HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19951107
>'.'~'~
-
~
,
'-..--
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 7, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Wyckoff Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
B. Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision/PUD Conceptual
Submission, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline
Review, & Special Review, Mary Lackner (continued
from 9/19/95)
C. Small Lodge Code Amendments, Amy Amidon & Stan
Clauson (continued from 10/3/95)
IV. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: November 7, 1995
November 21 - Regular Meeting
Snowmelter Relocation Final SPA Review (DM)
December 5 - Growth Management Commission, 4:30
North 40 Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Review (RM)
December 5 - Regular Meeting
610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation (AA)
December 19 - Regular Meeting
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: 525 W. Hallam Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwellin
Unit - Public Hearing g
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is
seeking
accessory dwelling unit in conjunction twithonstruct a voluntary
the redevelopment of
a historic structure at 525 W. Hallam.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Conditional Use fo
an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. r
APPLICANT:Julie Wyckoff, represented by Glenn Rappaport of Black
Shack Studio Architects.
LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam, Lot C and the west 1/2 of Lot D Block
29, City and Townsite of Aspen. The site is 41500 sq.ft.
ZONING: R-6.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant re uests Conditional
approval to build an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction w
ise
nce
the redevelopment of a historic structure. The existing residence
has one bedroom and the new addition will contain two additional
garage.
bedrooms. The proposed studio ADU is located above the ara e.
The existing residence is approximately 1,624 sq.ft. with
proposed addition of 648 sq.ft. for the free market unit and 356
sq.ft. for the ADU. The parcel will contain approximatel 3 121
sq.ft. after the pending redevelopment. y '
The project received Design Review approval, pursuant to Ordinance
30, Series of 1995 by HPC this summer.
The ADU is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the
lot in the structure containing a one car garage. This struct
re
is not historic. The bathroom is proposed on the first flooruof
the garage and the kitchen and living room is located on the second
of
floor. The unit has good light and air exposure as its livingare
is located on the second floor of the garage and the interior a
stairway provides safe access to the unit.
As indicated by the Housing Office referral memo, the unit
designed, is not totally private. According to the plans an' as
who has access to the garage can use the bathroom associated `gone
the ADU. The plans also indicate the unit is proposed at 300
nth
- livable sq.ft. which is the minimum unit size permitted.net
The
kitchen must also consist of a minimum two -burner stove with oven,
standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits the kitchen plans
shall be revised to meet the minimum standards.
The plans do not show the actual configuration of the kitchen.
According to net livable size
, privacy, and kitchen configuration
this is a very marginal unit.
Since this unit is located above grade, it is eligible for a floor
area bonus of one-half of the unit's size.
The applicant has submitted floor plans and site drawings for the
proposed ADU. See attached blueprints and the application
information in Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are
included as Exhibit "B", Housing Authority Exhibit "C", and Zoning
in Exhibit "D".
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission
approve development applications
the standards of Section 7-304:
has the authority to review and
for conditional uses pursuant to
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone
district in which it is proposed to be located; and
Response: The proposed dwelling unit has the potential to house
local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the underlying zone district.
B . The conditional use is consistent and compatible
with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. The unit is located
within a detached garage to be accessed off the alley. This
configuration is compatible with the neighborhood.
C. The location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations
and odor on surrounding properties; and
K
Response: The accessory dwelling unit will be located off the
alley in a detached garage which is an appropriate configuration
in the West End. The Engineer has recommended that the vegetation
in the front yard be trimmed to provide for a pedestrian walking
area along the public ROW. The plans indicate the only parking on
site will be one space in the garage. The minimum number of
parking spaces permitted is two. At a minimum the applicant will
need to provide one additional space. Staff also recommends a
third space be provided for use by the ADU.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services
to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
parrs, police, , fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical cal services, drainage
systems, and schools; and
Response: The City Engineer, Chuck Roth has identified several
conditions of approval that would be applicable for the ADU. These
conditions address site drainage, encroachments, utilities, and
work in the public right-of-way and are included in the proposed
conditions in the recommendation section of this memorandum.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing
to meet the incremental need for increased employees
generated by the conditional use; and
Response: The applicant must file the appropriate deed restriction
for resident occupancy of the unit, including a six month minimum
lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning
Office prior to issuance of any building permits.
F'. The proposed conditional use complies with all
additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Community Plan and by all other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and all other applicable conditional use standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
525 W. Hallam ADU, subject to the following conditions:
1. The unit must be redesigned to provide the total privacy for
access to the unit and the bathroom.
2. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The
accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval
the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record
he deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
3
Office.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office and Housing Authority.
4. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Off icer and Housing Off ice shall make the f inal determination
that the unit meets the minimum size requirement of 300 sq. ft.
net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines.
The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 net
liveable sq.ft.
5. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a kitchen which is a
minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and
a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. Prior to the
issuance of any building permits these elements shall be
identified on the plans.
6. Three off-street parking spaces must be provided on the parcel
and indicated on the site plan, prior to issuance of any
building permits.
7. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
a. The new development plan shall provide for no more than
historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase
to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site.
b. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other
equipment must be installed on an easement provided by
the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The
final development plan shall indicate an easement for the
existing utility pedestals. The final development plan
will be recorded to document the easement.
C. The final development plans must indicate the trash
storage area which cannot be located in the public right-
of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as
trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas
that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked
by trash and recycle containers.
d. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088)
for design considerations of development in the public
rights -of -way, parks department ( 92 0-512 0 ) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -
of -way from city street department (920-5130).
F4a
WA
e. The final site plan shall indicate an on -site parking
space for the ADU.
f. A pedestrian walking area shall be provided along Hallam
Street prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the residence. The City Engineer shall
review and approve the proposed design and location of
the pedestrian walking area, prior to issuance of any
building permits.
8. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review
the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting
shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the
property. The applicant shall comply with the tree
replacement requirements of the Parks Department.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for the
525 W. Hallam accessory dwelling unit to be located within a
detached garage residence, subject to the conditions recommended
in the Planning Office memo dated November 7, 1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Engineering referral memo
"C" - Housing referral memo
"D" - Zoning referral memo
E
. A rzActRI0rr 1
'AND USE APMOUTOU Exhibit' A
1) Proj ect. Namie
�) I.>icoj eat location 2 S- tN . tl 4 �. �,,_ to f E a.,.,
(indicate Street ,lot & block l
bere
��ri ate) am- ``
3) Present Zoning .4) lot Size
S) Applicant • s Name, Address & Phone # w 4
6
6) Representative 's Name, Adds & phone r � le » w,:
7) T pe of Application (please cis all that apply) =
Conditional Use Oxceptual SPA Cor al Ri s-tbric Dev-
Special Raview Final SPA Final Historic Dev_
8040 G r � Rb Minor Historic Dev-
Stream Margin Final . Pi1D Historic Demolit a on
I-Toantainn View Plane Subdivision Historic storic Designation
um iza tion • TeVMap Amendmmt G`S Allotment
Dort SpI i.t,�I,Ort -'Line
Adjustment - --
8)Desc:ription of EXisting Uses - (nL=ber and type of
appraximrate sq ft- ; number of bedr ocoms; • any approvals granted to the • .� dQe,�rel
.
sI -Ste
�,
,5v� y 3
9) Description of Development Application
Geer,6�4-e-
alp
f-
10) Have you attached the followirgl�,
ReSPocZZS:ee to AttZ&naerit 2, Minimum -4AmL pion Contents
RaSPOOSe to Attachment 3, Specific SZibmi_ssion Contents.
t'O AttZchment 4, Reviev Standards for Your Application v
T R A N S IVI 1 T T A L
TO /, •
FROM
RE Gl
-47�1
1
a -
Am-
B LACK SHACK STUDIO P R 0 J E C .�. DATE
A R C H 1 T E C T S
A S P E N C O L O R ` A D O W G A ,
T E L 9 7 0 9 2 0 1 1 3 4 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER)
F A X 9 7 0 9 2 0 3 5 9 4
Wyckoff Residence
525 West Hallam
Lots C, D and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29
Aspen CO 81612
Zoning Requirements
Existing
Zone District
R6
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Width
6,000 sq. ft.
60 ft.
7,500 sq. ft.
Minimum Front & Rear Yard
Total 30 ft., min. 10 ft. ea.
75 ft.
Principal front 20 ft., principal rear 39.9 ft.
Accessory Building
Front/Rear
Front yard 15 ft. min.,
Proposed 3.3 ft. west side yard
rear yard 5 ft. min.
Proposed 0 ft. rear yard
Minimum Side Yard
(combined total 22.5 sq. ft.)
5 ft. min. ea side
West existing 3.3 ft.
Maximum Site Coverage
minus
3,000 sq. ft. (40%)
375 sq. ft 5%)
1,624 sq. ft. principal building
2,625 sq. ft. TOTAL
243 sq. ft. shed
240 sq. ft. accessory building
2,107 sq. ft. TOTAL existing site coverage
1 Proposed Site Coverage 1,624 sq. ft. principal building
243 sq. ft. shed
434 sq. ft. garage (FAR exempt)
444.5 so. ft. bedroom/bath addition
2,745.50 sq. ft. TOTAL proposed site
120.5 over allowable site coverage coverage
(Variance obtained through HPC)
Maximum Height Principal building 25 ft.
Accessory building 21ft. on front 2/3 of lot & 12 ft. on rear 1/3 of lot
-see drawings for new proposed heights
B O X 2 7 6 A S P E N C O
8 1 6 1 2
F A X / T E L 3 0 3 9 2 0
1 1 3 4
Minimum Distance Between 5 ft.
Detached Buildings
')n The Lot
Percentage of Open Space None required
Allowable Floor Area For 7,500 sq. ft. lot = 3,240 sq. ft.
plus additional 210 sq ft
3,450 sq. ft. TOTAL
Existing Floor Area Principal residence 1,624 sq. ft.
Shed 243 sq. ft.
Existing Accessory Building 240 sq ft.
