HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950307A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 7, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. No -MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HPC Code Amendments, Amy Amidon
B. Adoption of the Parks, Recreation & Open ace
Master Plan, George Robinson & Tim Anderson!'
C. Land Use Code Amendments, Kim Johnson (continued
f rom 2 / 21) Al e'C' . l c 7 -
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. � Farish Hallam Lake ESA Review, Kim Johnson
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. West End Traffic Study, Kim Johnson & Bob Gish
VI. ADJOURN
.Y a t_i_1I.D ONYVI
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: March 7, 1995
Regular Meeting - March 21
Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment, Final SPA, GMQS
Exemption & Special Review (KJ)
Barbette Text Amendment & Conditional Use Review (KJ)
Regular Meeting - April 4
Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning & Change in Use (LL)
Joint Metro GMQS Tourist Accommodations - April IS
Joint Metro GMQS Residential - May 2
Regular Meeting - May 16
Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
a.nex
9
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 1995
Farish Hallam Lake ESA Review
Kim Johnson, planning office, told the Board this application for
Farish and properties.at the far end of Roaring Fork Drive. The
parcel is 30,000 square feet, a good portion of which goes below
the slope. Ms. Johnson reminded the Board the Hallam Lake ESA is
to limit the intrusion of human activities and development on the
slope overlooking ACES nature preserve. Ms. Johnson said she has
received referral comments from staff and ACES. Staff recommends
approval of this review with 13 conditions intended to guide
development in accord with the review criteria.
There are comments on the deck overlooking the lake and the
lighting scheme. Ms. Johnson said staff feels any additional deck
development on the slope side is not in agreement with the criteria
set forth in the code and does not meet the special review sub -
criteria. The applicant states they will provide lighting in the
eaves. The building department states there has to be minimal
lighting for each exit on the landing area. Staff is proposing the
applicant change their lighting plan to include low level lighting
more towards the surface level than mounted on the building.
Sara Garton said engineering department pointed out one of the
driveway cuts is being eliminated; however, the plan shows two
driveway cuts. Dick Fallin, representing the applicant, said half
the circle is to be removed and revegetated. Garton asked about
the handrail. Fallin said the code reads if there is less than 30
inches of a vertical drop for a distance out of 5 feet, a rail is
not needed. In this instance) there is a 5 foot drop in grade from
the top of the patio to 5 feet out. If it is stepped with an
intermediate planter, this would offer some screening for the patio
rather than an obtrusive railing.
Steve Buettow said his calculations do not match what is shown on
site section B . Ms. Johnson said the code reads to lay two 50 foot
lines and where they meet is the top of slope for the purpose of
connecting lines. This is an unusual situation because there is a
bench below which causes an anomaly on how top of slope is
calculated. Ms. Johnson said this is not an inaccuracy because of
the existing grade and the dip in the bench.
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told the Commission the
applicants do not have problems with conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
13. Some of the changes are semantics. Fallin showed Hallam lake
on a map, the slope starting at the house and a flat spot. Fallin
showed the existing one-story house and the existing patio attached
to the house. The grade falls away from the house and patio from
3.5 to 5 feet in elevation. All the rooms on that side of the
house exit to the outside grade, some of which is paving and some
N
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 1995
grass. There is an 18 inch change in elevation from the patio to
the upper grass level created by a small 3 foot high retaining
wall. The applicant wants to keep the retaining wall and to create
a grass sodded area around the tree and in front of the doors.
Fallin said there is a drop off and the concept was to either
create a railing or to keep the open space feeling. The later will
cover up the existing rock face of the patio. Fallin said the idea
was to soften the activity on the patio by a stepped planter, by
planting below the lower step, and screen the edge of the patio.
Fallin said when he ran this idea by Tom Cardamone at ACES) who said
wildlife is less threatened when human forms are screened by half.
Fallin said there is a level area to the east of the house which is
cut off by trees between two properties. Fallin said they have
tried to plan a way for the applicant to get to the lower portion
of the property. The adjacent property owners planted trees
creating a barrier to the lower part. Fallin pointed out there is
an 18 inch change in grade in the house and the outside reflects
that change.
Fallin presented computer drawings and photographs showing the
Farish property from Hallam lake during the summer. There is
nothing that can be seen from Hallam lake in the summer and little
can be seen in the winter. Fallin said they did a measured drawing
for the new patio. Fallin showed the existing patio, where the
proposed extension and steps would be.
Garton said P & Z has a responsibility to community to protect the
bluff and to stay as true as possible to the original conditions of
the ESA. Fallin said they propose two 30 inch vertical walls
planted in front of the lowest step and on the planter that screens
the upper level. This is all in the bluff area. Fallin said
currently this is a vertical raw wall. Fallin said he feels this
would be an enhancement to the area.
Fallin said with the location, size and maturity of existing
vegetation is a limiting factor on where a house can be built.
They are also wedged in between the slope and 80 foot trees built
up against the house on the north. _Fallin said the applicant is
trying to keep the house much as it is. Ms. Johnson said what is
there is grandfathered; to augment it is going outside the bounds
of the ESA regulations. The applicant is working within the
parameters of the existing foundation.
Kaufman said during the ESA legislation discussion, the Board
discussed unique situations, older homes that may need to expand.
Kaufman said adding planters does not seem to violate the spirit of
ESA especially when ACES representative stated it would have a
mitigating effect. Kaufman said this is an existing situation, not
introducing anything new.
04,
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 1995
Ms. Johnson said she would be willing to concede the planter issue
but has serious concerns about expanding the patio into the slope
area, and the stairs which will give ready access to the slope.
Ms. Johnson showed on the plan the existing patio, the new patio,
and the steps going down the slope. Fallin said these steps would
make it easier to access the side yard. Fallin said they would be
willing to recontour the shape to make it softer. Ms. Garton said
she agrees with the installation of the planter; however, the steps
are against the intention of keeping the bluff as wild as possible.
Ms. Johnson said the stairs are not a unique enough situation to
warrant allowing them in the ESA.
Fallin said the planter does not have to be concrete but can be a
rock wall with planting in it so that is more natural. Kerr
pointed out ESA stands for "environmentally sensitive area" not
"environmentally sanitized area". Kerr said the ESA requirements
do not allow P & Z to prohibit a property owner from going on his
property. Kerr said he is more concerned that there is vegetation
in front of the house to the best way possible and to get the
overhead lights out of there. Kerr said vegetation, screening,
getting the lights on the ground, does what the ESA is for, to
preserve and to be sensitive to Hallam lake. Kerr said the city
adopted the ESA in response to ACES request for protection.
Ms. Garton said she does not want to set a precedent with this
enlarged patio. Kerr agreed he does not favor steps all the way to
the preserve. Kaufman said if the Board approves a refined patio,
maintain the planter, they will leave the stairs out.
Fallin said he is not sure what condition #3 was intended to do.
During the building permit process, they will need to meet the
parks department requirements on the drip line, protecting the
trees, barricading the construction zone. Kerr said condition #3
does not have anything to do with ESA review but is an
administrative procedure with the community development
department. Ms. Lamont said this condition notifies the applicant
that this is the way the city wants to see construction take place,
the trees should be protected from the drip line out. Kaufman said
the practical difficulty is that the trees grow over the house.
Kerr suggested adding language like must be protected to the
greatest extent possible at the drip lines as directed by the parks
staff. Kaufman agreed. Kerr asked if a requirement could be added
that if the trees die the applicant has to replace them since tree
screening is part of the ESA. Fallin said that is covered with the
parks department.
Kaufman said the staff memo states it is apparent that the
applicant has cleared underbrush to enhance the views downward.
Kaufman told the Board that Mrs. Farish has owned the property for
18 years. A cottonwood tree on the property died, which exposed
3
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 1995
other vegetation to an southern exposure and everything down there
has been baked and looks dead.
Kaufman said in condition ##9 he would like added, "the applicant
shall consult the city engineer and parks department for public
right-of-way work" to make it clear. Kerr said that is the way he
interprets condition ##9 without the added words.
Fallin said the sophet lining, there is a requirement on the
building code for lighting and exit can be landscape light, can be
on the ground, on the ceiling, anyplace except you need to be able
to turn the light on and off at each exit point in the house.
Fallin said they are not contesting this because it is a building
code but that on a patio there is no place to mount a landscape
ligh� unless it is tacked onto the building. The applicant is
concerned about not having light when she steps onto the patio.
The overhang is 3 feet from the building and the applicants
propose(A a housing light on the structure, a small voltage halogen
light. They will use technology to focus the rays of the lights
and not shine it on the building. This can be a condition for
building permit. Ms. Tygre said she would be satisfied with
lighting that only lights the pathway, not the building or
landscaping. The existing floodlights will be removed.
moo n EA-t C
moved to approve the Farish Hallam project as discussed an amended
Ln this meeting; seconded by Ms. Garton.
Ms. Johnson said she will revise the conditions in a resolution
form for the Chairman to sign.
All in favor, motion carried.
n
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: March 7, 1995
RE: Amendments to HPC related sections in the Land Use
Code
SUMMARY: Planning and HPC recommend approval of this list of
amendments to the land use code. These changes are proposed as
part of a grant from the Colorado Historical Society and are
intended to eliminate unclear language and to eliminate "loopholes"
in the HPC review.
Because P&Z is likely to be much less familiar with the HPC
portions of the Code, Staff recommends the the Commission members
first review the entire section, which is attached with amendments,
then use this memo as a guide to answer questions.
PROCESS: Code amendments follow a two-step review process. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the amendments at a
public hearing, and forward a recommendation to Council for
Ordinance adoption at a public hearing. HPC has reviewed the
amendments in a worksession format.
