HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19951121
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 21, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Fire station Meeting Room
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Small Lodge Text Amendments, Amy Amidon & Stan
Clauson (continued from 11/7)
B. Snowmelter Relocation Final SPA Review, Dave
Michaelson
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Buckhorn Lodge Order to Show Cause, Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
NOTE: November 20 at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers - joint work
session with Council - Water Place Affordable Housing
MEMORANDUM
i
j TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: November 21, 1995
December 5 - Site Visit, 3:00 (Meet behind City Hall)
North 40 (RM )
December 5 - Growth Management Commission, 4:30.
Isis Theatre (DM)
Transfer of Development Rights (CH)
December 5 - Regular Meeting, 5:00
610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation (AA)
Ritz -Carlton Parking Garage Conditional Use Review (DM)
Isis Theatre Special Review & GMQS Exemptions (DM)
Isis Theatre Landmark Designation (AA)
December 19 - Regular Meeting
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Stan Clauson, Director Community Development
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: November 21, 1995
RE: Continued Public Hearing - Small Lodge Code Amendments
After an introduction of issue and comments from small lodge
owners, the Commission continued the November 7, 1995, public
hearing for further discussion of potential amendments. Please see
the minutes that the Clerk has attached for the small lodge
discussion.
Staff has attached the memo from the last meeting. The Commission
started discussing issues 1-7 and continued the hearing for a more
in-depth discussion.
In addition to the items found in the November 7, 1995, memo, staff
would like to add another item that was not included:
* free market unit for lodge owner/resident manager
Currently, the code only allows deed restricted housing
for employees for the lodge. If an owner wanted to live
on the property there is a high probability that an owner
would not qualify for a deed restricted dwelling unit.
The only other residential uses allowed in the LP zone
district are lodge rooms, therefore staff would recommend
as a permitted use 1 dwelling unit for the owner or
resident/manager.
Finally, staff has revised the "chart" to indicate surrounding
zoning of the various lodges and comments from Jasmine Tygre are
attached for your review. She could not attend tonight's meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A. November 7, 1995 memo
B. Jasmine's Comments
C. Revised Lodging Chart
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 AMENDMENTS REQUIRED:
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.
II. 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. J
2
Problems cited by the Small Lodge owners:
• Decrease in demand
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
3
® 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
1, e in full m 10 ears or at the time that the title is conveyed. The City may
schedule and is du
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.
Staffs 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
19
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 Staffs 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 eventually 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. i
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.
5
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?
0
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
LP Lodge Inventory and Buildout Potential
Name
Site Size (sq.
ft.)
Current Bldg.
Size (sq. ft-)
Current
Lodge Units
New Unit Buildout
Potential
A--�
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
Boomerang Lodge
27,000
21,288
34
8 L, 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
1
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
-- ---
.., .-,.
I 1)n
7 1 1 E*
Fireside Lodge
Hearthstone House
I-j,UVV
9,000
8,242
--
18
1 L
Little Red Ski Hs
4 500
S 218
20
0
Snow Queen Lodge
4,500
1,532
8
4 L, 1 E*
Cortina Lodge
6,000
4,462
0
Hotel Lenado
9,00
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
Alpine Lodge
9,000
111151
22
0
15,000
4,353
11
16 L, 3 E*
Crestahaus
52,272
171017
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 1. KAUFMAN
ERIN L FERNANDEZ "
ROBYN J. MYLER '•'
• ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND
"ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
-ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
AND CONNECTICUT
HAND -DELIVERED
I.AW OFFICESOF
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. Ong Office
130 South Galena S creet
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, which would
be utilized to mak.e improvements to small lodges, a restriction
would be placed.oi 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 .3Dtinue to operate, preserving a lodging
opti.on.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 op arators 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 lonc-term, or long-term to short-term, should be
exempt from change in use requirements.
We would also propose that the s :;all lodgesoe r i lowed
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 500 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 the owner to utilize the underlying or
adjacent zoning that exists in the surrounding neighborhoods.
If you were in an '.::4F zone, you could utilize the multi -family
zoning. If you wore in the office zone, you could utilize
office zoning. It 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 chat our proposed lodge changes wouiu 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 100% of the lodge to a use that would be
allowed in the underlying or adjacent zone district. They would
have to comply wits 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 OFFICE OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C.,
a Pro e ional Corporation
By.