TOTAL Existing FAR 2,107 sq. ft.
Allowable FAR remaining = 1,343 sq. ft. from existing
2 Proposed Floor Area 1,624 sq. ft. Principal building
243 sq. ft. Shed
0 sq. ft. Garage (473 sq. ft. exempt)
532.75 sq. ft. ADU gross sq. ft.
444.5 sq. ft. Lower bedroom and bath
addtion
251.25 sq. ft. Uapper bedroom
3,094.25 sq. ft. TOTAL
355.75 sq. ft. less than FAR for lot area
3 Proposed ADU Floor Area
532 sq. ft. Gross sq. ft.
300.5 sq. ft. Net livable
P
m #
Park
I 19
N
a Real
tc. F
G �- i �•T yr .S
Rd
Pt P
.T .Sd�`�� �''�� ��a,".$� � t!•-' " "Z' ir-ri•1 tip`.., w. ., .,P �t p`
s� c� t r �► tt4s 'Q��� t.t Y� i t� ` � /// $� ! t)
t .s�'�'i� a L❖ i a _ -� t0 �w a •jr � :z � �. „ . y oGb o Q• �
t ' . r '� ;X. "r t om' - r 3 S ?• 3 t . �" •- 'S6 �� Cilee� { ' 1 it' �(� c 31gar F} �r^1tuUtute? rM fi �/lf Hurtter
,` J fie' " ,r'� ,k � F' •. a t � , O t "3� fit, t � '�
i' � ,� -'r „L Yet # .k '� �.-�,`�a n'�}r'-• d�" ��'-i"-2�i� 1 � � Q
�°
Q' �e lei <`� e. j +fir aces.} T a°�TeM `a Wood ck� l� e
c 82r?tc
• �, cur r ��: 3 allam '''
cc
p� Plot every street or road is
lake named on maps or listed in
street guides. Construction of
-eYt
�J` = streets and roads may be in
progress in certain areas.
p L� • `.-' _ 'r = YJ G �• fY. G-t7 ' € Y, ..e c: .. i t ' r .
€ 1Naroon Aspen
1 a n r as Maple Ln G. f 82 a yci.� •� ��
e o U Marian PI .H-2 i,
r e ; H >� vc Maroon Ck R&.G H-13 e c v v y �. 4 e `
i F- GA gyp. '4 Maroon Ct Dr
To rose Ps (� Matchless Dr.fi............G H
ptlrt' ti Mayflower Ct................ H 1
Maroon Lake Tt r McSkimming Rd .......... H 17
Meadow Or ............. G H 2 • • c`' +rS FS a --"ti•ago,
Doolittle Ctr ..: a.........-. . t �yo Meadows Rd.............F G 3 t to
s°- Draw Dr.. .___,-..1 E�-i -� +�
�. Larkspur T MidlandAv................. Hfi7 F : !� v V�
4r Durant Av_•__..-.,_.1....._......H-4fi
Arne Cr F:....-..... Mill St .............................G { S
.................H-6.7 Eaitwood Rd._ I ...................1.7 Monamh St:................-..... G H S S fl W� �► 7
: Alta . Gfi Fei. Hollow_.... E4 . -
AV
• : r............................. Mountain View Dr.............:.:�2Alta Vr.t. lh... _
-...F•2-3 Francis St_..._.._�................C,-3fi n A
r : Ardmore CI. Dr ................. . Mtn Laurel C.. Dr ...........----._...14-2' ... .. a ` .if• �_
H-7 Rod ln_.......... - lfi 7, O-t
Aspen Alps PI .............. 1-Sfi - - Mtn Oaks%..-........-..............-..H-2 �c ,•- t :� �tr. � GrtDW
r 1 - ............. Galena SL.._...........--................H•S Ncale Av-....................................Hfi --r _ Aspen Grove Rd....................H-1.7 Gatrnisch SL....1................-G-H•4-5 .tom
Aspen St.............._...--...-......G-H-S _ / Nighthawk ............................-7
p( - = •4
Gibson Av..........................G-H-5-6 North SL....--......--.....................F-34 D fo
.....................................Gfi Gilbert SL...-.. -... H•S River Dr ,.�3 al l4rsstvtew° !
rOakls...................................:.._G 6
b Park Ct.................. .......G-3 c
Gillespie St..; ............................F-4 Original St.....-........................-.H-Ifi RrversedeAv. '........... .H-6- the Pl..: �G.
krtclt Ct• PI, Rd-...-....E-3-5 Grove St___. g .
.irh Dr ....................E-F-2.3 i.-..'..........-........... -3.5 Overlook Or ....-......-.................. E-3 Rivcrstdc Dr..i.-_._..............1�-7 . 0: . < MF01' 2t O
Hallam St..1.... .....................G•3•S Park Av_ Cir-............................-,H-6 Roaring Fork Dr-................_I-7 '�
ty.. S............................... G-3-S CgKi/ t t SHeath" Ln:'............................G-ll-2 Pcad SL-..................................... F-4 Roaring Fork Rd......._.:_.�.�.F 4_S !/fand r Sleeker St.....................Ca-H•Sfi Holden De'. ....................... Sabin Dr.......-..--....-.............--.D-E-6 South Av._...........:...- _ .-....-.Gfi •
Bluebonnet Tr ..................... H-2 Pitkin Mesa Dr..........-.............D-E-2
Homestakc Ih....................... E-2 Sage Ct.........-;............-_.....,..,-..E-2 n St................._.._..G-H-Sfi
Bunny Ln.-..-.....-- 2.3 - t H. Pitkin Rcccrv.. .........................E•F-t g .• 8 �t t
Castle ..............E-- Hopkin •Av.......-.................G•H 3 6 Placer Ln....-................................F-S Salvation Cic-:;......-.......-............ E-2 Spru St .................................... G 6 o r
CrcckRd...................
...... F. HunterSt......................:...........H•S• SawmillCt.....'.-.-.-...................-G-3 Summit�SL........._...............-'---H-5 r
stic Creek Rd .................. (i-1-1.3 '' - Power Plant Rd................-......F•G-3 �1� o r i
NutxFr Crcrk. Rd. f'rimrau Path.........._......._.......H-2 Sesame SL......_:..................... G-H-7 Toby Ln.._ .......................... H-3 �•t O n e�...
Centennial fir.... _ 7 ...- 7
................. tiyrm.n Av G•H•a-6 Shadowood Dr..........--..........1-J-7-8 Trvscott PI.._ � ... E-F-I.2 a
CluuicW !:d...................... F-2 ............-.......-...... A'('pY Smith St...........................G-S .� ............-.. 3 � 82
{. Circuit A. /Juan St._......................_..........H-a_S PvramidRd..................... ............ F-I ShadyLn......... ....................... F-G•S Twin Ridge Dr.....:�__...._..�.N-2
................................1-7 Kin • St. H-6 - Silver Kin Dr_ ................. .-.....-E-2 Utc Av. PI .............. .................... I-5-6 0 � J•,. Ckvdand / 6 ....................... _........... Quern St..............................._....H-b 8
................................Hfi Lakc A%.. • /.............................F-G-a Rxc SL.......-.............._.............-G-6 Skimming Ln..;........................... H-7 Ymc 5:.......................-.-.........-..-G-6 �
.. .Cooper Av..............................H-•t-S:' / larrk.pur l.n....:.............. H-? 1 Smuggler St....,'....................F-G-3.5 Walnut St..................._...............Gfi ' Cottonwood Cir............._... ....-..-..... Red Butte Dr..............._.......D-E-2-- p \'\
Cotton .......�-4 / I-aurcl 1_n......................-.._....... H-2 Red Mmmain Rd.........:_:...D-G-S-h Smuggler Grove Rd ................ H-6-7 Watcrs Av.......................... ........_.Ifi ` \. Cottonwood Ln......
- : ..-.........—..--C-7 Lonr Pine Rd.........._.... ... .... C-Sfi Smu ler Mouitain Rd.-.....E-H•6-8 K'cst End St .............................. H-lfi
Crystal Lake Rd...-.... ' Red's Rd..............................D-E-tfi Smuggler
� ,. Dal 1-7 1-upmc Dh._............................ 1-J-8 Snark St...........:..........................H-S Wcmview• M............................. � � ;
.- c SL....._.-.._..........-_:.........H•6 RcgcatStRd.............__...........Hfi-7 To Twin Lakes.. y- Ma •nnic�t Rd ....................... E-� Sneaky tat....-.-....-.-............-...F-G•3 Wi!lou hb W E•F•3.S
•Dean S ...__. 6 _ .. .... Ridge PI. Rd ............. . E-S 8 Y Y....................
................. .
-••H S hi/in St.. C.- -3-5 now Bunn C'..........................E-3 Wri ht Rd-----.... _ E•S n ncr f'as<
:..:. � ... � ................... � Rio Grande PI..-... G-H-Sfi Y 4 g I depende
To�A Pcroft t
40
( r
�. t
3
3-�q GL`YYI , C 't
a•.
Lot C
,o
�o
�0
0
0
Q
si�C�sk�r� �r
kouse
�me
m
•
I
0
'
3'
o
dqA
c-�'e A
�ar019-:
o
N
m
0
r
n,
... 1 1 1 I W .... ... �' (✓• `-ice-'.
• - inci_i ca s set ^reha r c:�P. "_O_rp..,rCL.
I hereby certify that on May 20, 1983, a survey was conducted
under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and the West 2 of Lot
E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen,. State of Colorado. A
single -story frame house was found to be on said lot as shown
on this plat. The location and dimensions of all buildings, im-
provements, easements and rights -of -way in evidence or known to
me and encroachments by or on the premises are accurately shown
to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found
in plKoe at the Northwest and Northeast Corners of said Block
29,
By:
Syd Li come P.L.S. 14111
OT
NT
ST&q'n.Ci
t�j � Mtn
{s: 14111 ?