STAFF PROPOSAL: The recommended changes are:
1) Throughout sections 7-601 to 7-710, all references to the
planning department and the planning director have been changed to
community development department and community development director
respectively.
2) The titles of sections 7-601 and 7-602 have been changed to
clarify exactly what types of review are discussed .in those
sections. The changes are:
Section 77601. General appileability and req ktq.
Minor Development, Significant Development and
Exemptions.
Section 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition er
r . eat en, permanent or temporary relocation.
3) A number of exemptions have been created in section 7-601,
which affect properties in the historic districts and historic
landmarks. The changes are:
Section 7-601(C) (2) . Development which the planning
diree community development director shall exempt
shall include repair of existing architectural features,
replacement of architectural features when found
necessary for the preservation of the structure, and
similar remodeling activities which create no change to
the exterior appearance of the structure and have no
impact on its character. The community development
director shall also exempt signs which are not reviewed
under section 7-601 M (2) (A) . Within the Commercial Core
Historic District, the community development director
Shall exempt significant changes in the site design of
an individual property, such as paving and new street
furniture. The community development director shall also
exempt any development required for compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act when it affects a non-
contributing structure in a H. Historic Overlay District
and has no significant impact on the character of the
structure. For any of the exemptions listed above, the
community development director may place conditions on
the exemption which are relevant to mitigation of impacts
to the affected historic site or structures or adjacent
historic site or structures.
Previously, signs and building alterations for ADA compliance were
generally reviewed as minor development, requiring a meeting before
HPC, so this is a decrease in the application process. (Signs
reviewed under section 7-601(F)(2)(A) are ones which cause
permanent damage to a historic structure in the way they are
constructed. That review process will not be changed.) In terms
of the changes to site design, this has not been addressed in the
past. In Staff's opinion, significant changes to paved or planted
areas, planter boxes, benches and similar items should be reviewed
in the Commercial Core Historic District. The review, a Community
Development Director exemption, will be simple but will allow for
appropriate conditions or suggestions to be made.
4) HPC has been able to offer a number of development related
incentives for historic landmarks for some time. Under section 7-
601(D) (1) (A) , the maximum FAR bonus available will be clarified and
a site coverage variance will be added. The changes are:
...For Historic Landmarks where proposed development
would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard
setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between
buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area
up to 500 sa. ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to
5%, HPC shall find may grant such variances after making
a finding_ that such variances are more compatible in
character with the historic landmark, than would be
development in accord with dimensional requirements.
The site coverage variance has been added because HPC has found
that this will allow more design flexibility and an alternative to
building a tall confined mass behind or practically on top of a
T
smaller historic structure. A new addition will be allowed to
spread some of the mass out instead of up.
5) Mechanical equipment, especially rooftop equipment has been
problematic in the Commercial Core. HPC will review new mechanical
equipment as minor development under section 7-601 (E) (2) (A) with
the goal of placing equipment so it has the least visual impact
from the street as well as looking down from Aspen Mountain,
directing applicant's to select the smallest units possible and to
consolidate units, and requesting that equipment. be painted so that
it fades away.
6 ) A number of changes have been made to make language more clear,
without changing the substance of the code. For example, under the
application requirements for minor development, section 7-
601(G)(3)(D) has been changed to read:
A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation
to the site and any existing affected structure.
7) Under the definitions of significant development, a number of
changes have been made. They are:
Section 7-601 (F) (2) (A) . Erection of an awning, canopy,
sign, fence or other similar attachments to, or accessory
features of, a structure that, in the process of
erecting, cause original materials to be permanently
destroyed or removed.
In the case that some materials are only temporarily removed or
damaged, it.will be reviewed as a community development director
exemption as described above.
Section 7-601(F) (2) (E) . The development of the site of
an historic landmark which has received approval for
demolition, partial demelitien or permanent relocation
when a development plan has been required by HPC pursuant
to Section 7-602-(B) (G) 5 .
Any redevelopment of a historic landmark that might occur after a
partial demolition approval is already covered under the minor and
significant development standards as an expansion, therefore this
is redundant. The section which requires a site to be reviewed as
a significant development after granting of demolition or permanent
relocation has been changed and will be discussed further into this
memo,
8) HPC review of development which impacts the entire Commercial
Core Historic District or Main Street Historic District is to be
added to the definition of significant development. This includes
things like parking meters, benches, streetsigns, newspaper racks,
etc. No formal process has existed for this type of development
before, which has led to some confusion as to what the HPC's role
should be. These type of streetscape issues are clearly important
9
to the character of our historic districts. The new language is:
Section 7-601 (F) (2) (F) . Erection of street furniture,
signs, benches or similar equipment which is to be placed
throughout the Commercial Core Historic Districts or Main
Street Historic Districts.
9) Under the application requirements for conceptual development
review (which is the first step of significant review), the
following changes are proposed:
Section 7-601(F) (3) (A) (2) .
exist'.. eh''ae*:.r+sties A site plan or survey
showing property boundaries and predominant existing site
characteristics.
Section 7-601(F)(3)(A)(5). Scale drawings of all
elevations of any proposed structures, including a roof
lan.
This is added to be specific about what type of drawings will be
required for the review.
Section 7-601(F) (3) (A) (6) . __A visual description of the
neighborhood context through diagrams, maps, photographs,
models, or streetscape elevations.
This is added so that HPC may more carefully analyze the
surrounding neighborhood and take contextual issues into account
when reviewing a proposed development. The review standards
currently call for HPC to make a finding that a proposed
development is compatible with the neighborhood.
10) Under the application requirements for final review (the
second step in significant development), the following change is
proposed:
Section 7-601(F) (4) (A) (4) . Seale drawings of the proposed
Finalized -drawings of the 11_ 1 proposal at lj4 1 scale or
larger.
At the final development review, the design should be approaching
the working drawing phase. 1/4" scale provides enough information
about the details of a structure and is required for a building
permit.
11) Throughout section 7-602, relocation has been replaced with
"Permanent or temporary relocation." Buildings are sometimes moved
temporarily on or off site to facilitate new construction.
Currently this activity is reviewed under the same standards as a
permanent relocation, which is not appropriate as they have much
0
different impacts. The existing standards will now only be used
for permanent (on -site or off -site) relocation and new review
standards for temporary relocation are discussed below.
12) The current standards for review of demolition, partial
demolition and relocation were adopted in 1989 and amended in 1991.
They were intentionally written to make it difficult to receive
approval to totally demolish a structure. The adoption of
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, affected these standards by defining
a building as demolished if less than 50% of it remains in place.
This has been problematic for HPC in that in some cases the
historically significant portion of a structure may only amount to,
for instance, 40% of the FAR of an existing structure. In order
to approve a demolition of an addition that may be incompatible
anyway, it must be reviewed as a total demolition. As stated
above, those standards are very difficult to meet. To deal with
this situation, the following change is proposed:
Section 7-602(A).General, No demolition, partial
demolition er re _eats .w permanent or temporary
relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen,
established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure
within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be
permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition er
releeation, permanent or temporary relocation is approved
by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of
section 7-602 (B) , (C) or (D) , unless exempted pursuant
to section 7-602(E). For the purposes of this section,
"demolition" shall mean the total razing of any structure
on an inventoried parcel which contributes to the
historic significance of that parcel. Partial demolition
shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on
an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any
structure on an inventoried parcel which does not
contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.
The language is written this way so that total demolition of 'a
historic structure must meet the more stringent standards, partial
demolition of a historic structure has a thorough review but
approval is not difficult when appropriate, and total demolition
of a non -historic building on the same property as a historic
structure (for instance a garage built in 1975) can be accomplished
through the lesser standards (partial demo.) as well.
By tying this definition to this section only, the: -requirements of
Ord. 1, Series of 1990 will still apply.
13) The standards for review of partial demolition have been
problematic. HPC is to evaluate whether or not the applicant has
mitigated impacts on the historic importance and architectural
integrity of the affected structure. This is difficult to do
without knowing what the partial demolition approval is "clearing
the way for." Many of the more offensive additions to historic
structures in the West End (the "hunchbacks") did not have any HPC
review beyond their giving approval to tear down a -non-historic
part of the building. To deal with this situation, an amendment
is proposed giving them the authority to review any new addition
in terms of mass and scale to determine if it mitigates impacts as
described above. This is listed as a task in the AACP "Historic
Preservation and Design Quality" chapter. The added language in
the standards is:
Section 7-602 (C) (2) . The applicant has mitigated, to the
greatest extent possible:
A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or
structures located on the parcel.
B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or
structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of
original or significant features and additions and by
designing any new additions in a way that is compatible in
mass and scale with the historic structure.
Under the application requirements for demolition, partial
demolition, permanent or temporary relocation, section 7-602(H)(5)
will read:
A development plan and a statement of the effect of the
proposed development on the other structures on the
property and the character of the neighborhood around the
property shall be submitted so that HPC is able to make
a finding whether the applicable standards are met. In
the case of a demolition or permanent relocation, the
development plan will be reviewed as a significant
development application, pursuant to section 7-601.
evaluate the apprepriateness ef demelitie.. hen the
14) As described above, a separate review is being created for
temporary relocation, as opposed to 'permanent relocation. The
review standards will be the two standards from permanent
relocation that are applicable to a temporary move. They involve
having a structural engineer confirm that the building can be
moved, preparation of a relocation plan and posting of a bond. The
new language is:
Section 7-602(E). Standards for review of temporary
relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall
be approved unless the HPC finds that the standards of
section 7-602 (D) (3) and (4) have been met.
15) Section 7-602(I) will read:
I. Application for devne tiers er exemption from
M
t_ b _ _ e�..r.......�. ._.__�_� �.......�_...�.,�............ae___. ....-..ems.._
e
demolition, partial demolition or permanent or temporary
relocation. A development application for partial
denelitlen exemption shall include all items specified
in section 7-602 , , (H) (1) and (2).
