooper Ave, is
consideration of a project that does not deserve consideration. I hope I have expressed
myself clearly here.
What has become clear to me is that this project will get built in some form, whether or
not the Paas family is prepared or has the ability, to fund it. The vultures are hovering
and waiting to step in and fund the equity portion of the development. The somewhat
opaque involvement of Mr. Biehl (the partner) testifies to this fact. Mr. Biehl is a
sophisticated real estate investor who is generally known for his expertise in real estate
development.
I understand that the City of Aspen would like to accommodate the long standing
relationship it has with the Paas family. However, when that accommodation comes at
the expense of other relationships that are equally magnanimous, such as some of the
residents at 210 E. Cooper, then the preference that might otherwise have been shown,
needs to be re-evaluated to make the "right" decision for all parties.
A 43+ t1 "free market" condominium project on E. Cooper is not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Its' fac;ade/architectural appearance, as currently presented, is not
compatible with the existing East Cooper A venue residential improvements and certainly
is a dramatic departu're from the recent residential improvement upgrades along Aspen
Street across the way from the subject property and those across from Koch Lumber
Park, two blocks West. The "economic engine" reaches far too deeply into an existing
residential area, and might be better limited to frontage along Monarch (half a block
deep) only if it is to be considered at all. The west half of Cooper A venue should
continue to enjoy a residential atmosphere, and not be burdened by the proposed bastard
building with an improvement square foot/land area ratio that goes far beyond the pale of
reason for enlightened land use planning (26,000 SF land mass vs 60,000 SF above grade
improvement plus below grade parking). Where is the open space, or in Aspen, where is
the affordable housing? This kind of residentiallmulti-family planning abuse was
abolished in the '60s.
This proposal is driven by greed. It is an ominous sham on a residential neighborhood. I
implore you - before you make your final recommendations, please take one last walk
down Cooper A venue trom Monarch Street to South I" Street (Koch Lumber Park). The
public is not being served by this 43 toot proposal. This is just not the right project for
this land parcel.
Sincerely,
Donald C. Larrabee, Jr.
210 Cooper Avenue IE, Aspen, Co 81611