Gi tpn Kaufman
GK/bw
- APR 06 ' 95 00 : 12
H.c.'1J
BAWKE A. ?tTXRSCN
w0e0" L KAWM i s
EPJN L. FERMWDU
LAW OFF ICl-;SOF
KA.UFMA.N & PETMSQN, PX. TY11340HE
$15 EAST HYWN AVENUE FAGSWILE
ASPEN. COLORADO SIMI (9-to 925.2090�
A05M J. mrn- R I"
ALMAour"=tox4a"A" April 6, 1995
Aim A=Mr=01 FWGWA
A43* AQmfYTw W woe Y OM
AW 0*$0NWM=r
Ms. Kim Johnson
.Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado alall
Re: Small lodges
Dear Rita:
This letter shall serve as a follow-up to -my letter, dated
March 6, 1995, as well as our meeting on manday, April 3, 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 smalllodge_ As Heinz Coordes pointed out, $250,000- 00
in his case, Would only pay for air conditioning of two-thirds
of his lodge rooms and soundproofing of all exterior dflors _ 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 law interest rates, cannot be justified
in todayfs, 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 ideas 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.3i3
Ms. XiXa Jrohnson
April 6, 19S5
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 no of a lodge. The
staff discussed an exemption for up t er t. In
further discussions, the group felt that a - arty-fiY�e percent
figure would be more appropriate.. and desirable. e
Condominiumizationl which ensured that units remained in the
short-term market, was also discussed as a viable option for the
small lodges. We believe that these additional options, and tha
ones outi.ined in my March 6 letter, together might offer the
small lodge owners some viable options for 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 f-rom you about the upcoming
meeting.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C.,
a e 'onal Corporation
By
'Glaeon Kaufman
GR/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
Loidge(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 underlyina 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.
NOV--14-1995 17 e 02 CDTAB
TO: Amy AMICIon, Cindy Houben, Leslie Lamont
Jasmine Tygre
DATE ON Movember 13, 1995
RE: Lodge Preservatlan zone d1strict proposed code amendmentS
competitiveness1. How many small lodge owners have taken ndvantage.of LP to do thl
k1nd of upgrades that were supposed to improve their
C. Of ■' that 'fin _, i= was
3. Do we really need to preserve fL11 the LP lodgesi
The AACp states that :Lt is important! is ! w,
conceptsintai-
the osmall lodge experience". Is it as important to Aspenve resor A,
guests? PreservIng small lodges may be 8nOth8r Of thOse imPractical
so dear to the hearts of us as
oriented" busineases), and so irrelevant to tourists seekln
more deluxe accommodationsand ambiance.
Dogs anyone know the wcorrect" number of small lodges? Is there any
concerning the demand for roams in these facilities?
4. What
lodges,
Were there any9 What kind of X-edpvelopment occurred?
Requiring money -losing
, ,..w! e f=, .■: business*? r operation both
r
unenforceable and morally ahjectionable. This is my
n objection
to ^° _
lodge,
e;Kchangs for other concessions.
brand tax transmiltalmGM0
A. ConverSion to other USGS,--
a.
Theoretically,e s; li
itles
were to make loans possible. What Is the current problem
in obtaining such loans?
b. Such a condition/deed restriction Is really
unenfomeable (see above).
a. The "unintended cmsequence" may be the CrBatLOD Of
large, lavish
structurer when _
lodge_turns out
. is be ,. is ;i f ems'
second home for someone who can afford free maLrket
i+. a The AACp notwithstanding,, there .
idea of government subs1dy of a particular priVa-Le
co=ercial operation (or even arL entire category of
pri-vate
business).
i _ _.
Kitchens.
. . y. , -. ,� -; _ �...;-fit... absencs
not
relevant to the "small lodgeu experience as the cor*anial-itY of a
common meeting area with breakfast or aPr8:5-ski BerVice Of 30me
sort. perhaps tha provision of suoh an area should be included In
the ok.', ilodge."
a. With the additlon,of kitchens, lodge rocas beAlome
y i
more like apartments and are m0re ecOnOmic;Rl ic,. can save
..r< . , eating
d imagine _he Ry YYments _
asm
the restaurant businesses in town when they hear that the
installation
city government is Donsido-ring aubsldlzing the
of small lodges!