The application requirements for partial demolition are now
addressed under section 7-602(H). Exemption for this review will
only require the general development application requirements in
6-202 and a written description of the structure and its
construction date.
16) Under section 7-604, the Council will be able to call up any
decision of the HPC regarding a demolition or permanent relocation
review, affecting any structure on the inventory of historic sites
and structures (not just landmarks). The numerical rating system
is no longer being used.
17) Under section 7-606(B), minimum maintenance requirements, the
owner of a building will be responsible for keeping the building
in good repair. The language currently says "every person in
charge" of such building is responsible.
18) Under section 7-703, procedures for designating, amending or
rescinding a historic landmark, no public hearing is required at
HPC per section 5-608.
19) Under section 7-704(C), application requirements for historic
designation, is to change as follows:
If the applicant intends to request a grant from the city
council, a letter making the request shall be submitted,
provided the program has
been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. Any
residential structure which is designated as a historic
landmark after January 1. 1995 is eligible to receive the
grant on a one time basis. until the vearlv budget
allotment is spent.
When the grant program was initially adopted, only those structures
rated a 114" or 115" (on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the highest
significance) were to be eligible for the grant. As stated above,
the City no longer uses this numerical system. Also, it is Staff s
opinion that any site eligible for landmark designation should be
eligible to receive this grant. If the structure is less
significant because it has many alterations, there is even more
reason to assist the property owner in some of the rehabilitation
costs.
20) Section 7-709 ,has been changed to read the inventory of
historic sites and structures. Historic structures refers to
buildings or a group of buildings on a parcel. A historic site
implies that the parcel has significance as an archaeological site,
cemetery, park or some other type of landscape. There may be
buildings on the site, but that is not its primary use. All
references to the inventory of historic structures have been
changed to the inventory of historic sites and structures.
21) Section 7-709(A) is changed to read:
There is hereby established an inventory of historic
sites and structures in the City of Aspen. The inventory
shall be maintained in the offices of the p_1ann-ire
community development department at
all times for inspection by the general public during
regular business hours. The inventory of historic sites
and structures shall include all structures in the City
of Aspen which are
at least fifty years old and which continue to have
historic value, and such other structures identified by
the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern
architecture. All properties included on the inventory
will be adopted by legal description, and HPC will have
the appropriate purview over the entire property. In the
case that an application is made for a lot split on an
inventoried parcel, HPC shall review the application in
terms of impacts on the significance of the historic
resource and shall proposed any appropriate conditions
of approval or recommendation for denial to the planning
and zoning commission and city council.
Fifty years old is the age which historic preservation generally
uses as the time when a property may begin to be historically
significant. Aspen's ski history and modernist tradition are very
important parts of our local history and resources from these
periods which do have significance must be addressed or they are
likely to be lost. It is not the intention of the HPC to include
every skiing era "shack" on the inventory. HPC will focus on those
which are unique or have some special value to the community.
Council has final review on inventory adoptions, and will be able
to participate in deciding what is appropriate.
Parcels listed on" the inventory have been adopted by legal
description for some time. HPC must have review over the entire
site to prevent construction of a totally inappropriate structure
on the same parcel as a historic structure.
HPC should be involved in lot split reviews which involve historic
structures, because the lot split may have negative impacts on the
historic resource. There have been occasions when a property owner
has been given a lot split approval that goes straight through a
historic structure, suggesting that HPC will then be obligated to
allow the owner to move the structure.
22) Under section 7-709(C), it is recommended that all structures
within the City of Aspen which are listed on or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be
reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards
V
for Rehabilitation" (attached) in addition to the other applicable
standards in code. The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards"
were created by the National Park Service and include the highest
goals for preservation, such as the theory that you should repair
rather than replace significant materials and features. Listing
on the National Register of Historic Places is primarily honorary
and does not automatically carry any review standards. A structure
on the National Register can be torn down if there are no local
regulations that apply. Aspen has about 30 sites listed on the
National Register and they should be considered our most
significant and valuable historic resources. The additional
requirement of the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards" will
further ensure their protection.
0
DIVISION 6. DEVELOPMENT IN A H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR
INVOLVING THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND
STRUCTURES
sec. 7-601. Minot
Development, significant Development and Exemptions.
A
ster a '-anel�warkr General. Any
development within a H, Historic Overlay District or development
involving a historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with
the provisions of this Section 7-601 and Common Procedures, Article
6, Division 2, unless exempted by the plane tom community
development director under Section 7-601(C). If not -exempted,
development is categorized as minor or significant development
which must obtain approval of the HPC. Minor development review and
approval is a one-step process and requires no public hearing.
Significant development must go through a conceptual and final
development plan review and approval process, with a public hearing
occurring at the time of conceptual development plan review.
B. General prohibition. No development shall be permitted
within the H. Historic Overlay District or involving a historic
landmark unless:
1. The development is not subject to the provisions of this
section; or
2. The development is exempted pursuant to Section 7-
601(C); or
3. The development is approved by the HPC as either minor
or significant development pursuant to the procedures
outlined in Common Procedures,. Article 6, Division 2,
because it meets the standards of Section 7-601(D).
C. Exemption.
1. Development which is not subject to the provisions of
this section shall include any interior remodeling of a
structure, repainting of the exterior of an already
painted structure and choice of color of any exterior
architectural feature. Such development shall not require
the review by the community development director
or HPC, and shall proceed directly to building permit
review, when a building permit is required for the
development.
2. Development which the planning community development
director shall exempt shall include repair of existing
architectural features, replacement of architectural
features when found necessary for the preservation of the
structure, and similar remodeling activities which create
1�
no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and
have no impact on its character. The community
development director shall also exempt signs which are
not reviewed under section 7-601(F) (2) (A) . Within the
Commercial Core, the community development director shall
exempt significant changes in the site design of an
individual property, such as paving and new street
furniture. The community development director shall also
exempt any development required for compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act when it affects a non -
historic structure in the H, Historic Overlay District
and has no significant impact on the character of the
structure. For any of the exemptions listed above, the
community development director may place conditions on
the exemption which are relevant to mitigation of impacts
to the affected historic site or structure or adjacent
historic sites or structures.
3. Before any proposed development can be -considered for an
exemption under the provisions of this section, an
application for exemption shall be submitted to the
planning community development director and a e :ic' epmen
in the form provided by the planning community
development director.
D. Review standards for all development in H Historic
Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks.
1. Development in Historic Overlay District and all
Development involving historic landmarks. No approval for
any development in the H, Historic Overlay District or
involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the
HPC finds that all of the following standards are met.
a. The proposed development is compatible in character
with designated historic structures located on the
parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when
the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay
District or is adjacent .to an Historic Landmark. For
Historic Landmarks where proposed development would
extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard
setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between
buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor
area by up to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site
coverage by up to 5%, HPC shall may grant such
variances after making a finding that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic
landmark, than would be development in accord with
dimensional requirements. - In no event shall
variations pursuant to this section exceed those
variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program
for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to
section 5-510(B) (2) .
N1
b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel
proposed for development; and
C. The proposed development enhances or does not
detract from the cultural value of designated
historic structures located on the parcel proposed
for development or adjacent parcels; and
d. The proposed development enhances or does not
diminish or detract from the architectural integrity
of a designated historic structure or part thereof.
2. Additional development guidelines. The city council, upon
recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional
guidelines for use by HPC in the review of all
development in a H, Historic overlay District, and
involving historic landmarks, in accordance with the
procedures in Article 4 Division 1.
E. Minor development.
1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of minor
development and of all development involving historic
landmarks, a development application shall be submitted
to the planning community development director and
reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the
procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6,
Division 2. .
2. Definition. Minor development shall be defined as
follows:
a. Erection of an awning, canopy, Sign, fences
mechanical equipment or other similar attachments
to, or accessory features of a structure, provided
however, that in the process of erecting said
attachments, none of the original materials of the
structure are destroyed or removed.Incidental
destruction or removal necessary to erect any
attachment shall not make the action significant
development;
b. Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made
to no more than one element of the structure,
including but not limited to a roof, window, door,
skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate,
dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony;
c. Expansion or*erection of a structure wherein the
increase in floor area of the structure is two
hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; or
d. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or
\I-
multiples of no more than three ( 3 ) of the following
features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other
similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights
and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the
above listed features may be defined as minor if
there is a finding that the cumulative impact of
such development is minor in its effect on the
character of the existing structures.
3. Application. A development application for minor
development shall include the following:
a. The general application information required in
Section 6-202.
b. Reserved.
C. An accurate representation of all major building
materials, such as samples and photographs, to be
used for the proposed development.
d. A scale drawing of the proposed development in
relation to the site and any existing affected
structure.
e. A statement of the effect of the proposed
development on the original design of the historic
structure (if applicable) and character of the
neighborhood.
F. Significant development.
1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of significant
development within a H, Historic Overlay District and of
all development involving - historic landmarks, a
conceptual development plan and final development plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the
procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6,
Division 2.
2. Definition. Significant development shall be defined as
follows:
a. Erection of an awning, -canopy, sign, fence or other
similar attachments to, or accessory features of,
a structure that, in the process of erecting, cause
original materials of the structure to be
Permanently destroyed -or removed;
b. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or
multiples of any single feature of a structure which
has not been determined to be minor;
C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the
increase in floor area of the structure is more than
two hundred fifty (250) square feet;
d. Construction of a new structure within a H, Historic
Overlay District; and
e. The development of the site of an historic landmark
which has received approval for demolition, partia-�
denel t'-" or permanent relocation when a
development plan has been required by the HPC
pursuant to Section 7-602-(-B) G 5 .