PJ'•.� SLilo
O
J _
0
T tA
'7T 1-
� - I I
s \ � fT1 I I t
y— 0 a I�t F_ 1 x I
rri
D �. N�'��I. � S'•Sn � � '�N ,j I��'s�� � ° D '►�-1n � _ 01-�i1 ---- 1'-'u 1/fl�.
I M
iX/S7/Ny JLf1MCK�
EK/STWy ICfSr0ENc6 _....—_..__•— ---�/�V/o![P
���
M
y'1�Ayr j,�AV,
Stt'd`Ke
1
..14
b ( G C k
�
t;s,._..w,
A 1, L A.M e r It E r T
s h a
-�—i
K A 0 p'
-4
5 t/
�.�
bo Y L 7 6 a s/p e n
u d 1 0
920-1134
r
IIII
III
YI
Malism
IN
a c k n° .
NA 1 A A 4 tl.....� 1 R t S h q c k
o L o K. n v o S 'A a i o
b 0 k 2 7 6 a s {• e n, 920-1134
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department /7`
Date: October 27, 1995
Re: Wyckoff Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(525 West Hallam St., Lot C and west 1/2 Lot D, Block 29, Original Aspen Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Sidewalk Area - The public right-of-way in front of the property is overgrown with ground
cover and shrubs. A pedestrian usable walling area must be provided prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. The walling area should be five feet wide with a five foot buffer to the
curb.
2. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is
that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is
the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than
historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site.
3. Parking - An additional unit of density may not be appropriate on a site that already provides
fewer parking spaces than required by code.
4. Encroachments - There is a fence encroaching about six feet into the public right-of-way on
Hallam Street. The fence does not appear to have historical value, or if it does it is an easily
moveable fence. The fence must be removed or relocated to private property prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
5. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on
an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
1
6. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Stan Clauson
M95.208
ON
OCT 24 '95 02:41PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.1
Exhibt C
MMORAMUM
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Houaing Office
DATE-M October 24, 1995
MR: WYCOFF ADU
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-32-002
ISSUE The Wycoff's Are asking for approval for a propored.,
voluntary acce000ry dwelling unit.
BACKGROUM: Accordling to the plans, the studio unit is to be 300
Square feet, which is the minimum equare footage, and 'is to be
located in the garage, The bathroom is to be located on the main
level with the kitchen and living area on the second floor of the
garage.
® The Housing office appreciates the applicant
providing a voluntary unit, but the unit needs to be totally
private. According to the plaxis, anyone who has acceso to the
garage oan use the bathrcom,associaLed with this unit, thereforer
this is not a totally private unit,
The kitchen must also consist of a minimum two -burner otove with
oven, standard sink, anal a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
The plans do not show the actual configuration of the kitcben.
Because of the above, the H6using office would recqmmend denial of
this unit has it is proposed today.
Exhibit U
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner
FROM: Bill Druedin i
RE: Wycoff ADU
DATE: October3, 1995
1. Site survey indicates a fence encroachment on City Property. This should be
legitimized with Engineering department. The Easterly fence appears to encroach on
neighbors' property.
2. A park dedication fee will be required for the newly created unit.
3. Required rear and side yard set backs can be varied by HPC. These should be
addressed by them.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Project Pre -Annexation
Review for Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline,
GMQS Exemption, Special Review, and Ordinance 30 Design
Standards
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUMMARY: Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request
as very few issues have been addressed as recommended by staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the September 19, 1995
hearing. A copy of the minutes of this meeting are attached in
Exhibit "A".
At the September hearing the P&Z was split as to whether this was
an acceptable site for an upzoning to AH and annexation into the
City of Aspen. This is still a primary issue that staff does not
feel can be addressed at tonight's hearing due to the lack of
additional design information that the applicant was to provide.
The new information submitted by the applicant is contained in
Exhibit "B". The applicant will need to provide proof of posting
and mailing of notices at the meeting.
The 1.26 acre parcel is proposed to accommodate 10 deed restricted
multi -family units located in two structures and four free market
single family dwelling units for a total of 14 units.
Staff believes the following issues are still outstanding:
o the nordic trail has been relocated above the multi-
family structures as recommended by staff, but the
connection to the trail easements on the adjoining
parcels has not been indicated;
o sidewalk, curb and gutter needs to be shown on W. Hopkins
Street;
o the 60/40 bedroom mix has not been met;
o the development shall be shifted lower on the hillside;
o preserve the Midland Railroad ROW in a use and design
acceptable to the Historic Preservation Committee. The
approximately 700 sq.ft. parcel indicated to be dedicated
for a monument or museum for the Midland Railroad ROW
does not appear to meet the original intent of keeping
the ROW intact;
o dedicate the Government Lot 18 land sliver and the area
above the multi -family structures to the City of Aspen
as park land;
o reduce the density of the project to be compatible with
the development patterns of the neighborhood;
o transpose the location of the multi -family structures
with the free-market residences to reduce the mass, bulk,
and visual disturbance higher on the parcel;
o relocate the access road to align directly with Fifth
Street;
o reduce the size of the deed restricted units as they are
proposed significantly larger than required by the
Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board and staff would
support smaller units in order to reduce the area and
bulk of the project;
o compliance with Ordinance 30 design review; and
o demonstrate the visual impact of the project, by placing
stakes where the buildings are to be located and poles
at the appropriate spots showing the height of the
structures, by providing a model of the project, showing
the relation to neighboring uses and structures, and by
providing information and site plans showing the building
envelopes for the four free-market lots.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be denied
by the Planning Commission. Should the applicant wish to return
to the Planning Commission with revised plans, staff will schedule
a hearing only after we have accepted a revised application that
adequately addresses these outstanding issues.
Exhibits
"A" Minutes from the APZ meeting September 19, 1995
"B" Revised application packet
Exhibit A
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Tygre stated, I have questions and discussion, but I may be the
only one. I'm not ready to make a vote.
Garton stated, I would like to poll the commissioners as to whether
you are ready to vote on this resolution. Blaich, no; Chaikovska,
yes; Tygre, no; Garton, yes; Mooney, no; Buettow, yes.
Garton stated, I think we better move it after the worksession on
Water Place Affordable Housing.
MOTION
Blaich moved to move the resolution after the Water Place
Affordable Housing on the agenda. Tygre seconded. Vote commenced,
vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
MINUTES
Tygre stated, I have a couple of minor corrections, and I have them
written in red. I would move to approve the minutes of September
5th, 1995, with those changes. Blaich seconded. Vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION
& CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN
Garton opened the public hearing.
Tygre stated, I would move to continue.the Conceptual SPA Review
of Independence Place to December 19, 1995. Chaikovska seconded.
Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
SHADOW MOUNTAIN AH SUBDIVISION/PUD CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
& SPECIAL REVIEW
Garton opened the public hearing.
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, :995
Mary Lackner of Community Development presented and stated, she
applicant came to me this afternoon and asked that this iteiftr be
tabled tonight with more discussion. Staff, at this point, feels
instead of going forward and having the applicant redesign, just
based on the comments we have put in the packet, we want feedback
from the Planning Commission. You have seen the site, you have
read the packet, you probably have some ideas and some issues that
you are thinking about that you might want to convey to the
applicant and staff before they go back and do a redesign.
Lackner stated, staffs concerns are laid out in the first _wo
pages of the memorandum. There is a threshold issue regarding '-he
geologic hazards. Presently, 850-. of that site is located in the
County so we are receiving annexation approval. If this property
was to be developed in the County it would be allowed one dwelling
unit and through the procedures that are in the County code right
now, that would have to go through a taking series by the Board. of
County Commissioners. They have to go back and they have to show
past hearings for takings at the Board of Commissioners level. So,
it is not a free and clear one unit that they would be allowed.
There would have to be this process that they would have approved.
That is just one threshold constraint that the City should be aware
of.
Lackner continued stating, in looking at this property as an N-
zoning to AH, we have proposed 14 units, 10 of those are deed -
restricted, 4 of them are free market.
Lackner stated, there are some other design issues that staff has
raised. The trail alignment to meet the Nordic Council's concerns,
as well as AACP, that shows an off -road trail that traverses
through the rear of this property; not completely in the rear, but
it lines up with some other trail alignments.
Lackner stated, preserve the Midland Railroad Right of Way for
historic preservation concerns. We are also looking at possible
reduction of density proposed on the site. We are also looking at
perhaps switching the free market. The affordable housing unit
locations would help to meet some of the 80/40 standards that talk
about keeping development lower on hillsides and out of hazard
areas. Bringing the bulk down off the hillside; we think by
putting the free market units along the street, and putting the
free market units up on the hillside that may be one solution to
reduce the mass and bulk of this project.
Lackner stated, staff is also looking at relocating the access
drive to be directly across from 5th Street, not being offset, but
more consistent with the patterns of how roads are developed .irl the
City. We also want more detailed models, height, etc., those \%rere
r not provided today. Also, possibly just bring FAR of the project
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
down as the units are designed with one or two bedrooms. We have
done study areas, we seek potential enforcement problems with that
layer becoming two and three bedroom units, which the density of
the site and project do not allow. We want to address that density
concern up front.
Lackner stated, those are our basic design issues and threshold
issues. Tom Stevens is here representing the applicant. They are
not prepared with any presentation tonight. Ordinance 30 still
has some outstanding issues in terms of design of this project.
We think getting through these other threshold things first, and
then, take a look at Ordinance 30, is the best way to proceed.
Garton asked, because this is a public hearing, we need the
Certification of the Notice?
Stevens stated, I don't have that with me to provide it to you, but
we will provide that.
Garton asked, how do you wish to proceed, do you just want us to
input right now? Stevens stated, I would like to just tell you
what has gotten us to this point, and what we would like to get out
of tonight.