NOV-14--1.995 17:03 CBTAB 30392043`8 P.03
offered:3. Long-term rentals* In the past,, Mary small lodges (whether
seasonal
t-texm and
legally or not) _
P.v
tion of
long-term rentals.-
Continue
or
offers 9!' botht " lodge g 3= owners (mostly :: t.:.., .. , _ i. stability)
and the community (by providing additional inventory Ofrentalso
_ dead seasonal help and/or, . ., _: sort
should apply.
4. Accessory uses/partial conversion Of use should be handled
through a ocablnatlon of "change In use" and "COnditlonal
Usem applications on a site -specific basis.
a. The underlyiog zoning should provide the criteria and
conditions ;Eor approval or disapproval of such use. orice
=F
allow input*
again, a public hearing will Since these lodges were nonconforming in the:Lr respective
it is # +
d
neighborhoods begin a _. f ... uThe
' is
require
5. Total conversion of use. if these cormele-SiOns are accounted
for, there need not be an additional numerical formula. It is
highly unl1kely that all small lodges would be eliminated.
6. TDRS. If any lodge can apply for a change in use, the only
reason for TDRs would be to maintain some arbitrary number of
"smalllodge"
*'e rooms.
o) a =
some smalllodges convert
count will become davailable" in the allotment. That room count
should be applied only to other small lodge deve],opment; this would
eliminate the problem Of a small lodge compsting with large
projects.
been told that the condc)miniumization process does not allow
"exactionsn or deed restrictions as conditions Of aPProval,
Summary- Allowing small lodges to apply for 1"change in Usen or
"conditlonal use" JI jt
flexible
NOV-14-1995 17: 03 CBTAB 30392043'.-Aa P.04
require revision of Growth after ut#' additlonally,, it would
provide opportunity for neighborhOOd cOmmsnt, Snd s'te-SpecIfic
evaluation.
LP Lodge Inventory and 3uildout Potential
site Size (sq.
ft.)
Current Bldg.
Size (so. ft.)
Current
Lodge Units
New Unit 3uildout
Potential
Name
Bavarian Inn
18,000
4,978
15
19 L, L Ex
CUllr Lodge 13,500 14 354 23 0 C)
77 000 13 163 22 20 L, 4 E" 0
(p
10 ;00 7 618 23 ( 4 L, 1 E= I C)
C2tr.stiana lodge
Boomerang Lodge
27,000
21,288
34
8 L, 2 E`
Corner Horse
4,500
3,713
0** I
0
The Asoen
16.500
Need
38
1 0
St. Moritz
16,500
7,446
29
13 L, 2 E*
Christmas Inn
Tyrolean Lodge
r-
6,000
8,475
15
I 0
Innsaruck Inn
15,000
11,436
31
I 5 L 1 E*
Shadow Mtn. Lodge
12,000
9,202
(
11
4 L, 1
O
otet Aspen
24,000
Need I
48
I 0
I
�
7
Aspen Ski Lodge
15,000
12,318
33
I L
'
I
I
( 0
Malls G�•san Ldq.
9,000
8,376
21
1 L'
7
Holiday House
16,1500
Need
17L,1E=
I �
Fireside Lodge
Fire
15,000
10,128
20
I1
r
Hearthstone House
9,000
8,242
18
L
Little Red Ski Hs
G,500
5,218
ZO
0
Snow Queen Lodge
Cortina Lodge
( 6,000
4,462
( 0"''
I 0
I
Motel Lenado
9,000
Need 1
23
10
d t
19 4 E'*
3e l l Mtn. lodge
20,073
7,276
16
I L,
!fountain House
9,300
I Need
21
i 0
3rass 3ed Inn
13,300
Need
29
I 0
Aloina Haul
3,285
7,364
0
I 0x
Northstar Lodge
9,000
11,151
22
FO
Aloine Lodge
15,000
4,353
11
116 L. 3
I
;estahaus
S2,272
117,017
129
+ 13-52 L, 3-9 E"
560
138-177 L,
28-34 E
Total
Notes:
' New unit buildout potential calculated based an an addition
to the existing
facility at :he maximun
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 assured 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 buildcut potential.