Erection of street furniture, signs, benches or
similar equipment which is to be placed throughout
the Commercial Core or Main Street Historic
Districts.
3. Conceptual development plan.
a. Development application e3E for conceptual
development plan. A development application for a
conceptual development plan shall include the
following:
(1) The general application information required
in Section 6-202.
(2)
sting site eharaeteristies-. A site plan or
survey showing property boundaries and
predominant existing site characteristics.
(3) Conceptual selection of major building
materials to be used in the proposed
development.
(4) A statement of the effect of the proposed
development on the original design of the
historic structure (if applicable) and/or
character of neighborhood.
_L51 Scale drawings of all elevations of any
proposed structures. including a roof plan.
L61 A visual description of the neighborhood
context through diagrams, maps, photogra hs,
models, or streetscape elevations.
b. Effect of approval of conceptual development plan.
Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not
constitute final approval of significant development
or permission to proceed with development. Such
approval shall constitute only authorization to
proceed with a development application for a final
development plan.
C. Limitation on approval of conceptual development
plan. Application for a final development plan shall
be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval
of a conceptual development plan. Unless an
extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file
such an application shall render null and void the
approval of a conceptual development plan previously
granted by the HPC.
4. Final development plan.
a. Submission of application for final development
plan. A development application for a final
development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required
in Section 6-202.
(2) Reserved.
(3) An accurate representation of all major
building materials, such as samples and
photographs, to be used .for the proposed
development.
(4) -Seale drawings ef the prepesed develepment A...
relatien te any existing strueturer Finalized
drawings of the proposal at 1/4"=1' scale or
larger.
(5) A statement of the effect of the details of the
proposed development on the original design of
the historic structure (if applicable) and
character of the neighborhood.
(6) A statement of how.the final development plan
conforms to the representations made during the
conceptual review and responds to any
conditions placed thereon.
(Ord. No. 6-1989, S 9; Ord. No. 60-1990, § 3)
sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or rei6e tie Z
permanent relocation or temporary relocation.
A. General. No demolition, partial demolition er re ...ea !
permanent or temporary relocation of any structure included in the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen,
established pursuant to section7-709, or any structure within an
"H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the
demolition, partial demolition er releeation,_Rgrmanent or
temporary relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the
applicable standards of section 7-602(B), (C) or (D), unless
exempted pursuant to section 7-602(E).' For the purposes of this
section. "demolition" shall mean the total razing of any structure
on an inventoried parcel which contributes to the historic
significance of that parcel. Partial demolition shall mean the
razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or
the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which
does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.
B. Standards for review of demolition. No approval for
demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the
following standards are met.
1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally
sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure; and
2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site
to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the
property; and
3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site
in Aspen; and
4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates
to the greatest extent practical, the following:
a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the
neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur.
b. Any impact on the historic importance of the
structure or structures located on the parcel and
adjacent parcels.
C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the
structure or structures located on the parcel and
adjacent parcels.
C. Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval
for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that
all of the following standards are met:
1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation,
restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and
2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent
possible:
a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure
or structures located on the parcel.*
b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the
structure or structures located on the parcel 12y
limiting demolition of original or significant
NU
features and additions and by designing any new
additions in a way that is compatible in mass and
scale with the historic structure.
D. Standards for review of permanent relocation. No approval
for permanent relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that
all of the following standards are met:.
1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its
original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial
use of the property; and
2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best
preservation method for the character and integrity of
the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing
neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be
diminished due to the relocation; and
3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and
re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a
licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of.the
structure proposed for relocation; and
4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting
a bond or other financial security with the engineering
department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe
relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the
structure, site preparation and infrastructure
connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in
advance.of the physical relocation; and
5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the
structure or structures proposed to -be moved, the
character of the neighborhood is consistent with the
architectural integrity of the structure, and the
relocation of the historic structure would not diminish
the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the
receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property
owner of the receiving site shall be submitted.
E. Standards for review of temporary relocation. No
approval for temporary relocation shall be approved unless the HPC
finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(3) and (4) have been
met.
E.F. Exemption. The demolition, partial demolitions, or
re --_t l __ permanent or temporary relocation of a structure located
within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting
the applicable standards in section 7.602(B), (C), er (D) or
if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met:
1. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures.
\q
2. The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the
historic district.
3. The structure does not contribute to the overall
character of the historic district, and that its
demolition, partial demolition, or relocation does not
impact the character of the historic district.
4. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation is
necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel.
5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPC.-
pursuant to section 7-601.
F-.G. Procedure for review. A development application shall be
submitted to the ei-eservatien effieer community
development director before HPC approval of demolition, partial
demolition er eea ---
Permanent or temporary relocation (or
exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District,) which shall be
reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures
established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2.
The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on demolition,
partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it
needs additional information to determine whether the application
meets the standards of section 7.602(B) or that the proposal is a
matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives
to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied
jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may
consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to
finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of
the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to
the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity
capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the
demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan.
The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it
requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it
suspends action on the development, partial demolition or
relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the
amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be
prepared and reviewed by the planni community development
director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed
six (6) months.
G:H. Application for demolition, partial demolition. permanent
relocation, temporary relocation or exemption. A
development application `er aerae shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in section
6-202.
2. A written description of the structure proposed for
demolition, partial demolition, permanent or temporary
I
relocation or exemption.- en.--releeati and its year of
construction.
3. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding
the soundness of the structure and its suitability for
rehabilitation.
4. For demolition or permanent relocation; An economic
feasibility report that provides:
a. Estimated market value of the property on which the
structure lies, in its current condition, and after
demolition or relocation.
b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate
agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation
addressing the economic feasibility of
rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed
for demolition or relocation.
C. All appraisals made of the property on which the
structure is located made within the previous two
(2 ) years.
d. Any other information considered necessary to make
a determination whether the property does yield or
may yield a reasonable return on investment.
5. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the
proposed development on the other structures on the
property and the character of the neighborhood around the
property shall be submitted so that HPC is able to make
a finding whether the applicable standards are met. In
the, case of a demolition or permanent relocation, the
development plan will be reviewed as a significant
Development application, pursuant to section 7-601. 4-n
ff-rI . Application for- "ire Exemption from Demolition,
Partial Demolition or Permanent or Temporary Relocation, A
development application for partial demeliti exemption shall
include all items specified in section 7-602 ,
-(-4-)-:=1) and (2) .
.T. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this section 7-
602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining
a building permit for the affected property for a period of five
(5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate
proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this
effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty.
(Ord. No. 17-1989, 5 1; Ord. No. 9-1991, S 1)
1O\
Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order.
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order
may be authorized by the plannicommunity development director.
An, insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or
engineering considerations, first discovered during actual
development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the
approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall be defined as
a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door,
staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material
made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and
approximately the same appearance as originally approved.
B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant
to Section 7-601 to 7-602, whichever is applicable.
Sec. 7-604. Appeal and call up.
A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with
conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or
demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in
rating a structure on the inventory of historic structures may be
appealed to the city council by the applicant or a landowner within
three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within sixty (60)
days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated
in writing.
The city council may also call up for review any decision of the
HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition
or permanent relocation of a ...t,..r e landmark e-r any structure on
the inventory -sites
by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen
(14) days of the HPC's decision and notifying the applicant of the
call up.
B . Within thirty ( 3 0 ) days after the date of a decision by the
HPC which is appealed or called up by the city council, the council
shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to
Section 6-205E.3.a.
C. The city council shall consider the application on the
record established before the HPC. The city council shall affirm
the decision of the HPC unless the city council shall determine
that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process
by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion
or denial of due process, the city council shall be authorized to
take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said
situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision,
altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time
during which action on a demolition application has been suspended
or the terms of the suspension, or, remanding the application to
HPC for rehearing.
(Ord. No. 7-1989, 'S 2)
Sec. 7-605. Variances.
The board of adjustment shall not take any action on a
development application for a variance pursuant to Article 10, in
the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a
historic landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from
the HPC.
Sec. 7-606. Minimum maintenance requirements.
A. Purpose. The intent of this section is to reduce the
incidence of "demolition by neglect."
B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in
the inventory of historic sites and structures as described in
Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic
district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the
Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care,
maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation,
protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction,
perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this -article.
The owner of such building or structure
shall keep in good repair:
1. All of the exterior portions of such improvements.
2. All interior portions thereof which, if not so
maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior
portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or
become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of
disrepair.
The historic preservation commission, on its own initiative, may
file a petition with the chief building official requesting that
said official proceed under the provision of this section to
require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered
by this article so that such structure shall be preserve and
protected in consonance with the purpose of this article.
C. Demonstration of hardship. Any owner of a structure
identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures which
HPC and the chief building official finds requires such maintenance
and repairs as described in this section may make application
requesting from the city council a one-time, no interest loan, in
an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), which
the owner shall agree to pay back to the city within ten (10 ) years
or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever
is the soonest. An extension of the payment period may be granted
by the city council, following written request by the owner.
To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall submit a written
0
request to the planning community development director , which shall
include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain
the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. The
loan request shall also demonstrate economic hardship which
previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the
minimum needed to maintain the structure.
The loan request shall be considered by the city council. Any loan
granted by the council shall be administered through the planning
community development director, who shall obtain copies of bills
from the owner substantiating all expenditures made to maintain the
structure with monies obtained from the loan.
D. Penalties waived. The general penalties for violations
of the Aspen Municipal Code contained in Chapter 1, Section 1-8,
shall not apply to violations of these minimum maintenance
requirements.