Stevens stated, this project has gone through several different
designs, and a lot of them before I came on board, so I don't know
too much of the history. It started out at 36 units, and then, it
was 24, and now we are at 14, and I think more than, each time,
representing a reduction in density. Each time has represented a
different level of input from different groups. The applicant has
attempted to meet with a lot of the surrounding neighbors. We have
met with the Housing Office. We have gotten quite a bit of input
at this point and each time we did, we cycle through a little bit
more and change, not only the program, but the overall design of
the project and the resulting density. One of the first things I
wanted to do when I came on board was to get the project to fit
within the dimensional requirements of the AH Zone District.
Rezoning this project is a real threshold issue, but I don't see
that the project will go anywhere if once we rezone it; it still
doesn't fit the zone district. That is what really got the project
down to the 14 units. We now have to incorporate the issues with
Ordinance 30, and that is going to force us into another design of
this project. Unfortunately, the design you have in front of you
right now was done prior to Ordinance 30 and we have been dragging
our feet as we get through this process, but we have not had the
opportunity to cycle through specific requirements of Ordinance 30.
As we go into the redesign of the project, we would like to have '
the benefit of input from this group, also, so that when it comes
back to you, we are able to respond to your concerns. We have an
unbelievable
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
ability to spend money designing and designing, and come to a Board
completely clean and fresh without any input from you, and have it
completely in the wrong direction as to what you "guys" anticipate
seeing on this site.
Stevens stated, number one, the biggest issue for us is, do you see
the site as an acceptable site to be redesigned for AH? That
really involves a couple of different things. One of those that
Mary touched on is the physical site itself and what hazards are
presented. I don't know how many of you were on this Commission
when we did Ute Park Subdivision. The physical constraints there
were significantly more than they are here and what came through
that process is that it is fairly simple to mitigate those from an
architectural standpoint. What I would rather do in this project,
than try to deal with rockfall and snowslide from an architectural
standpoint, is avoid them altogether. We are in the process right
now of trying to get those precisely mapped by a geologist so that
we know the real limits and the real extent to what we are up
against. At that point, we really intend to try to link them
altogether. From a physical standpoint on the site, we can handle
those issues.
Stevens stated, more than that, I see compliance with the Aspen
Area Community Plan and general compatibility with the surrounding
area as the biggest hurdles in the rezoning question. One thing
within this application; we were just below the 60/40 mix required
of the AH Zone District and of the Aspen Area Community Plan. We
need to add a bedroom to one of the deed -restricted units that gets
us to an 18 and 12 count of 60/40, so, just consider that to be a
non -issue, it will be 60/40.
Stevens stated, we've talked about the trail. We met with Craig
Ward, we've gotten recommendations from staff and I think we can
accommodate. We do intend to dedicate a trail easement; staff has
recommended that it go behind the units. Craig Ward has
recommended that it go behind the units. We can do that right now,
I don't know the precise alignment of that thing, but what you do
have my commitment on, is that we will dedicate an easement and
will make an alignment that is acceptable to everybody. Until we
get some more input, we don't know exactly where it is, but we know
generally where it is at this point. The last issue on the Aspen
Area Community Plan is a commitment right away that essentially
cuts through the center of the site. Right now, I'm not sure that
is something we can accommodate the preservation of. We've come
a long way in taking input and cycling it into a plan and being
able to accomplish those things, and hopefully, we can do that with
this also. Until we have a chance to take a look at it, I just
don't know.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Stevens said, in terms of compatibility with the surrounding area,
we've got single-family detached, we've got multi -family, we've got
lodge, so, from a residential standpoint, we're compatible. The
issue is, whether or not the density is compatible. We laid this
thing out in 3,000 square foot lots. We thought this was a great
idea, Old Aspen was laid out on 3,000 square foot lots, 30 X 100
foot grid. In fact, remnants from that can be seen around town.
There are some directly adjacent to us that are still 30 foot lots.
A lot of these lots have been bought and merged together and they
kind of grow and grow. There aren't too many 3,000 square foot
lots left in Aspen, but that is the orginal grid system for Aspen.
Stevens continued stating, the overall density that we are at right
now, at 14, it won't be my decision whether or not that density can
be reduced or not, but I do know that the finances on this thing
are starting to get pretty thin. They originally thought they were
going to have well over double that, and we have continually
whittled it down; I've whittled it down, the Housing Office has
whittled it down, and that is always the kind of big question, what
is that magic number that is acceptable. What I would like to do,
is rather than focus on just fourteen units, that's too much,
that's right on the nose, or that's too little, let's cycle through
what .input you "guys" have in terms of design and see what that
design looks like on site. Clearly, we are more dense on a unit
per acre than single-family homes in the adjacent neighborhood.
We are less dense than the multi -family, more less dense than the
lodge. The City's own West Hopkins Project, which is two blocks
further away from town is 32 units to the acre. This has got 13.
Rather than say just 14 or some magic number, unless it is too
high, I'd like to redesign this thing and see what that looks like
on the site.
Stevens stated, so, given physical site, given the Aspen Area
Community Plan, and given compatibility with the neighborhood,
really, our biggest issue is, if you "guys" think it is an
appropriate site for an AH project, then, let's talk about the
design of it, because that way we can cycle through that input.
The next time you see it, hopefully, we can be able to respond
positively to that.
Garton stated, because this is so wide open, without a real
conceptual design yet, I think I'll return to the table before we
go to the public to ask for any input from the commissioners to the
specific things that Tom just asked for. Do you think this site
is appropriate for rezoning to affordable housing? Let's respond
to that. Does anyone have any specific comments about' that?
I agree with Tom. I think that they are not going to go forward
in asking for rezoning if we don't think this is an appropriate
site for affordable housing.
�Sel
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Buettow stated, I feel uncomfortable with the rezoning. In putting
affordable housing there, it is very dense.
Mooney stated, I'm not that uncomfortable with it. I think we
should be able to plan it right, be able to build it right, and I
think we should have enough good ideas that just about any site can
be rezoned to AH . I' m willing to work with the applicant. I think
what is proposed right now isn't appropriate for the site, in my
opinion. We can get into that, but I think it is the mass and
structure of the buildings. I think one of the things, having
these buildings some forty feet above the street level are going
to be huge -looking buildings. I'm wondering whether or not we have
to have that mass because we're starting with the basic premise
that we have the garages underneath and then we are building the
living areas on top. We are kind of like "birthday caking" this
mass up against the hillside that is a very narrow look at the
site. My basic idea is that I'm for AH zone, and I think we should
be able to redesign and develop it and make it compatible with just
about any place.
Blaich stated, I share Tim's feelings on this. When I looked at
the plan and I looked at the site, I had a number of questions.
I think the basic question is, should we look at it seriously as
affordable housing for rezoning. I think we should.
Chaikovska stated, I'm not comfortable with the rezoning. I think
the density is far too high for that area. It would have to be
substantially redesigned before I would consider that as
appropriate.
Tygre stated, I think there are two issues as far as the affordable
housing goes. There's the density and the mass. I'm not really
that concerned about the density and I think that the mass as in
the proposal, is not acceptable. I was very pleased to hear you
say that you were more interested in avoiding the possible physical
hazards on the slope and building around them. One of my "pet
peeves" is massive block retaining walls and all kinds of
structures to allow people to build up their area that really
probably shouldn't be built up in. I think that is a site concern.
Tyre stated, one of the things that has always been interesting
about that are la of town is that there were little pockets of
zoning; this is one zone district, and the very next street is
another zone district, this is in the City, this is in the County.
This is all kind of tailored around, followed up the bottom and
edge of Shadow Mountain. We've seen this'over the years. To me,
that site, although it is right up against the face of Shadow
Mountain, is still within the City limits, even though it is County
property. I think that, if. appropriately handled, density would
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
i
be 0. K . on that site. I really do not want to see the big expanses
that Tim mentioned sneaking up the mountainside. I think the
smaller units and a better design, and a better attention to,
especially, the circulation of people in and out of the project,
could go a long way toward making this an acceptable project for
the neighborhood.
Tygre added, as a threshold issue, I, like Tim and Bob, feel that
we can work with the applicant and that this would be an
appropriate site to make for affordable housing.
Garton stated, I would like to see the parcel annexed because I
don't like what the County has done with the other parcels on the
other side of Hopkins. I think it is a marginal site, Tom. I know
that the Aspen Area Community Plan wants more affordable housing
but I don't think affordable housing belongs in this parcel. I
would rather see a house. That divides the Commission 3 and 3, so,
how would you like to proceed? We don't know how Roger feels and
certainly a redesign might change people's minds. I have a lot of
questions.
Stevens stated, luckily for me, this isn't my call., With 3 for and
3 against, I wouldn't want to have to make that decision. I may
have to pass this on to the partners on this thing. My gut feeling
is that design is just sort of a problem of balancing all the
different inputs on the project. The more imput we get, the more
we can balance those things. I think that being able to design
this to where it is acceptable is not a big issue with me. I'm
fairly confident it can be done. That is more addressed to the
three, that if the design came back, again, it is not going to be
my call. My gut reaction is that we will probably take at least
one more cut at the design of this thing and if we can get to a
point where we are comfortable with it, we'll bring it back.
Garton stated, I think at this point, because Tom has addressed so
many of these threshold issues, that we should stop and I'll open
it to the public for comments about what we are considering here.
I guess the first thing is, affordable housing. A mixed use of
affordable housing and a free market project for this neighborhood.
Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak to this?
Charles Cunniffe stated, I wonder why this site is viewed as being
unable to carry the density that is being carried on all the other
projects that are across the street. It seems like in looking at
this, it 'is whether or not it has the carrying capacity for
affordable housing. It might, be wise or fair to look at the
adjacent neighborhood and what the carrying capacity of the
neighborhood is. What do tlhe other buildings along that street
have as a density, as well. As Tom pointed out, even the project
on West Hopkins, just up the street, has far more density. It is
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
the mass more than the density. In all fairness to the people who
want to be able to live in this community, if the sentiment of the
various Boards in town is, that as these projects come in and are
viewed as marginal, we are never going to get the housing
requirement that we want to build. The goal is 60 percent housing
within the limits of the community. We've only housed 35 percent,
so far. Where is the other 25 percent going to go? If this site
is marginal, I've got to tell you, I think a lot more sites are far
more marginal and far less worthy than this one for the kind of
density this could hold. I think we are asking for a lot less
density than is capable on this site.