*" The development range for the Crestahaus
reflects a likely buildcut to A
0.5:1 FAR and
a maximum
buildout at 1:1.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Dir o
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: November 21,1995
RE: Snowmelter Relocation - Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development Plan -
Public Hearing
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Snowmelter Relocation Final SPA
Development Plan with conditions.
Applicant: City of Aspen Streets Department, represented by Jack Ried, Superintendent
Location/Zoning: The site is located within the Rio Grande Master Plan Area, bordered by Rio Grande
Drive on the south, the Roaring Fork River on the north, Mill Street on the west, and the Eagles Club/Patsy
Newbury Park on the east. The recycling center is located next to the proposed site. The entire site has an
SPA overlay and is zoned Public.
Request: The applicant is requesting Final SPA approval to relocate the snowmelter to the area known as
Recycle Circle, approximately 100 feet south of its existing location.
Process: The Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to Council for the Final SPA Plan.
Background: The 1993 Rio Grande Master Plan (Plan) approved general locations for various uses of the
entire Rio Grande property. The property was divided into two manageable areas for which primary land
use goals and recommendations were made:
Site A: The area between the river and bike path adjacent to the existing snowmelter location; and
Site B: The existing recycle site (Old Impoundment Lot) and the playing fields.
A vicinity map from the Rio Grande Master Plan is attached as Exhibit A. A schematic of the existing and
proposed snowmelter is attached as Exhibit B.
Although the Master Plan identified Site B as a potential site for the snowmelter, specific details and plans
must be reviewed based upon the SPA review process. Staff finds that the proposed relocation of the
snowmelter is consistent with the Rio Grand Master Plan. Therefore, staff recommended that the SPA
approval process for this project be a two-step review pursuant to Section 24-7-204.D.
Referral Comments: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit C. Summaries are as follows:
Engineering: Engineering requested that straw bales and channelization must be installed as necessary to
prevent any runoff from the construction site from reaching the Roaring Fork River and any City rights -of -
way. In addition, a dust mitigation plan must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Health
Department. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed in an
easement provided by the applicant outside of the public right-of-way. Engineering also requested that the
"applicant" be responsible for the installation of a driveway pad and sidewalk crossings.
Parks: Planning staff had requested the submittal of a landscaping plan, and Parks indicated that a master
landscaping plan is in progress for the entire Rio Grande site. It is unclear when a final plan will be
approved for the site.
Streets: Jack Reid has provided a summary of the relocation plan and a brief description of normal
operating levels and associated truck traffic.
Planning Staff Comments:
SPA Review Standards. The following review standards are set forth in Section 24-7-804.B. of the Aspen
Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and
open space.
Response: In 1992, City Council directed staff to develop a Master Plan to guide future
development of the Rio Grande property. The Rio Grande Master Plan defined appropriate
activities and land use patterns for the entire site, and developed specific recommended
Uses/Activities for Site A and Site B. The following specific recommendation in reference to the
existing location of the snowmelter is included in the Plan:
"The Group has concluded that the snow melt activity is inappropriate in the long-term view of the
park. The snow dump should be relocated immediately and the snowmelter relocated from Site A
as soon as possible. An alternative location may be considered on the recycling site integrated
with the expanded recycle facility, trolley barn, and or transportation or essential community
service land use.'
The snow dump has been relocated to land adjacent to the County Shop. The proposed site for the
snowmelter is adjacent to the existing recycling facility, and is consistent with the conclusions of
the Master Plan. Adjacent uses to the south include transportation (Rio Grande Parking Garage),
public uses (County Offices, Jail, Recycling Center, Youth Center), and mixed office/light
industrial uses (Bass/Obermeyer Building). All public and transportation uses are zoned PUB
(public), and the office/light industrial uses are zoned S/C/I (Service/Commercial/Industrial). Uses
to the North include the Rio Grande Park and residential uses on the north side of the Roaring Fork
River. Physical separation from the proposed site to the nearest residential uses (east side of the
Roaring Fork River) is approximately 200 feet.
The three critical issues regarding compatibility are landscape screening to protect viewsheds from
the Park and nearby residential uses, access considerations, and the relationship with proposed trail
modifications and additional recreational facilities under consideration for the park.
Landscape Screening. The berm between the recycling center and the Park effectively becomes
the visual edge that defines the eastern border to the Rio Grande site. Berms have been constructed
around the existing recycling facility to screen it as much as possible from adjacent land uses.