(Ord. No. 7-1989, S 2)
DIVISION 7. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS
Sec. 7-701. Reserved.
Editor's note --Ord. No. 60-1989, S 2, repealed S 701, relative
to the purpose of the division, which derived from Ord. No. 5-
1988.
Sec. 7-702. Standards for designation.
Any structure or site that meets one or more of the following
standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or
historic landmark:
A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or
associated with a person or an event of historical significance to
the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects
an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional
Aspen character.
C. Architectural importance. The structure or site embodies
the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type or specimen.
D. Architectural importance. The structure is a significant
work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the
character of Aspen..
E. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant neighborhood
and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the
maintenance of that neighborhood character.
F. Community character. The structure or site is critical
to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because
of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural
similarity to other structures . or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Sec. 7-703. Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding.
A development application for a proposed designation,
amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H,
Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark, shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions,
or disapproval by the planning community development director, e�t-
by the HPC, end by the planning and zoning
commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the city council
in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures,
Article 6, Division 2.
Sec. 7-704. Application.
The application for historic designation shall include the
following:
A. The general application information required in section
6-202; and
B. A boundary description of the site.
C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from city
council, a letter making the request shall be submitted,
previded the strueture meets the eligibility eriteria for
provided the program has
been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. Any
residential structure which is designated as a historic
landmark after January it 1995 is eligible to receive the
grant on a one time basis, until the yearly budget
allotment is spent.
(Ord. No. 6-1989, 5 9) -
Sec. 7-705. Recordation of designation.
Upon the effective date of an act by the city council
designating a H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark,
the secretary of the .HPC shall notify the city clerk of the
designation, who shall record among the.real estate records of the
clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of
the ordinance creating the H. Historic Overlay District or historic
landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the
structure or site designated.
J
Sec. 7-706. Placement on city's official zone district map.
Upon the effective date of an act by the city council
designating H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark, the
secretary of the HPC shall notify the planning community
development director and the planning community development
director shall place the H, Historic Overlay District designation
on the city's official zone district map, which is kept in the
. community development department.
Sec. 7-707. Rescinding designation.
An application for rescinding designation shall follow the
same submission requirements and review procedures as for
designation described in this division except that with respect to
Section 7-704(C), an explanation shall be included describing why
the designated site or structure is not consistent with the
standards in Section 7-702.
Sec. 7-708. Establishment of district.
There are two (2) existing H, Historic Overlay Districts in
the city. These districts are the Commercial Core District and the
Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in
this chapter, these two (2) districts are the only districts to
which reference is being made.
Sec. 7-709. Establishment of inventory. of historic sites and
structures.
A. There is hereby established an inventory of historic
sites and structures in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be
maintained in the offices of the planning and develepment ageney
community development department at all times for inspection by the
general public during regular business hours. The inventory of
historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the
City of Aspen ertgtnaally eenstrueted prier te 191G which are at
least fifty years old and which continue to have historic value,
and such other structures identified by the HPC as being
outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties
included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description. and
HPC will have the appropriate purview over the entire property.
In the case that an application is made for a lot split on an
inventoried parcel, HPC shall review the application in terms of
impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shall
propose any appropriate conditions of approval or recommendation
or denial to the planning and zoning commission and city council.
B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the
recommendations of the planning community development director, to
evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every
five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments
on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to
determine those structures which are to be removed from the
li�
inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory,
and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory.
C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The
structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or
not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken
with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not
historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their
current architectural integrity, historic significance and
community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly,
as follows:
Significant: All those resources previously rated Exceptional,
Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites
within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be
reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation" in addition to the standards of Section 7-601
M . The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards" and a detailed
explaination of their intent are available in the community
development department.
Contributing: All those historic or architecturally
significant resources that do not meet the criteria for
Significant, provided, however, these resources have maintained
their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design.
Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their
original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic
structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial
alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could
be considered Contributing once again.
Non -Contributing: All those structures that are either:
a. New or not -historic construction within a historic
district, and
b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity,
either within or outside a historic district.
(Ord. No. 61-1989, S 1)
Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark.
Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure
receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be
deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received
individual designation pursuant to Article 7, Division 6; inclusion
of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No
final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic
landmark designation shall be granted until the designation
ordinance is adopted by city council.
(Ord. No. 6-1989, S 9)
41,
� n�.a�v�S -t-a ✓ l (1 4-1 O Ln
"Rehabilitation means the process of returning a property to
a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes
possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those
portions and features of the property which are significant
to its historic, architectural, and cultural values."
The following "Standards for Rehabilitation" shall be used
by the Secretary of the Interior when determining if a
rehabilitation project qualifies as "certified rehabilitation"
pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Revenue Act of
1978. These standards are a section of the Secretary's
"Standards for Historic Preservation Projects" and appear in
Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1208 (for-
merly 3.6 CFR Part 67).
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible
use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building,
structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its
originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building,
structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. -The
removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive
architectural features should be avoided when possible.
3. -All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as
products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical
basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be
discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are
evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or
site and its environment. These changes may have acquired
significance in their own right, and this significance shall be
recognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features
craftsmanship which characterize a
be treated with sensitivity.
or examples of skilled
building, structure, or site shall
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than
replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary,
the new material should match the material being replaced in
composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be
based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic,
Physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or
the availability of different architectural elements from other
buildings or structures.
2�
N
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the
gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods
that will damage the historic building materials shall not be
undertaken.
S. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve
archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project.
9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to
existing
properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations
and
additions do not destroy si gnif icant historical, architectural or
cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size,
scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood
or environment.
10. Wherever possible, new additions °ralterations
additionsoralterations
ostructures
shall be done in such a manner that if such
were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the structure would be unimpaired.
GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR
REHABILITATION
The following guidelines are designed to help individual property
owners formulate plans for the rehabilitation, preservation, and
continued use of historic buildings consistent with the intent of
the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." The
guidelines pertain to buildings of all occupancy and construction
types, sizes, and materials. They apply to permanent and temporary
construction on the exterior and interior of historic buildings as
well as new attached or adjacent construction.
Techniques, treatments, and methods consistent with the Secretary's
"Standards for Rehabilitation" are listed in the recommended" wol�
on the left. Not all recommendations listed under a
apply to each project proposal. Rehabilitation approaches, materials,
and methods which may adversely affect a building's architectural and
historic qualities are listed in the "not recommended column on the
right. Every effort will be made to update and expand the guidelines
as additional techniques and treatments become known.
Specific information on rehabilitation and preservation technology
may be obtained by writing to the Technical Preservation Services
Division, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S• riate
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243, or the appro p
State Historic Preservation Officer. Advice should also be sought
from qualified professionals, including architects, architectural
historians, and archeologists skilled in the preservation, restoration,
and rehabilitation of old buildings.
�1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Blue Ribbon Committee
FROM: George Robinson, Parks Director
. Tun Anderson, Recreation Director
DATE: February 21,1995
RE: Endorsement of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
SUMMARY: The City of Aspen's Parks Department and Recreation Department is presenting to
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission the final draft of the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan for public hearing and endorsement. The document was the result of a two year
process that analyzed the current status of our Parks and Recreation facilities and makes
recommendations for future needs of the community based on both population -growth and current
levels of services. The purpose of the plan is to provide a long range implementation plan for
improvements/upgrades to existing parks and recreation facilities as well as providing
recommendations for new parks, trails and open space to be acquired or developed. The plan was
developed under the guidance of a citizen's advisory committee (CAC) to assist in determining the
future needs of the community. General public input was received through a mailed survey, open
public meetings and individual surveys of specific recreational user groups.
Upon the recommendation of the City Council we have also invited the Blue Ribbon Committee to
participate in this meeting to review the proposed capital expenditures of the Implementation Plan.
Staff is requesting P&Z's endorsement of the Master Plan and Blue Ribbon's endorsement of the
Implementation Plan and Budget Matrix. The Plan will proceed to the City Council for adoption.
BACKGROUND: The planning process began with the selection of a consultant to facilitate
and develop the master plan. The consultant MD(' & Associates (a Denver based firm), reviewed
all previous plans in the areas of parks and recreation. These plans included the 1985 Parks, Open
Space and Trails Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the 1990 Pedestrian and
Bikeway Plan, the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan and various other master plans,
maps and studies of parks and properties in the Aspen metro area The next step involved an
assessment of the current status of parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities, including an
inventory analysis of the number and types of parks and open space, and participation levels of
recreation programs.
A Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) was organized to help coordinate and review the master
plan. Numerous organizations were contacted to be a part of the committee to ensure a variety of
interests were incorporated in the plan, including the Parks Association, Pitkin County Open Space
Board, AACP Open Space Conunittee, Elks, Eagles, Soccer, Hockey, Softball, etc.. The
following is a list of the people who volunteered to be on the CAC and their affiliations or interests:
Tim Anderson - Staff, Recreation Director
Rebecca Baker - Staff, Assistant Parks Director
Al Bloomquist - NAG; Open Space & Trails Advocate; Long time resident
Mike Brungardt - Physical Fitness Trainer; Rugby
Carolyn Cerise-Barabe - Parent; Native resident
Bill Efting - Staff, Assistant City ManagerAxisure Services Director
Brent Gardner -Smith - Aspen Ski Company; Journalist
Hans Gramiger - NAC; Long time resident
Cindy Houben - Staff, Long Range Planning Director
Kim Johnson - Staff, City Planner
Mike Kelly - Fraternal Order of Eagles; Volleyball; Softball
George Robinson - Staff, Parks Director
Chuck Severy - Parent; Ski Instructor, Children involved in numerous rec programs
Chuck Vidal - Parks Association, Aspen Valley Land Trust (replaced Hal Clark)
Jeff Yusem - School Board; Youth Baseball; Rotary Club
In addition to the CAC, students from the Aspen High School attended a few meetings and
provided input with regards to trends and desires of the youth in the community.