Karen Sellars stated she agreed with Cunniffe and she thought that
the project should be given a fair chance.
Hans Gramiger stated, if this is a public meeting, don't we have
to have notification? Garton replied, yes. Gramiger stated, for
the record, in case anything has to be appealed, I have not been
notified, I have come completely unprepared to talk about it.
However, I will respond to Toms Stevens' statement that you are
going to have 3,000 square feet of free market lot spots. Every
lot in the City of Aspen consists of 3,000 square foot lots. If
somebody has a 3,000 square feet lot, it is a non -conforming lot
under the zoning regulations today. However, we have, through the
f zoning, since 1955, made a law that what was acceptable in the
mining days, to build on a 3,000 square foot lot is not acceptable
today, you have to have two lots, 6, 0 0 0. square feet. What you are
actually trying to do here is create non -conforming lots which is
completely contradictory to the philosophy of the zoning that we
have to have 6,000 square feet.
Gramiger stated, I am not prepared to react to anything else
because I was not notified.
Stevens stated, I was not on board when public notices went out on
this thing, but I will check with the "guys" that did that and
bring in the documentation that is required.
Lamont stated, Tom, you are asking P&Z to table this meeting. Do
you want to table it to a date certain to continue the public
hearing or do you just want to table it and let us know when you
are.ready to come back to P&Z and we will completely do another
public noticing, which may be the safest way?
Stevens stated, in reality, it is going to take at least 30 days
to cycle through redesigns and things like that. I have no idea
how that fits ins to P&Z's scheduling. I guess I would just rely
on your advice.
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Lamont stated, would you consider the last meeting in October or
the first meeting in November? Stevens answered, that's as early
as we can cycle through any design revisions. If inhere is a
question about the noticing,'since I didn't do it myself, I would
prefer to handle it myself and make sure that it is don.e. At this
point, I don't have any reason to believe that it was not done, but
if that is a question, rather than table it to a date certain, we
could republish it.
Lamont stated, my recommendation is that we table to the first
Tuesday of November, and we will probably want to renotice for that
meeting just to be sure.
Stevens stated, that's fine, that will give us enough time to do
what we need to do.
Garton stated, so, instead of taking any more comments from the
public, as this may not be a bona fide public hearing, I'll
entertain a motion. It's mute. We're going to do two things.
We're going to table and have the first public hearing at -that
time.
It was discussed by the Commission that perhaps it would be best
to hear more public comment since many people had gathered for the
hearing and the feedback from the public would be helpful. Garton
agreed.
Richard Knezevich stated he did not feel the site was appropriate
for an AH project and stressed the heavy amount of parking in the
area.
Martha Madsen, apartment owner across the street from the project,
stressed her concerns regarding the crowded parking on the street.
She stated, we have had an increase of crime on West Hopkins this
last six months to a year. I think the density is a concern from
that standpoint. I personally am concerned about the increase in
crime.
Charles Paterson, owner of the property across the street, the
Boomerang Lodge, for 46 years stated, I understand what you are
saying about employee housing, but the question is, is the site
appropriate. At this stage, I would really like to say how we feel
about it. We feel the site is not appropriate, and I know I am at
a disadvantage to say that because I am across the street and it
is obvious. I feel very, very strongly that the foot of Shadow
Mountain is not an appropriate site for an AH zone.
Hans Gramiger stated, I think Charlie could have said something
else, maybe, that he was an architect.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Fonda Paterson, wife of Charles Paterson, and also owner of the
Boomerang Lodge, across the street from the proposed project,
stated she felt the land at the foot of Shadow Mountain should have
special consideration was because in her view it was transitional
land. She stated, we love that neighborhood because we have the
wilderness right in our front yard, and that's Shadow Mountain.
To go from Shadow Mountain to high density, I don't think is the
highest and best land use. I look at it as transitional and I
would like to see the P&Z respond to it as some kind of a blending
of the wilderness with the town.
Garton closed the public hearing.
Stevens asked, could I get you "guys" to give some other input
on just one other issue? It has been suggested that we flip-flop
the position of the affordable housing, with the free market up
on the hillside and the affordable housing low. If we are to go
on to redesign this project, that would help a lot. Could we get
some input on that?
Blaich stated, like Tim, I wasn't so concerned with density, I'm
concerned with how you package the density. If that could be
worked out and put the free market in the rear and put the high
density in the front, this might also meet some of the objections
we heard about transitional space. Again, I have read these
arguments and I have some real sensitivities to some of these
feelings about it. I think the real question of the scale, like
the mass, are design issues. They can be worked on. I think all
the other issues I've heard from your comments; these things can
be resolved. I'guess the only thing I haven't heard spoken about
is the preservation of the Midland Railroad. I put a big question
mark behind this. I think the real issues are the density and the
scale. I still don't have a problem with the density if it is
designed in such a way to deal with it. That includes the parking
problem.
Chaikovska stated, here we have what looks like a subdivision to
me. It' s got a road cut into it that goes in towards the upper
units. To me, it is completely different from what this entire
neighborhood looks like. A subdivision in the middle of this
neighborhood, and this is what this looks like to me, I just don't
see it as appropriate.
Chaikovska stated, as to the issue of affordable housing, we have
got to find a place to put it because we need to meet the community
plan, you know, just to put up affordable housing for the sake.of
affordable housing is not the right way to go. We have stuck
affordable housing in places where it is not appropriate. resign
or no design, I think we should be very sensitive to the
13
` PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
neighborhood, we should be very sensitive to what is appropriate,
and we should put affordable housing where it is appropriate.
f"
Stevens asked, I'm curious as to what makes it inappropriate.
Chaikovska stated, to me, this is a subdivision. It is the wrong
kind of design for that neighborhood. We've spent months talking
about what is appropriate in what. neighborhood, all through all
these ordinances, guidelines, to have a neighborhood be consistent
in terms of design, in terms of density. This design doesn't fit.
I say, again, perhaps there is a design that does fit for this
particular street. This isn't it. If you do come up with
something that would fit better, perhaps there is a design that
would work, but you have to be sensitive to the neighborhood.
That's what we have talked about for the past year. I don't think
that Bob would disagree or Tim would disagree on that, as well.
Blaich stated, we were asking our opinions whether it is issues,
and I think it is kind of resolved. They should have a shot at it
and they could come back if we still feel that it doesn't meet the,
requirement. I just feel that we are looking at something here
that we thought was maybe concrete until we got to this meeting.
There's a lot of openess and the possibilities of redesign, and I
think there should be a chance to do that.
Garton stated, Tom has asked what we feel about flip-flopping the
affordable housing with the free market houses.
Tygre stated, I think that would be acceptable. My suggestion
would be that part of the design be a reduction in the size of all
the units. Your question of the questionable dens and second
bedrooms. There was a development that came to us once with a
project with 800 square foot studios with two doors, two entrances.
I think we can come up with a one -bedroom apartment with two or
three dens or studios, that isn't as questionable. I think that
what might make this project more acceptable would be if you
already have one two -bedroom unit, let them be one or two bedroom
units that are livable, but not necessarily huge. I would like to
see the free market houses reduced in size also. I think there is
a danger of putting the affordable units on the streetscape if
they're not really attractive. I think that could be a terrible
affront to anybody walking by because they would be the most
visible. On the other hand, if you are going to start putting up
some of these "monsters" up the hill that you can see from 8,000
miles away, I think that would be even worse. I think the flip-
flopping would be good if you are sensitive to the scale and the
height of the buildings that go up the hill. I would like to see
buildings not go too far up into the pine trees or spruce trees,
or anything like that.
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Mooney stated, I don't know, seeing the affordable housing right
on the street, and the buffer zone to the affordable housing units
is this huge patch of asphalt. It is such a dramatic reflection,
and look at these three story garages off the asphalt, living
levels, and then, sleeping levels right on Main Street or Cooper
Street with 82 as you go out. That is just so massive and
everything is just so bright against that, that I kind of like the
idea of having the free market units in front so that we do have
some kind of a miner's design, we do have some kind of a 3,000
square foot lot. We went by and noticed Charles' design next to
Ben Hall Is house and what I guess would be a 3,000 square foot lot.
That kind of tempo on the street makes more sense to me than the
kinds of tempo we have. That is just too bright and too strong and
totally inappropriate for anywhere in Aspen ever again.
Mooney stated, so, then, we get to the idea of what does this road
that goes through the middle of it really work as, and if there are
going to be garages on the backside of these 3,000 square foot free
market houses. That the cars aren't going to end up on the street
that belong to the free market units. With this some kind of a
really interestingly designed road, can it handle the fire trucks
turning around and all of the safety and the equipment needs to get
.in there and all of the traffic that needs to go to the affordable
units up on the hill, and all of the traffic that needs to go to
the free market units in front; who designs that is really going
to be a wizard, in my opinion.
Mooney continued stating, if you can see these things from Main
Street by looking down the street, and you are kind of driving down
Main Street and you look over and go, "what is that"? If we're
going to look at that kind of "stuff", I mean, I'm not going to
look at that kind of "stuff". So, I think you have to change your
categories, change your bedroom count, and.change your density.
If you are putting cubital, cut-up, 3,000 square foot Ben Hal -type
houses there, I can't see you putting university dormitory -style,
massing on the backend of it. I don't object to the free-market,
to answer your question, in the front, on the street.
Buettow stated, it is a very speculative site because I originally
like the free market units, the lots in the front, because each
house could have an identity and something that would be relatable
to people walking by. Then, I see these huge masses, up the slope.
To consider your proposal of reversing it, then, I see if you put
the smaller houses with identity up on the slope, it could be
sensitive, it could fit in, maybe., environmentally. Then, you have
larger masses down on the street, which is kind of a detriment
similar to the project that Tim has referred to. It depends on the
design, how it turns out. There are pluses and minuses.