The Park's Department currently has a contractual agreement with Mt. Daly Enterprises for a
master landscape plan for the entire Rio Grande site. Specific elements of the landscaping plan
include re -landscaping of the existing snowmelter site following relocation, and possible changes
to the berm for the new location near the recycling center (see Park's Department 11/27/95 memo).
1 City of Aspen Rio Grande Conceptual Master Plan, 1993, p. 8-9.
PA
Excavation work is near completion for the relocation of the snowmelter, and the waste has been
used to enlarge the berm between the existing trail and the recycling area. Particular care should
be used to ensure that the berm is re -contoured to appear as natural as possible, and re -vegetated to
soften the impact of the berm from the viewshed of the park. It appears that the new location and
berming will screen residents to the North from headlights and associated impacts when compared
to the existing location.
Staff would suggest that any approval be conditioned on the successful approval and completion
of an appropriate landscaping plan, with review at the staff level. Staff has significant concerns
regarding the representation in the Parks Department referral that "If for some reason the
landscape plans prepared by Mt. Daly are not implemented or constructed, we will work with the
Streets Department to submit as -built landscape drawings of the area for your files". Any
relocation of the snowmelter should be conditioned on landscaping mitigation to be completed by
the earliest possible time, depending on seasonal constraints. Discussions with Parks Department
staff indicated that under "ideal" conditions, re -vegetation and final contouring could be completed
in early December of 1995. This would allow for improvements near existing water courses at
low water, out of important spawning season. Staff would suggest that June 1, 1996 be a possible
final deadline for re -vegetation and final contouring of the berm.
Access. Subsequent to the addition of the Theater, snow was stockpiled at the site, and melted 24
hours a day using front end loaders. Since that time, the snow dump has been relocated to a site
adjacent to the County Shop. Snow would continue to be hauled to the melter at a rate of 6 to 10
trucks per hour, and the rest stored at the snow dump. During a "snow episode" (estimated at 20
per year), the melter would operate 24 hours a day, with the 6 to 10 trucks per hour constant until
the snow is melted. The recycling center and the snowmelter will share a common access, with
trucks access the site from both N. Mill Street and Spring Street, to the existing driveway cut on
Rio Grande Place. There is an existing sidewalk along the North side of Rio Grande Place that
breaks to dirt through the existing driveway cut accessing the recycling center. Staff concurs with
Engineering's request for the installation of a driveway pad and pedestrian crosswalks to enhance
pedestrian access fronting the site.
The existing 30' unimproved access which descends from Rio Grande Place to the theater tent is
being narrowed to approximately 15' by the berm expansion. Staff has considerable concern
regarding the alignment of the road as shown on Exhibit `B". Discussions with Park's Department
staff indicated that future plans include the development of a basketball facility in the area on
Exhibit "A" labeled as "Transportation/Youth Recreation". Staff would suggest that the road
should be narrowed toward the berm, and not encroach into the area proposed for future
basketball facility. Staff is assuming the existing access gate would remain to prohibit non -service
vehicles from using this road.
The Rio Grande Plan also identified potential trolley facilities within the area of the old
snowmelter location. Park's Department staff have indicated that sufficient room still exists if the
trolley is ever implemented.
Trail Modi 'cations. A portion of the Rio Grande Trail is located immediately adjacent to the
recycling facility. The portion of the trail near the upstream portion of the "Kayak Course" has
experienced significant problems with sluffing and bank stability, and snow removal is
problematic. Parks Department staff have indicated that conceptual plans have been developed to
relocate this portion of the trail onto the berm adjacent to the proposed snowmelter site, which
would reduce the grade of the existing trail. No schematics are currently available of the proposed
alignment, although staff will provide a conceptual realignment at the public hearing. Staff would
suggest that the relocation of the snowmelter and required berming be carefully reviewed by
Community Development and Park's Department staff to ensure that all berm modifications and
re -vegetation does not adversely impact the long-term plans for the trail relocation.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Response: Gas and utility lines would be extended to the new location. Access to the site and
the level of truck traffic would remain the same. A driveway apron and would improve pedestrian
access in front of the site, and should be a condition of approval.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the
slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: No known hazards exist on the site.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant
view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for
the users of the project and the public at large.