To determine the needs and desires of the community, three input processes were employed. For
the first method, a survey was developed and mailed to one half of the residents on the City of
Aspen's utility mailing list. The surveys were also available at various locations around town,
including the post office, grocery stores and City Hall. The second method to gather public input
involved three public meetings, conducted at varying times to allow greater flexibility for persons
wanting to attend. The meetings updated people on the status of the master plan and then were
open for discussion of parks and recreational programs. And lastly, surveys were distributed to
recreation program facilitators to find out their specific needs for their programs.
The plan also evaluated current service levels and service areas that our programs and parks
provide. This information helped set standards for the plan and provided the basis for determining
what our current deficiencies are for parks and recreation and what our future needs will be as the
population expands. This needs analysis is detailed in Section IV of the plan.
Section V, Discussion of Alternatives and Opportunities, examines the various alternatives
available to meet the needs for parks and recreation. It also begins to formulate recommendations to
meet those needs.
The final section of the plan presents an Implementation Plan and estimated costs for a Budget
Matrix. The CAC evaluated the needs assessment to come up with the prioritization for the
Implementation Plan. The funding strategies for the Implementation Plan are proposed to be
vaned. Many of the projects can be worked directly into the Land Fund's Asset Management Plan.
However, as the plan is approved staff will begin to explore grants and other funding alternatives
which may be available to supplement the City's portion of the projects. The proposed
Community Center may not be able to be funded through the Land Fund however a funding
strategy -will be incorporated into the feasibility study and creative funding solutions will be
sought.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:, The area of greatest discussion regarding the Master Plan is the
location to accommodate the need for additional athletic fields (multi -purpose fields). The AACP
recommends additional fields be incorporated into the Iselin/Rotary Park area, however, the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan recommends the Marolt parcel. The CAC and the Parks,
Open Space and Environment committee members of the AACP met to discuss the master plan and
in particular this recommendation. Many issues were discussed during these meetings and
consensus was reached to consider the Marolt for such usage if certain criteria were considered in
the design, particularly, in regards to maintaining open vistas and the ranch theme to the greatest
extent possible.
We are recommending to proceed with this recommendation for the purpose of adopting the master
plan and as the Marolt park development goes through PUD review, specific development
concerns could be addressed at the required public hearings. If consensus cannot be reached on
Jl/
the use of Marolt for some athletic use, then staff will come back to P&Z to discuss what other
options exist and an amendment to.the master plan can be made. We will also be working to
incorporate these recommendations into the EIS for the Entrance to Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z's endorsement of the plan including Table VI-
1 the Budget Matrix Implementation Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Attachments:. Resolution No. , Series of 1995
S
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENDORSING
THE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT SAID PLAN.
. . WHEREAS, The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been requested to
endorse a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Aspen and make formal
recommendation to the Aspen City Council to adopt the master plan; and
WHEREAS, in 1993 the City of Aspen adopted the Aspen Area Community Plan which
was used as a basis for development of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master plan. The
master plan also incorporated recommendations of the 1985 Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan as well as the 1990 Pedestrian and Bikeway
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the planning process and development of the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan.has taken approximately two years to complete. The master planning process
began with the organization of a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist in the development of the
plan and provided in excess of 200 hours of volunteer time per person to produce the master plan;
and
WHEREAS, the development of the Master Plan included several methods to gather
public input including a mailed survey to one half of all City residents on the water utility mailing
list. Four public meetings were organized in June of 1993 to discuss recreational and park needs
for the future of the community. Additionally, a specific needs analysis of individual recreational
user groups was also conducted; and
WHEREAS, the master plan incorporates a methodical needs analysis to identify future
needs of the community to the year 2004, as well as a discussion of alternative and opportunities
regarding parks and recreational amenities. The plan also makes recommendations for
implementation of the plan to the year 2004; .
a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen hereby endorses the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Aspen and makes recommendation to the
Aspen City Council to formally adopt the master plan.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen on the day of 11995.
Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning
I, Jan Carney, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: March 7, 1995
RE: Round II Staff Initiated Amendments to the Land Use
Regulations (Continued Public Hearing from February 21)
SUMMARY: We are returning to-P&Z to finish a list of amendments
introduced at the last meeting. Also added is an amendment to the
subdivision regulations for the preservation of significant
natural and scenic features. This addition was noticed in the
newspaper separately from the other amendments.
The amendments still under consideration are stream margin review,
satellite dish antennas, building envelope, 8040 greenline review,
and a landscape longevity requirement. Further information will
be presented on vested rights and trigger mechanisms for affordable
housing deferral fees. Items completed in the February review were
insubstantial SPA/PUD amendments, condominium, lot split, and lot
line adjustment requirements_, insubstantial plat amendments, sight
distance at corners (fences), domestic animals, and housing
replacement priorities.
This memo is only presenting the outstanding items forwarded from
February 21. Staff will review any of last meetings items with the
Commission if necessary.
The Planning Office recommends approval of these amendments to the
land use regulations. These proposed changes include simple code
clean-up as well as more substantive changes. Each Commissioner has
a code book. It might be helpful for you to refer to the affected
sections for more detailed context.
PROCESS: Code amendments follow a two step review process. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the amendments at a
public hearing, then forward its recommendations to the City
Council for ordinance adoption (also a public hearing).
STAFF COMMENTS: This review is the second in a series of amendment
reviews proposed by staff to improve the function of the land use
regulations. This memo is formatted to present and discuss -each
proposed amendment individually. The recommended changes are:
1) Stream Margin - Over the past several years the P&Z has
approved many stream margin applications which met the review
criteria but otherwise seemed inappropriate based on the
1
Commission's sensitivities to the environment. After all, stream
margins are considered "environmentally sensitive areas/° (ESAs)
within the land use code. Our concerns have centered around
requiring increased environmental assessment of sites, initiating
mandatory setbacks from the top of the bank, and securing
fisherman's access along our invaluable community river resources.
There is also public support for better protection of the stream
margin as presented in a letter received by Planning from Joan
Leatherbury. This letter isa response to the Winnerman project
in 1993 and is attached as Exhibit "A".
The last time the City's ESA code was amended was in 1990 with the
creation of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area.
This ESA overlay was intended to place reasonable limits on where
buildings could be placed on properties along the bluff to protect
the sanctity of the ACES nature preserve. What was occurring at
that time was the construction of homes on the edge of the bluff
and even partially onto the slope. Additionally, native trees and
hillside vegetation was being stripped to enhance views of Hallam
Lake. Not only were these practices potentially harmful to the
nature preserve, they were beginning to negatively impact
neighboring properties by blocking views as well as removing
substantial vegetation which is valued as a buffer between
properties.
Essentially the same problems are occurring with the stream margin
developments as were happening with the Hallam Lake area. We have
seen several parcels along the Roaring Fork be developed in the
last few years where large homes are built right on the edge of
the river bank. This immediately changes the character of the
riparian vegetation and "greenway corridor" and may contribute to
the potential of failure of the riverbank itself. Staff proposes
a set of dimensional requirements (setbacks and heights) similar
to the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA because of the river's similarity to
the Bluff's environmental needs. Staff also believes that the
general benefits to all riverside owners and users will be similar
to those created by the Bluff ESA., The revised stream margin
criteria read:
Section 7-504. No development shall be permitted within the
floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for
irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which
may be permitted by the City Engineer,. provided plans and
specifications are provided demonstrating the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during
peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed
structure complies, to the extent practical, with all the
standards set forth below.
No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet
(1001), measured horizontally, from the high water line
of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or
2
ti
within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends
beyond one hundred feet (1001) from the high water line
of the Roaring Fork River, and its tributary streams,
unless the Commission makes a determination that the
proposed development complies with all the standards set
forth below. Reviews shall only be conducted after
accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones
has been accomplished by a qualified wildlife/vegetation
consultant.
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed develop-
ment which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will
not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel
proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the
State of Colorado which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not
limited.to, proposing mitigation techniques on or
off -site which compensate for any base flood
elevation increase caused by*the development.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open space/Trails
Plan map, or areas of historic public use or access
are -is dedicated via a recorded easement for public
use. Dedications are necessitated by development's
increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail
facilities including public fishing access.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
development, to the greatest extent practicable.
4. No vegetation is removed or damaged or slope grade
changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically
defined building envelope that predueeand
se • ,.nt..t i e o f the stream
b nle. A building
envelope shall designated by this review and said
envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of
any demolition, excavation or building permits. The
barricades shall remain in place until the issuance
of Certificates of Occupancy.
5• Te the greatest extent praetleable, the proposed
development s_duees pel l tit i en -,n ; nterr-----ne does
r ..aa...a .�aa vva i �a �.aawv
not pollute or interfere with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary, including
erosion and/or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated
within the parcel to prevent entry into the river
or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be
3
drained outside of the designated building envelope.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or
relocation of a water course, and a copy of said
notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course
is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that
ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the
parcel is not diminished.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one
hundred (100) year floodplain.
9. No development other than approved native vegetation
planting, shall take place below the top of slope
or within 15' of the top of slope or the high
waterline, whichever is most restrictive. If any
development is essential within this area, it may
only be approved by special review pursuant to
Section 7-404 D. of this Article 7.
10. All development outside the 15' setback from the top
of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a
line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level
at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and
determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that
definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this
Chapter 24.
11. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all
development applications. Such plan shall limit new
plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and
grasses) outside of the designated building envelope
on the river side to native riparian vegetation.
12. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with
no light(s) directed toward the river or located
down the slope.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect,.
landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements, the
top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea
level.
2) 8040 Greenling revisions - Section 24-7-503 (C) lists eleven
review criteria. Staff wishes to augment criterium number 11 as
4
Ok
follows:
11) Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map
is dedicated for public use. ' Provide access to natural
resources and areas of special interest to the community.
This would allow the Commission to take into consideration unique
natural features or spaces adjacent to properties subject to 8040
review. This might include pathways not officially adopted on the
trail master plan.
3) Landscape Longevity requirement - In response to concerns of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, staff is proposing
a new Section 5-511 (Supplemental Regulations) for maintenance and
replacement of approved landscaping materials within 45 days of
notification. Currently only section 7-904 "PUD Agreement"
requires implementation and maintenance of landscaping. Because
landscape plans or representations are included in most other types
of reviews, staff believes a city-wide landscape maintenance
requirement is beneficial.
5-511 - Landscape Maintenance
.A. Landscaping shown on any approved site development plan
shall be maintained in a healthy manner. In the event.that
plant material dies, the owner of the property shall replace
the plant material with equal size and variety within 45 days
of notification by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. if
seasonal or cultural constraints do not allow planting of the
approved plant material within 45 days the owner may in
writing seek permission from the Community Development.
Director to:
1) Provide financial assurances equal to 120% of the amount
of the replacement landscaping and installation costs as
approved by. the Parks Department, and in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney. 'The completion of the
landscape replacement shall be accomplished no late than
June 15 of the next planting season, otherwise the
financial assurances shall be forfeited to the city.
2) Submit for approval a revised landscape plan which meets
the design objectives and plant material sizes and
quantities of the original approved plan. An explanation
of the revised plan shall accompany the submission.
Failure to comply with the replanting requirement will
constitute a violation of this section and may result in
complaint(s) being filed in Municipal Court.
5
7
4) Administrative approval for small satellite dish antennas -
Staff has considered and discussed with the P&Z an administrative
approval process for satellite dishes of 2.5 feet or less in
diameter. Approval by the Community Development Director would
substantially reduce the process time for small dish approvals.
Staff still believes that dishes larger than 2.5 feet in diameter
should follow the current conditional use public hearing process.
The new regulation can be readily accommodated by creating a new
section within Division 5 Supplement Regulations:
5-512. Satellite -Dish Antennas.
Satellite dish antennas larger than 2.5 feet in diameter shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
as conditional uses pursuant to Division 3. Conditional Uses.
Satellite dish antennas 2.5 feet or less in diameter may be
reviewed and approved without a public hearing by the
Community Development Director in conformance with the
criteria within Sections 7-304 (B) and (C). The Community
Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the
approval deemed necessary to insure conformance with said
review criteria. If the Community Development Director
determines that the proposed satellite dish antennas does not
comply with the review criteria and denies the application,
or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval
determined by the Community Development Director, the
applicant may apply for conditional use review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Procedures established in Article 6 Common Development Review
Procedures shall apply to all satellite dish antennas.
For your reference, the review criteria to be used by the Community
Development Director in Section 7-304 (B) and (C) read:
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
complementary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development.
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.
As a result of separating the applicable reviews for satellite
dishes based on size, the individual zone districts' lists of
conditional uses must be amended. Of the 24 zone districts in the
0
NO
city, only three do not currently allow satellite dishes as
conditional uses. These zones are R-15-B Moderate Density
Residential, OS Open Space, and WP Wildlife Preservation. This
will not change with this amendment. For example, the R-6 Medium
Density zone will be amended as follows:
5-201.C. Conditional Uses.
7. Satellite dish antennae over 2.5 feet in diameter
Additionally, because of the new amended language described above,
the definition of "satellite dish antenna or satellite radio
frequency signal reception and/or transmission device" needs to be
amended as follows:
satellite dish antenna or satellite radio frequency signal
reception and/or transmission device means a dish -shaped or
parabolic -shaped reception or transmission device, •.,....s
diameter,antenna is raere than twe (2) feet in height anel/er "elish"
which is used
for the reception and/or transmission of satellite signals,
including but not limited to television signals; AM radio
signals, FM radio signals, telemetry signals, data
communication signals, or any other reception or transmission
signals using free air space as a medium, whether for
commercial or private use, provided: [the rest of the section
remains the same]
5) Definition of "building envelope" There are several instances
where the land use regulations or specific approvals refer to
development within a building envelope. However, there is no
definition in the regulations to provide consistency in use of this
term. Last fall staff presented the following definition to the
Commission. It was not well received because it "didn't say what
we meant it to say." In an effort to simplify the definition,
staff now proposes the following:
building envelope: that area on a lot which encompasses all
development including but not limited. to excavation, fill,
grading, storage, demolition, structures, decks, roof
overhangs, porches, patios and terraces, pools, access ways
and parking. Planting of landscape materials on natural grade
and approved walkways and driveways I may occur outside of a
building, envelope. For purposes of site specific development
plans, building envelopes may be established to restrict
development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water
courses, privacy or other considerations. Building envelopes
shall be described on recorded plats, site specific
development plans, ordinances, resolutions, and building
permit site plans.
7
J\
6) Subdivision Protection of Significant Natural Features -
The current subdivision regulations are silent on the requirement
to highlight and protect significant natural features on a parcel
being reviewed for subdivision. Language contained in the PUD
section of the code addresses this issue. Staff is proposing that
the following similar language be transferred into the purpose
statement and subdivision standards because not all subdivision
actions include PUD review:
Section 7-1001. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is to
A. Assist in the orderly and efficient development of the
City;
B. Ensure the proper distribution of development;
C. Encourage the well -planned subdivision of land by
establishing standards for the design of a subdivision;
D. Improve land records and survey monuments by establishing
standards for surveys and plats;
E. Coordinate the construction of public facilities with the
need for public facilities;
F. Safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider
and provide consumer protection for the purchaser;
G. Acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces
and parks; and
H. Provide procedures so.that development encourages the
preservation of natural and scenic features; and
I. Promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen.
Section 7-1004 Subdivision Approval
C. Review Standards
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall
be required for all subdivisions. (all remain the same
a. through g.)
h. The design and location of any proposed structure,
building envelope, road, driveway, trail or similar
development is compatible with and does not cause harmful
disturbance to significant natural or scenic features of
the site.
8
Items continued from February 21, 1995:
7) Mechanism to trigger deferred housing payment - At the last
meeting, the Commission was vocal in their concern that housing
cash -in -lieu payments, which were deferred because of working
resident status, are not paid at the appropriate time (if at all)
because there is no way for Planning or Housing to know if a
property transfers to non -qualified owners. Staff has had
conversations with Dave Tolen and the City Attorney but a final
solution has not been worked out at this time. THere may be more
to report at the March 7 P&Z meeting.
The section which stimulated the discussion is as follows:
Sec. 5-703. Deferral of affordable housing impact fee.
If the owner of a single family or duplex unit for which an
affordable housing impact fee is due is a qualified working
resident, as that term is defined herein, the obligation to
pay the impact fee shall be deferred, at the owner's
request, until such time as the dwelling unit is sold to a
buyer who is not a qualified working resident. Furthermore,
the amount of the impact fee which is deferred shall be
adjusted at the time of resale in proportion to the change in
value of the subject dwelling unit from the value at the time
the obligation for the impact fee was incurred to the value
on the date of closing. The value at the time that the impact
fee is due shall be determined by the chief building official
on the basis of a current appraisal, a reliable opinion of
value, assessed valuation, or such other method as deemed
appropriate. The value on resale shall be the value of the
total consideration paid by the buyer. In no case shall the
fee be adjusted downward to an amount less than twenty-five
(25) percent, or upward to an amount greater than fifty (50)
percent, of the impact fee which was deferred. The obligation
for the impact fee and the value of the dwelling unit at the
time of the obligation is incurred shall be set forth in a
written document, signed by the owner or owners of the subject
dwelling unit, and recorded in -the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder prior to the issuance of e
any building permits for the unit.
8) Vested rights - The Commission presented a unanimous front at
the last meeting on the issue of time limits for development
approvals. The discussion occurred within the context of vested
rights, the timeframe whereby an approved development is protected
from changes in the land use regulations which would invalidate or
otherwise alter a proposed development. In discussions with staff,
City Attorney John Worcester expressed that automatic expiration
of a development approval without code changes would only cause
applicants to have to repeat a review process. Practically
0
speaking, absent code changes, the same project would have to
receive the same approval as originally granted.
In order to have the City's regulations concur with State
regulations, the following changes are recommended:
1) Create a new definition of site specific development plan which
is taken from the State statute 24-68-102:
Site specific development plan means a plan which has been
submitted to the Community Development Department by a
landowner or his representative describing with reasonable
certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel
of property. Such plan may be in the form of, but need not
be limited to, a planned unit development (PUD), subdivision,
specially planned area (SPA), conditional use, special review,
environmentally sensitive area review, historic development
review, or growth management exemption.
2) Deletion of subsection (F) from Section 6-207 Vested Property
Rights. The eighteen month period referenced in this section is
meaningless in comparison with the state statutes. What the
deletion does to development approvals is either require a
developer to act upon his/her approvals in a timely manner to
eliminate risk of code changes or seek vested rights for three
years through the public hearing process already established in the
City's land use regulations. The following is the proposed
language to be eliminated:
9
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT p APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
615lq3
Oaa�, Cc vwU"tMUM
Z 044au4
Uq �- �I� d��iatimo fu iiu Roa,�ue �r,� �
�� die � i�a de✓�laYza�� a4 PAILkG�e .