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Mooney stated, this leaves absolutely no room for any kind of
landscaping. We have construction and rooflight and windows and
asphalt. If you look at Charles' 3,000 square foot house, there
is no landscaping on that either. There is just no place f'or it
to go. I think that the density and the mass and the scale has to.
allow for a considerable amount of landscaping.
Blaich stated, again, I come back to the same issues. Staff has
pointed out a number of things in here. I think one of the things
that is still not clear to me is the visual impact. I think that
placing a stakes and/or a computer generated drawing, which would
probably be even better, maybe both, but at least to get some site
lines in there. I still think there is a resolution in here
through design. It is a task. I think it is a_problem to be
solved through design. I could change my mind if the design came
back, I might say that I don' t buy it. I don' t buy the one the way
it is. If we were to vote on this, I would vote against it, the
way it is proposed.
Garton stated, I prefer the single, free market lots on the street.
Mary, I have a question. If the Midland Park Railroad Right of Way
becomes an historic resource, what kind of priority, what kind of
clout does that have on a natural resource? Does the development
and the design have to honor the historical resource?
�r Lackner replied, it is just a request by HPC, because it is
eligible from a national register. It is the only historic right
of way that's being looked at, and Midland is somewhat intact along
Shadow Mountain. That's why it was brought up by Amy Amidon to be
preserved.
Garton stated, it can't be violated, then, by a design. It must
be preserved. Lackner stated, I think with most things with HPC,
it is a negotiated process. Garton stated, but the Maroon Creek
Bridge, for example, cannot be moved or changed. Lackner stated,
it is eligible for it, it is just a matter of paperwork before it
can qualify. Garton stated, but if it gets on it, it can't be
touched. Lackner stated, my understanding of it, it is not that
cut and dry, it's not like the Maroon Creek Bridge. The
identification of this is something that does need a standard to
be listed on the national register and they are trying to preserve
that. What they have asked is, that it not be paved, and that it
remain an open nature and they would like to see it maintained as
a trail, hopefully with no crossings, but we're not sure that that
can happen. Garton stated, maybe, we could get back results before
the next meeting and the fact that it is a site and not a structure
might make the difference, too.
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
�.. (Public) stated, the problem that you are seeing is a function of
the underlying zoning itself. When you look at AH project, what
you are seeing is exactly what Tom mentioned from the start, and
that is, the developer has to have property. Believe me, I
understand that, representing developers, and I don't fault the
developers problem. The ultimate result, to get passed the
planning standpoint, in order to make that pocket there must be
more mass, there must be more density. That's the price you are
paying for having a private incentive in an AH zone itself.
Whereas, theoretically, we have the Housing Authority, who can have
less density, less mass.
MOTION
Tygre stated, I move to continue the public hearing on this project
to November 7th, 1995. Chaikovska seconded, voting commenced.
Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WORKSESSION
r There was a worksession, but minutes were not taken on the
proceeding. The worksession, however, was taped. Dave Michaelson,
Community Development staff planner, presented.
HISTORIC LANDMARK CODE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 95-29
Garton stated, we need to quickly have a discussion about the
resolution.
Mooney stated, I only have one, and we talked about this before.
It can be simplified having lots 9,000 to 12,000, but I still think
we might consider it for all the other lots that are going to be
capable of doing this, and who is going to do that. Are we going
to consider that on a staf f level to make an admendment to this
text amendment so that if someone has an historically dated lot
split, and say, it is less, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet.
Lackner stated, those are Conditional Use Reviews and at this time
we don't want to make it a committed or allowed by right property
to split it. I think that would be looked at as each case came in.
17
Exhibit B
October 20, 1995
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena St.
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Mary:
A
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
Please consider this letter and the drawings enclosed as a preliminary package to show the proposed
modifications to the Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Project.
The modifications are in response to the Planning Department's comments and the comments of the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 19, 1995.
The modifications include:
The trail alignment has been located to pass above the proposed multi -family
structures as requested by staff.
The site plan now shows a proposed dedicated land grant in response to the
Historic Preservation Committee for use as a monument or museum for the
Midland Railroad ROW. It is located on the trail and may be accessed by the
General Public from the trail . It also is located on the original ROW.
The mass and bulk of the project has been significantly reduced. The modified
design incorporates a parking structure below grade. This change also allows for
greater open space and landscaping area.
The reduced mass also is in response to staff comments to be more compatible
with the development patterns of the neighborhood.
We are currently working on a model to show the relationship of the proposed project to the
neighboring uses and structures. This model will be available for the November 7, 1995 Planning
and Zoning meeting. In addition, the project site will be staked with height poles prior to the
meeting.
We are available to meet with you and further discuss the project prior to the meeting.
The model should be available in a preliminary form on November 1. Thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
Sincer
ohn C. Wheeler AIA
cc: Craig Glendenning - West Hopkins Partners, LLC
Tom Stevens - The Steven's Group
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS a 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE e SUITE 301 e ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 303/925-5590 FAX 303/925-5076
z
c �3'�r,,.. .-� �_ ,,,,. ,�,�.,-�,.,..� i.. i 1/: �, ).'r'l, �a�r'1���'. ;! f.) 'Yi ��)i-"r 1. } r•ti:'t'l.i'Yr lt.il`�i ;e••tt_)C.(l'i l`� �, 'a w �.•.•..:��
1
tt
i
r. -..-_. . LL
I (� Olt,
P C�
r � •
CL
I i . it _ ��,,�,�s\\`\ � ;�yti , r ,�� i � �•. ;�. ._ W
I t
cn
•, 1 r _� �� if +�' ' i:t � i i I �\ - ..
+♦ ♦�� � OJ. � � Y �Y -�_._' r � � r 'Alil TO NEgi . 7
r� � � ��4%� - _--'—�.� err 1..�: � i � ' � � 4.. • -
1.11
�; • � r I
i
�. /. . 'awl
dl I
I I I
• rr -
r.
•�nn,� _—.�.____ --� t_.____ _ "-a. , „ I itµ
;1I,JiWPV , O(A I V / P
0
C\j
slow"
SNI)IcjoN
lS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director
DATE: November 7, 1995
RE: Lodge Preservation zone district proposed code amendments, PUBLIC HEARING
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Attached is an evaluation of the Lodge Preservation zone district, in response to points made
in Gideon Kaufman's letters of March 6, 1995 and April 6, 1995, written as the representative
of the Small Lodge Association. Several meetings involving City Council, Community
Development, and the small lodge owners have been held since the small lodge owners began
to organize and request code changes related to this zone district in December 1994.
Recognizing that the Planning and Zoning Commission has not had the opportunity to review
the issues that have been raised by the lodge owners, staff has prepared this memo for
discussion purposes. Please find a summary of the lodge owner's and staff's work to date on
this project. Based upon the Commissioner's recommendation staff will prepare specific text
amendments for review by the Commission and Council.
CODE AMENDMENTSREQUIRED:
Kitchens
Long-term rentals
Accessory uses/Partial conversion of use
Total conversion of use
Transfer of development rights
Condominiumization
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z direct Staff to prepare any or all of
the above amendments found appropriate for the Lodge Preservation Zone District.
LODGE PRESERVATION ZONE DISTRICT STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
The Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district was formed in 1983. Lodge owners had the option
of whether or not to have their property zoned LP, however, at that time all of the lodges were
non -conforming uses and were unable to expand or undertake basic maintenance. The LP zone
offered them the ability to become conforming uses and thereby upgrade their property.
In the LP zone district, the only allowed use is lodge and associated services, such as a
restaurant. The community has been eager to protect the visitor bed -base and to retain small
scale, more affordable, and more unique lodging options. Many of the small lodges are historic
or may be considered historically significant in the future and several are located within Aspen's
historic districts. Many of them represent Aspen's early lodge development.
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) states that
"Small lodges immediately set the stage for the guest experience
in Aspen. These lodges promote a sense of scale , and feel that
provide the visitor with a transition into the uniqueness of Aspen.
The community must find ways to maintain these small lodges and
the experience they offer to our guests."
and references the desire to maintain small lodges in the community in the following ways:
• Provide incentives to keep small lodges in operation
• Sponsor a forum for small lodge owners
• Revise the Lodge Preservation Zone District to allow a range of
mitigation and allow for minor expansion with less mitigation
required in order to maintain the small lodge inventory in the
community.
Attached is a table which lists the lodges which are zoned "LP" and their existing and potential
buildout.
H. RECENT DISCUSSIONS
In summer 1994, a group of about 20 small lodge owners formed an association and requested
meetings with City Planning Staff and City Council to discuss their collective concerns with the
lodge preservation zone district. In addition to Planning Staff meetings, two community
meetings have been held, one on December 12, 1994 and one on January 5, 1995. The owners
of the LP properties, represent that they are slowly being squeezed out by increases in luxury
lodge units, changes in the demographics of Aspen's tourist population, and increased
competition between Colorado resorts in general.
0
Problems cited by the Small Lodge owners:
• Decrease in demand
0 Increase in noise and traffic on Main Street; decrease in ambience
• The GMQS allocation specifically set aside for lodge preservation
has been eliminated from the growth management quota system,
leaving the small lodges to compete with much bigger projects for
an allocation.