Response: A primary consideration of the recommendations of the Rio Grande Master Plan was
the visual impacts of the existing snowmelter location. The concept of the relocation adjacent to
the recycling facility is consistent with this recommendation, assuming appropriate landscaping of
both the abandoned and proposed site, and the contouring and landscaping of the berm between the
snowmelter and the existing trail.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not make specific recommendations regarding
this project.
6. Whether to proposed development will require the expenditure of excess public funds to provide public
funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: Some public funds will be required to extend gas and electric lines to the new
location, as well as relocating the trail. These required expenditures are not considered to be
excessive.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meets the slope reduction
and density requirements of Section 7-903 (B) (2) (b).
Response: The slope reduction and density requirements of the above cited section do not apply
to the snowmelter relocation.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: No GMQS allotments are necessary for the project.
Recommendation : The Planning Office recommends approval of the Final SPA Plan, with the following
conditions:
1. Straw bales and channelization shall be installed to prevent any runoff from the construction site
from reaching the Roaring Fork River or any City rights -of -way.
2. Prior to relocation of the snowmelter, a dust mitigation plan shall be prepared and approved by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Health Department.
0
3. 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 SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Final SPA Development Plan within a
period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render
the PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both the Commission and City
Council will be required before their acceptance and recording , unless an extension or waiver is
granted by City Council for a showing of good cause.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. That the applicant shall be responsible for installing a driveway pad and crosswalk to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. Final design plans for the berm re -contouring and landscaping shall be reviewed an approved by
the Community Development Department and the Park's Department. The access road shall not be
narrowed toward the proposed basketball facility, or adversely impact the proposed trail location.
The road can be narrowed near the lower (northern) 25 feet of the access road as it approaches the
theater in the park.
7. The berm located at west edge of the snowmelter site shall be re -contoured to a more natural
appearance, and re -vegetated with native grasses and specimen trees. This requirement shall be
integrated into the Master Landscape Plan in progress. In the event that landscape plan is not
completed, the Parks Department shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Department
specific to the snowmelter location, including plant pallets and final contours for the berm. If a
Master Landscape Plan is adopted, planting shall take place as early as practical, and be completed
by June 1, 1996.
All plans for the Bering and re -vegetation shall be reviewed by the Parks Department and the
Community Development Department to ensure that re -vegetation and berming activities are
consistent with the long-term plans of the park.
Exhibit A
c
W
C
'v'z
V
�
W QQz
Cl.
C
CvC
~
,!
C
p
F Q
q
a
�4
Exhibit 8
Exhibit C
Nov o r 1995
Gti��Ctb7U��it f
MEMORANDUM DErELOPM`a
To: Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C`�
Date: November 3, 1995
Re: Snowmelter Relocation Final SPA Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Essential Public Service - The removal of snow from City streets is an essential public service
necessary for public safety, emergency access and response, and general movement of people and
goods. The City Council in 1987 directed staff to purchase and install a snow melter for melting
the snow removed from city streets with the goal of reclaiming the snow dump site at the Rio
Grande property. I believe that the proposed new location was included in the Rio Grande Master
Plan.
2. Construction Techniques - Straw bales and channelization must be installed as necessary to
prevent any runoff from the construction site from reaching the Roaring Fork River and any City
public rights -of -way.
3. Dust Mitigation - A dust mitigation plan must be prepared and approved by the Environmental
Health Department.
4. 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.
cc: Stan Clauson, Jack Reid
M95.212
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: October 27, 1995
RE: Landscape Plan for Snowmelter Relocation
It is our understanding that Jack Reid of the Streets Department has been requested to
prepare a landscape plan for the snowmelter relocation project at the Rio Grande parcel.
We would request that he be waived of this responsibility at this time due to the Parks
Department's contractual agreement with Mt. Daly enterprises for a master
plan/landscape plan for the entire area. Julia Marshall of Mt. Daly Enterprises is in the
process of preparing landscape drawings which will include the relandscaping of the area
for the current snowmelter by the trail and the possible changes to the berm for the new
location of the snowmelter near the recycling area. The drawings may also include
upgrades to the filtration ponds and trail relocation. A landscape plan prepared solely for
the snowmelter relocation would be a duplicated effort and may not be accurate for the
proposed changes to the site. If for some reason the landscape plans prepared by Mt.