• Aspen has seen a significant increase in lodge rooms (large hotels
like the Ritz, Little Nell, Hotel Jerome)
• Large hotels can offer cheap rates in off-season. Small lodges
can't compete with their amenities
• Some lodges are closing for part of the year because it is not
feasible to operate in the off-seasons
• Some of the lodges weren't well built and are reaching the end of
their life span
• The lodges are also competing with private home and short term
rentals
• Visitor demographics seem to have changed. Fewer people who
come to Aspen are interested in the small lodge experience
• Renovation expenses are difficult to recover due to low bookings
• Bus service is not available to many small lodges
• Potential difficulty in meeting area and bulk/parking and site
requirements if adding on
• Increasing financial incentive to sell the property for other type of
development and general lack of incentive to continue to operate
lodge
Possible solutions suggested at community meetings:
• Add amenities not available at hotels, such as kitchenettes, or find
other ways to increase demand for this type of lodging
• Establish a revolving loan fund to finance improvements
• Change the zoning to make lodge preservation an overlay zone
district, with other uses available conditionally, or otherwise add
flexibility to the zoning. Amend land use regulations which
impede success of lodges
91
• Improve marketing to make visitors aware of these less expensive
and smaller lodging options. Work with Aspen Central
reservations to ensure that the small lodges are being well
represented
• Study what the long term impacts would be of allowing the overall
bed -base to decrease, say by 20 %
• Create financial incentives such as change in taxes, reduction in
building and planning fees
• The small lodge association should work together on marketing
and booking issues
The Small Lodge Association hired a land use attorney to help them identify and draft potential
amendments to the land use code which would allow them more flexibility, especially in terms
of use. A copy of their proposed areas of change is attached to this report.
M. SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY THE SMALL LODGE ASSOCIATION
1. Low interest loans. The City should make low interest loans for small non-
condominiumized lodge upgrades. A loan of $250,000 or less would require that the property
continue to operate as a lodge for at least five years. A loan of more than $250,000 would
require that the property continue to operate as a lodge for at least ten years.
Staff response: (a) The city currently allows an interest free loan of up to $10, 000 for
maintenance of historic properties. That loan must be paid back according to a yearly payment
schedule and is due in full in 10 years or at the time that the title is conveyed. The City may
be able to justify offering this kind of subsidy to lodges but not other businesses through the
significance placed on lodge preservation in the AACP. Further information is needed as to
why it is difficult for the small lodges to secure improvement loans now and what will be the
source of funding from the City. In addition, the City may wish to require that the lodge stay
in operation for a longer time period than suggested.
(b) Staff has looked into creating a revolving loan fund of up to $250,000 for small lodges.
Staff's concept is that the loan might be provided through a cooperative agreement between
local banks, who would provide the service as a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) activity.
The proposal has been mentioned to representatives of Pitkin County Bank, but no final plan
has been reached on the subject to date. The small lodge owners have more recently indicated
that $250,000 may not be enough to make meaningful improvements to their facilities, and that
the actual investment required, up to $1 million, may not be recoverable through their
bookings.
2. Kitchens. Kitchens should be allowed by right in small lodges.
Staff response: Staff is in support of this action, but does have some concerns about the
4
possible progression of lodge units to lodge units with kitchens to conversion to luxury condo
units. Perhaps only a percentage of units should have kitchens or a definition of "small lodge"
could be developed to protect at least a portion of the lodge for short term rental.
3. Long-term rentals. Small lodges should have the option to rent their units long-term, as
well as short-term, to ensure a level of fixed income. The ability to go from short-term to
long-term rental would be exempt from change in use reviews.
Staff response: Staff is in support of allowing a percentage of units in each lodge to be rented
long-term. Long-term housing is needed in the community. The City should investigate
whether the units should be rented according to housing authority guidelines, as if the units
were deed restricted. Staff is uncertain as to whether the lodge owners have year round rental
or seasonal rental in mind.
There are some concerns about the appropriateness of mixing long-term and short-term units
in one structure, but any problems created may be best addressed at the discretion of the
individual lodge owners.
4. Accessory uses/Partial conversion of use. This involves allowing up to 50 % of the lodge
to convert to a use which is clearly accessory to a lodge or one which is allowed in the
underlying zone district (LP would be an overlay zone) .
Staff response: In Staff's opinion, 50 % is too substantial a conversion, and 30 % of the
existing gross square footage of the lodge would be more appropriate. The uses should be
guided by the surrounding zoning, but may be considered accessory to the principal use of the
structure.
In terms of mitigation requirements, Staff has discussed the concept of exempting 30 % of the
portion of the lodge converted to a new use from mitigation requirements. The small lodges
have suggested that 45 % is a more appropriate figure. The methods for determining the
mitigation required could be also be amended in the manner done for historic landmarks, by
allowing a reduction in mitigation where a project has not reached the maximum FAR for the
site.
5. Total conversion of use. Allow two small lodges a year to convert 100 % of the lodge to
a use allowed in the underlying or adjacent zone district. Growth Management provisions for
change in use would apply.
Staff response: There are 20 lodges in operation which are zoned LP. The ability for these
lodges to convert to another use will be greatly constrained by the available growth
management allocations, which would mitigate concerns that eventual 1 y all small lodges might
be eliminated. In addition, one would expect that at a certain point the supply and demand
would reach a point at which the remaining lodges would not wish to convert.
The option currently exists for any of the lodges to request rezoning, however, the absence of
a policy supporting such a conversion may make it difficult as a practical matter for the lodges
to obtain a rezoning.
6. Transfer of development rights (TDR) . Two small lodges could propose one lodge use,
with the second lodge able to change its use, exempt from the change in use mitigation
requirements.
Staff response: Under this scenario, two lodges might "team up," one lodge would be
preserved in the lodge use and one would be able to totally convert to another use. The two
property owners could then share profits. This option would guarantee that at least 10 small
lodges would be remain in use in the future. Staff recommends this code amendment over one
which would allow all of the lodges the ability to convert 100 % of the lodge to a new use.
Staff does recognize that some of the small lodges may in fact not be economically viable
anymore and that allowing a small amount of the lodge to convert to another use still might not
be enough. Some attrition may be necessary.
8. Condominiumization. Allow lodge units to be condominiumized, to be kept in the short-
term rental market.
Staff response: Recent court decisions have established that condominium ownership of any
property is not precluded. The City would want to enforce reasonable requirements to ensure
that the units were available for short-term rental. The City Attorney's office is currently in
the process of reinstating regulations for lodge condominiumization which were removed from
the Code.
IV. CONCLUSIONS.
There are many issues affecting the viability of the small lodge in Aspen. Many of the people
who operate the lodges have done so for 20-30 years. A number of them came to Aspen from
Europe and created small lodges like those traditional in Europe. It is possible that not only
market changes, but also cultural changes will affect the ability of the small lodge to remain in
operation if there are not others interested in taking over when these lodge owners wish to
retire.
The City Finance Department conducted a survey of sales tax revenues for the small lodges
from 1993-1995 and found no significant decrease in business, however, this study does not
take into account changes in the market before and after the construction of the Ritz -Carlton
and is not a long enough period from which to draw conclusions on long-term trends.
In the City's growth management system, the small lodges used to have their own allotment.
The recent amendments have placed all tourist accommodations in the same category, however
Council and the BOCC specifically established the total number of new units that will be
available over coming years so that all of the small lodges could potentially meet their
maximum build -out. Other types of hotels and the new base lodge at Aspen Highlands will be
eligible for the remaining units. The GMQS scoring criteria also now favors small lodge
development by emphasizing community character issues. If other hotels and Highlands
expand, it is likely to affect small lodge business even further. The City may wish to consider
formally allocating a certain percentage of the available tourist accommodation units to lodge
preservation as a protection measure.
While zoning is not supposed to be a tool for guaranteeing maximum profit for the property
owner, -you don't change zoning every 15 years to meet the market-, zoning should also not
force a property owner to continue to participate in an unsuccessful venture. In all amendments
to lodge preservation, the City needs to keep a long-term perspective. Will the demand
gradually increase to meet the supply?
no
Staff will look to City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide guidance
on these issues as we move forward to develop a program of support for the small lodges.
Appendix:
1. LP Lodge inventory and buildout potential, as recorded in 1992
2. Letters from Gideon Kaufman, representing the small lodges, dated March 6, 1995 and
April 6, 1995
3. Assessment of GMQS implications, Cindy Houben
7
M
LP Lodge Inventory and Buildout Potential
Name
Site Size (sq.
ft.)
Current Bldg.
Size (sq. ft.)
Current
Lodge Units
New Unit Buildout
Potential
Bavarian Inn
18,000
4,978
15
19 L, 4 E*
Ullr Lodge
13,500
14 854
23
0
Christiana Lodge
27,000
13,163
22
20 L, 4 E*
Boomerang Lodge
27,000
211288
34
8 L, 2 E*
Copper Horse
4,500
3,713
0**
0
The Aspen
16,500
Need #
38
0
St. Moritz
16,500
7,446
29
13 L, 2 E*
Christmas Inn
10,500
7,618
23
4 L, 1 E*
Tyrolean Lodge
6,000
8,475
15
0
Innsbruck Inn
15 000
11 436
31
5 L 1 E*
Shadow Mtn. Lodge
12,000
9,202
11
4 L, 1 E*
Hotel Aspen
24,000
Need #
48
0
Aspen Ski Lodge
15,000
12,318
33
4 L, 1 E*
Molly Gibson Ldg.
9,000
8,376
21
1 L*
Holiday House
16,500
Need #
0**
0
Fireside Lodge
15,000
10,128
20
7 L, 1 E*
Hearthstone House
9,000
8,242
18
1 L
Little Red Ski Hs
4 500
5 218
20
0
Snow Queen Lodge
4,500
1,532
8
4 L, 1 E*
Cortina Lodge
6,000
4,462
0**
0
Hotel Lenado
9,000
Need #
23
0
Bell Mtn. Lodge
20,073
7,276
16
19 L, 4 E*
Mountain House
9,000
Need #
21
0
Brass Bed Inn
13,800
Need #
29
0
Alpina Haus
8,285
7,364
0
0*
Northstar Lodge
9,000
11,151
22
0
Alpine Lodge
15,000
4,353
11
16 L, 3 E*
Crestahaus
52,272
17,017
29
13-52 L, 3-9 E***
Total
560
138-177 L, 28-34 E
Notes:
* New unit buildout potential calculated based on an addition to the existing facility at the maximum
allowable "lodge unit" FAR of 0.67:1, with an assumed room size of 450 sq. ft. Employee unit buildout potential
calculated at a minimum required FAR of 0.08:1 and an assumed unit size of 300 sq. ft..
** These facilities have been converted to affordable housing and therefore are shown as having no existing
Lodge units and no lodge unit buildout potential.
*** The development range for the Crestahaus reflects a likely buildout .to A 0.5:1 FAR and a maximum
buildout at 1:1.
BROOKE A. PETERSON
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
ERIN L. FERNANDEZ **
ROBYN J. MYLER ***
• ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND
ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
-ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
AND CONNECTICUT
HAND -DELIVERED
c.A W OFFICt:S OF•
KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. TELEPHONE
(303) 925.8166
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE FACSIMILE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1090
March 6, 1995
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planr..i.ng Office
130 South Galena Screet
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Small Lodges
Dear Kim:
As you are aware, the Small Lodge Association has met for
the last few months to discuss the serious problems facing LP
and other small lodges in the City of Aspen. We have met with
the City Council and the Planning Office to review our concerns,
and to solicit ideas and support for changes to the LP zone. We
would like to offer the following suggestions that we believe
will enable Aspen's small lodges to survive. These suggestions
offer the flexibility that current regulations lack.
We would like to see the City of Aspen make low interest
rate loans for smell non-condominiumized lodge upgrades
available. in exchange for low interest rate 'Loans, wh-icil would
be utilized to make improvements to small lodges, a restriction
would be placed of the lodge. If the lodge borrowed $250,000.00
or less, a five year restriction would be placed on the lodge,
and a loan of $25C,000.00 or more would result in a ten year
restriction, obligating the lodge to be operated as a short-term
accommodation during the restricted period. The community
subsidy would result in an upgraded lodge with assurances that a
small lodge would --Dntinue to operate, preserving a lodging
option that we all want to see continued.
We would also like to see kitchens permitted by right in
small lodges. This would help the small lodge clientele, who
are finding Aspen very expensive and are taking their business
to other ski resorts. In addition to adding kitchens, we would
like small lodge o�;_-rators to have the option to short-term, as
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 6, 1995
Page 2
well as long-term, their units. This flexibility would enable
lodges to take some of the risk out of operating a small lodge
by having a fixed income of long-term rentals to balance the
uncertainty of the short-term market. This would also be a
benefit to the community, since a small lodge room or combined
rooms that would be long -termed would offer rental housing that
is sorely needed .n the community. The ability to go from
short-term to long-term, or long-term to short-term, should be
exempt from change in use requirements.
t
vJ� r. u .Juiu e Wvalso ,"Jr :poS�.' that the 5m.:.ull lodges be ll0-u?cd
mixed uses. Under the mixed use, you would be able to
incorporate more than one use in your lodge. For example, the
lodges on Main Street would be able to convert up to 50% of
their lodges to an office, restaurant, or commercial use,
enabling the lodge to diversify, and assuring that at least one-
half of the lodge would remain as short-term accommodations.
This would .also require Section 9-105, Lodge Preservation, to be
modified to allow enlargement of square footage, as well as
mixed uses.
We would likE to have the LP designation be an overlay,
which would enable }he owner to utilize the underlying or
adjacent zoning that exists in the surrounding neighborhoods.
If you were in an '::CIF zone, you could utilize the multi -family
zoning. If you wc3i� in the office zone, you could utilize
office zoning. If you were in a commercial zone, you could
utilize commercial zoning. You would, however, be limited to
utilizing the underlying zoning for up to fifty percent (50%) of
your lodge. This would enable lodge owners to be compatible
with the underlying zone uses, and at the same time, preserve a
large portion of the lodge character and accommodations. We
would like to see the Change in Use section of the Land Use Code
modified so that our proposed iodge changes would qualify as
having "a minimal impact upon the City", and a special section
dealing with mititlation be adopted for small lodges.
We would also propose that two small lodges a year could
apply to convert y00% of the lodge to a use that would be
allowed in the underlying or adjacent zone district. They would
have to comply with the change in use exemption from the GMP, or
the full lodge GMP, depending on which applied. A lottery could
be set up if more than two lodges applied each year.
We believe that, by making the lodge overlay and mixed use
zoning conditional uses, the City would have an opportunity to
review all proposed changes, and could, therefore, monitor what
was taking place in the small lodge community. Some of the
existing lodges do not need, or do not wish at this time, to
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 6, 1995
Page 3
utilize any of these options. Other lodges desperately need the
flexibility being proposed. We believe that the options offered
by these changes will result in a stronger and healthier small
lodge community. The conditional use requirement will give the
City a mechanism to assure that the small lodges will not
disappear.
We would look forward to another work session with you or
the City Council at the end of March. Thank you for your help
and consideration.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C.,
a ProAegelonal Corporation
By
Gl' e n Kaufman
GK/bw
APR 06 '95 00:12
P.2/3
WOO U A. MERUM
GIDEON I. KAUFMW'
EAIN L. FERNMUEZ
ii imm d. mno ""
• repo Aowrm W UARVIA 10
•AtiOAOMQ'TiDM i�pA
'� AL'10�0�1'7CS IM MCD YAK
A110 QONNft71NT
LAW 4FFICHSOF
KAUFMAN & PMRSQN, P.C.
$15 EAST HY14 M AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO Shall
April 6, 1995
Ms . Kist Johnson
Aspen/Pi.tkin Planning Office
13 0 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado $1611
Re: Small bodges
Dear Kim
TELEP ME
MM "
FAC=IU
(9?+Ory 9?.&W"
This letter shall serve as a follow-up to -my letter, dated
March 6, 1995, as well as our meeting on Monday, April 3r 1995.
I believe the small lodge owners conveyed their reservations to
you about the ability of the ideas outlined in my March 6, 1995
letter, to make a significant improvement in the conditions of
the small lodges in Aspen. Although low -interest City funding
would be appreciated, even $250,000.00 would accomplish little
for the small lodge. As Heinz Coordes pointed out, $250,000.00
in his case, Would only pay for air conditioning of twos -thirds
of his lodge rooms and soundproofing of all exterior doors. An
expenditure of $1,000,000.00 would often be necessary to make a
significant difference in many of the older lodges. Such an
outlay of funds, even at low interest rates, cannot be justified
in todayos lodging market.
It became apparent at our meeting that a full and varied
menu of options .is necessary to maintain any viability for
Aspen's small lodges. I believe the following ideas that were
discussed at the meeting, along with the ideals contained in my
March 6 letter, should be incorporated into future legislation.
First, we discussed the concept of a TDR. .for example, two
small lodges could propose one lodge use, with the second lodge
able to change its use and be exempt from the change in use
mitigation requirements, This is not a new concept, for in the
past, the renovation, expansion, and changes to an historic
structure were exempt from the change in use mitigation
requirements. This approach could enable one small lodge to be
APR 06 '95 00:12 P.213
Ms. Kim .'ohnson
April 6, 1995
Page 2
maintained permanently in the lodging inventory, and at the same
time, the lodge owners would be able to receive economic
benefit for the conversion of the other lodge. This would also
reduce the lodge inventory, thereby strengthening the remaining
small lodges. If this approach is utilized, the integrity of
the change in use procedure and the Growth Management Plan can
be maintained.
We also discussed an exemption from the mitigation
requirements for the conversion of a p of a lodge. The
staff discussed an exemption for up t t. In
further discussions, the group felt that a arty -five percent
figure would be more appropriate and desirable. e
Condominiumization, which ensured that units remained in the
short -text market, was..also discussed as a viable option for the
small. lodges. We believe that these additional options, and the
ones outlined in mar' March 6 letter, together might offer the
small lodge owners some viable options far the future.
We look forward to discussing these ideas with you, as well
as City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission in a joint
meeting that can hopefully take place prior to April 16. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise,
I will look forward to hearing from you about the upcoming
meeting.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF �{AUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. ,
ar`anal Corporation
.y
G eon Kaufman
GR f bw
Compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan:
The Aspen Area Community Plan was completed in January of 1993 and
called for several actions relative to the Small Lodge community.
The intent of the Commercial/ Retail Action Plan reads as follows:
To provide incentives for managed strategic growth by locally
serving commercial and office uses and small lodges.
The philosophy section pertaining to small lodges reads as
follows:
Small lodges immediately set the stage for the guest
experience in Aspen. These lodges promote a sense of scale and
feel that provide the visitor with a transition into the
uniqueness of Aspen. The community must find ways to maintain
these small lodges and the experience they offer to our
guests.
The Action Plan reads as follows:
* sponsor a forum for small lodge owners; and
* Revise the Lodge Preservation zone district to allow a range
of mitigation and allow for minor expansion with less
mitigation required in order to maintain the small lodge
inventory in the community.
The effort to provide a forum for small lodge owners began over a
year ago when staff requested that the lodge owners begin to
develop a list of issues and proposed changes to the existing LP
zone district. The following addresses how the proposed changes
comply with other sections of the AACP.
A. Long Term Rentals: Lodge units and long term residential units
have always been considered separately under the Growth management
Quota System. The original position that there should be a balance
between these two sectors still holds true under today's Growth
management System. Conversion of short term lodge rooms to Long
Term residential units would have a positive impact on the
Affordable Housing shortage in the community if these units were
deed restricted yet the question of balance has still not been
addressed. Additionally, the question of Growth Management or
exempt allocations for either deed restricted or free market
residential uses has not been explored.
B. Accessory Uses: Allowing conversion of a portion of the
Lodge(rooms)to uses such as commercial or office creates the same
balance and allocation questions as were described in #3 above.
C. Partial conversion of uses to the underlvinq zone district: This
concept also brings up the questions of balance and allocations.
Would the underlying zone district use of the property be exempt
from Growth management competition and/or from the ceilings/caps
established in the revised GMQS regulations?
D. Total Conversion of use at a rate of 2 lodges per year: If this
option were considered, the goals as stated in the philosophy
section of the AACP, could not be met. If this option were
approved, staff would recommend revisions to the GMQS regulations
which would address the loss of tourist accommodations in the
community and the addition of residential and commercial square
footage which had not been anticipated in the AACP.