Daly are not implemented or constructed, we will work with the Streets Department to
submit as -built landscape drawings of the area for your files. If you have any questions,
please contact us. Thank you for considering this request.
CC: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director
Jack Reid, Streets Superintendent
RGLndscp.doc
MEMO
To: LESLIE LAMONT
From: JACK REND
Date: September 22, 1995
Subject: The relocation of the Snowmelter
BACKGROUND AND USE:
The City's snowmelter is currently located on the Rio Grande property adjacent to the Art
Park. It was determined, during the approval process for the Rio Grande Master Plan,
that the snowmelter be relocated up onto the area known as Recycle Circle. The idea
being, to remove it's industrial presence from the Park/Theater area.
Before the theater tent came into being, the snow was piled in that area to be melted.
We would truck all the snow from downtown to the "snowdump" and load it into the melter
with a front end loader. We would run the melter 24 hours a day to melt all that was
hauled, so that there would be room to pile the snow from the next storm. By the time
spring came, there would be no snow pile left at all.
Since the City purchased the land adjacent to the County Shop, we no longer pile snow
at the Rio Grande property. We haul all we can to the melter (approximately 6 to 10
trucks per hour) and the rest to the new snow dump outside of town. We also use the
melter during the daytime for snow cleanup operations, at about the same rate.
There are an average of 20 snow plowing episodes in a "normal" year. We probably do
about 30 daytime cleanups per year. The night operation runs from about 12:30 am to
9 am. The daytime operations run from 7 am to 4 pm. The rate of 6 - 10 trucks per hour
is constant through any operation. It just depends on the condition of the snow, how fast
it can be melted.
AREA IMPACT:
There should be no negative impact to the area. We are only moving the melter about
100 feet to the south. It will be surrounded on 2 sides by the berm which encloses
Recycle Circle. That berm will be moved out toward the north to make room for the
melter and to be sure that there will still be room for the recycle center to operate. We
do not anticipate any conflict between the operation of the melter, and people dropping
off material at Recycle Circle. Truck drivers will be instructed to give citizens using the
recycle center, the right-of-way during the daytime operation of the melter.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: November 21, 1995
RE: Buckhorn Lodge - Order to Show Cause
Sy and Nora Kelly, owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, pursued a rezoning
of the Lodge in April of 1995. The Kelly's discontinued their
review pending family discussion about the long-term future of the
building. A request was made by the Kellys to keep the file open
pending their decisions.
Staff would like to close the file. Primarily due to potential and
actual changes in the land use code that code not could not be used
to affect this development proposal as long as the case remains
open.
Therefore, and based upon advise from the City Attorney, staff
requests the Commission to set a date for an "Order to Show Cause"
public hearing to officially close the file. The applicants and
their representative will be notified of the hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to set December 5, 1995 as a public
hearing for an Order to Show Cause review for the closure of the
Buckhorn Lodge rezoning land use application."
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO: ALAN RICHMAN
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Representing Sy Kelley
RE: BUCKHORN LODGE REZONING AND CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission will hold an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
on the 5th day of December, 1995, at 4:30 o'clock p.m. (or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard) as to why the
above -referenced application should not be withdrawn or denied.
You are invited to attend and participate.
Failure to appear may result in the denial of the above -
referenced application.
DATED this 21st day of November, 1995.
Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen, Colorado
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the. day of November, 1995, I placed
a true and correct copy of the Buckhorn Lodge Order to Show Cause
in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as
follows:
Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
P.O. Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
City of Aspen
City Clerk's Office
i !
This is to certify that I, Carolyn Herwick, did mail notice of
the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission to be held November
21, 1995, on. November 6, 1995. The notice was mailed to all
property owners within 3001 of the boundary of the Rio Grande
Master Plan Area.
Carolyn Herwick
Administrative Assistant
City of Aspen
Street Department
My Commission expires
12/23/1997 r
je J
Nofi a'ry
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 970.920.5000 • FAx 970.920.5197
Printed on Recycled paper
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SNOWMELTER RELOCATION FINAL SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 21, 1995
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the
City of Aspen, requesting approval of an amendment to the Final SPA Plan for the Rio Grande
property to relocate the snowmelter approximately 100' south of its current location. The property
is located at Lot 1, Rio Grande Subdivision. For further information, contact Dave Michaelson at
the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5100.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 3, 1995
City of Aspen Account