.L oiiY � due tiur�, .v� YL� o-7� aide
�u.�Q � �y, yran� 1 I��^e ��zl�ed ui-dabdA.--y
occ ktL# dou�✓� fu
e64
�l a aivLj aee
ttt pi
A,$,t yam. T diduf
.per Yw���bb�ntikz la�o wr�e, tact x kvw 4-tv
Wuy a�vtir = 21i✓ane4{ u afz2 `(a' p e Cle 4 4)ib
-{�,e ivu-U+slgc�aN '4-a�yLylbw I a*)d t/L4+ k dwf
Sw+cvu�.1, I
J oaw {�-�➢a��e2.�
Y .Y S i AID UY
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Farrish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
DATE: March 7, 1995
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of this request
with conditions. The applicant seeks to add onto an existing 1,880
single family residence for a total of 5,424 s. f. FAR.
Applicant: Mrs. Steven Farrish, represented by Dick Fallin
Location: (Lots 5-9 and parts of Lots 10 and 11, Aspen Company
Subdivision)
Zoning: R-15, with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) overlay. The parcel is 30,400 s.f. Please see Exhibit
"A" for vicinity map, proposed site plan and site sections.
Referral Comments: See Exhibit "B" for complete memos.
Parks Department: Rebecca Baker stated that more trees may be
impacted by construction that is shown on the plan. Any trees
slated for relocation must receive tree removal/relocation permits
from the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, tree protection
barricades must be erected at the drip lines of at -risk trees. The
barricades shall be constructed to prevent soil compaction,
material storage, and spillage of deleterious substances under the
trees.
A 12" PVC culvert must be installed under the new driveway.* At
least one week prior to the ditch work, the applicant must contact
Tom Rubel of the Parks Department so he can monitor the ditch work.
A.C.E.S. - In a phone conversation with staff, Tom Cardamone
expressed that plantings of native shrubbery on the hillside would
reduce the grassy tamed look and restore the natural appearance of
the slope under the cottonwood trees. Tom also expressed concern
about the recessed lighting which is proposed on the structure.
There are currently floodlights attached to the building which
brightly light up the nature preserve below. Low level, low
voltage lighting is acceptable, but wall mounted lights are not
acceptable.
Engineering: Chuck Roth submits the following comments:
1) Any increase in historic storm run-off must be maintained on
site. A drainage plan must be included in the building permit
application.
2) A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement must be signed and
recorded at owner's expense prior to the issuance of any building
permits. Forms for the agreement are available in the Engineering
Office.
3) The site plan in the building permit application must clearly
label and dimension all on -site parking spaces.
4) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks
Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets Department for
any work or development including landscaping within the public
right-of-way.
Staff Comments:
Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Review: The intent of the Hallam Lake
overlay area is to provide a minimal level of protection from
development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve below this
hillside. Various human impacts to the nature preserve that
concern A.C.E.S. include visual, noise, and light intrusion as well
as damage to the slope and vegetation which may increase runoff and
erosion.
The review standards contained in the ordinance are as follows:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native
vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope.
Response: The application shows a new planter which will jut below
the top of slope at the southeast corner of the house. This
planter is not in compliance with this criteria and number 2 which
follows.
2. All development within the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade
within the 15' setback -must be approved by special review
pursuant to Section 7-404 D of this Article 7.
Response: The grade in the 15' setback area was manipulated during
original 1960's construction of the flagstone patio and retaining
wall running west from the patio. The patio is raised
approximately 4 feet off of the existing slope. As mentioned
above, the proposed planter on the south edge of the building and
patio further intrudes into the setback area. The application also
calls for expansion of the patio to the west, including stairs
which go down to meet the slope. The applicant states that the
planter, new deck, and steps meets the special review criteria as
specified in Section 7-404 D, but does not elaborate. Staff does
not agree. This section reads:
D. Whenever a special review is for development above or below
2
v
grade within the fifteen foot setback from top of slope as
identified on a site specific section drawing or above the
height limit established by the ESA, the development
application shall be approved only if the following conditions
have been met:
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict
adherence to the top of slope setback will create an
unworkable design problem.
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height
limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site
are located outside the top of slope setback line or
height limit to the greatest extent possible.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure
or development in the setback from all adjoining
properties.
The existing filled -in patio and retaining walls areas behind the
house are non -conforming per the review criteria. If the patio,
walkways and rock retaining wall are unchanged, they may remain.
However, there is not a unique condition which calls for the
extensive work shown on the plan. It is an effort on the
applicant's part to expand the outdoor living space overlooking the
nature preserve, including stairs which will encourage further
activity down on the slope. This type of development is the reason
why limits are placed through the ESA review process. If a railing
is needed for safety purposes, a railing should be proposed for the
Commission's review under this special review section. During a
staff inspection, it also became apparent that the applicant has
cleared underbrush from the slope to enhance views downward. This
makes any changes to the decks or structure more visible from
below.
3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45
degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. -Height
shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer
utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this
Chapter 24.
Response: The section drawings taken from the 3/22/94'survey show
that the proposed structure complies with this height limit.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development
applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative
screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as
viewed from the rear (slope) of the.parcel. All vegetative
screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
3
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die.
Response: The landscaping shown on the survey indicates many large
cottonwood trees which provide a fair amount of screening of the
structure from the rear. As noted above, it appears that clearing
of the native hillside shrubbery has occurred in the past. Staff
recommends that additional plantings of native shrub type plants
be added along the slope to restore its wild character, and below
the foundation walls of the house and patio retaining walls in
order to reduce their visibility. Prior to the issuance of any
building permits, a final landscape plan shall be reviewed by
Planning and ACES staff. Any tree relocations must receive City Is
tree removal permits.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no
light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down
the slope.
Response: The application states that recessed downlights will
be placed in the roof overhangs. This does not meet the intent of
the criteria to reduce the night time visual impact of structures
toward the nature preserve. Planning and ACES Staff recommends
only bollard or pathway style lighting for the rear of the building
and patio area which does not illuminate the building itself. A
final lighting scheme shall be included in the building permit set
for Planning's approval. Staff is currently researching the
minimum exit lighting requirements of the building codes and will
report the findings to the Commission.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the
slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
Response: The application states that this requirement will be met.
No hot tub is indicated on the,plans. A drainage plan is being
required prior to issuance of a building permit. To prevent debris
from falling down the hill, a strong construction barricade fence
must be erected on the "bench" of the site and inspected by
Planning prior to the issuance of any demolition or building
permits for the parcel. The barricades must remain in place until
all construction is complete or the certificate of occupancy is
issued, whichever occurs last.
7. Site sections drawn by a
architect, or engineer shall
and proposed site elements,
elevations above sea level.
registered architect, landscape
be submitted showing all existing
the top of slope, and pertinent
Response: The application contains site sections which meet the
requirements of this criteria.
4
k
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Farrish Hallam
Lake Bluff ESA Review with the following conditions:
1. The new stone planter, stairs, and new patio as shown on the
application drawing sheet #3 are not approved for construction
per this review.
2. Any trees slated for removal or relocation must receive tree
removal/relocation permits from the Parks Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, sturdy tree
protection barricades must be erected at the drip lines of at -
risk trees as directed by Parks staff. The barricades shall
be constructed to prevent soil compaction, material storage,
and spillage of deleterious substances under the trees. They
shall remain in place throughout exterior construction and
grading.
4'. A 12" PVC culvert must be installed under the new driveway.
At least one week prior to the ditch work, the applicant must
contact Tom Rubel of the Parks Department so he can monitor
the ditch work.
5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by ACES
and Planning staff prior to issuance of any building permit.
Additional plantings of native shrub type plants be added
along the slope to restore its wild character, and below the
foundation walls of the house and patio retaining walls in
order to reduce their visibility.
6. Any future landscape development (including but not limited
to decks, spa, terrace, fencing) must be submitted for review
as an amendment to this E.S.A. review.
7. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement must be signed and
recorded at owner's expense prior to the issuance of any
building permits. Forms for the agreement are available in
- the Engineering Office.
8. The site plan in the building permit application must clearly
label and dimension all on -site parking spaces.
9. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks
Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets
Department for any work or development including landscaping
within the public right-of-way.
10. Only bollard or pathway type lighting shall be used along the
rear of the building and patio. A final lighting scheme shall
be included in the building permit set for Planning's
approval. The existing floodlights must be removed as part
5
of the reconstruction.
11. To prevent debris from falling down the hill, a strong
construction barricade fence must be erected on the "bench"
of the site and inspected by Planning prior to the issuance
of any demolition or building permits for the parcel. The
barricades must remain in place until all construction is
complete or the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever
occurs last.
12. The applicant shall record in the County Clerk and Recorder's
Office a copy of the approved site specific development plan,
landscape plan, and approval resolution. Proof of recordation
must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior the issuance
of any building permits for this site.
13. 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.
Exhibits: "A" - Application information,
landscape plan
"B" - Referral Memos
L
site plan, sections, and
A
r:rA.►'SNING it ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 _ BY RESOLUTION
I Lug
I tau►p // _
-
tz
� r
C �
01
ri
` aE
t
� ' V I „ • - •. •� - . to '' _,�y"� .. y �u s+r `
A O
RC �
WMew •tea,,
W Oa ww ;
z HaoA
xa�sic
aow.ob
114111,
zZ ,
H
Or
. D
Now'__ moo_ �
kow I
,10
r
1 \
•,L•,'...�'�i ill:-. y+�.r qi�i .• - - t /� ' � M ,_
yK•T''a#.n+�•r. s' F--'-•R"--„►,•_I'� r -w.•�, r � ► _ _ .. - l 1 a. _ • `}� ,f., i� , ,
v ,r'-� �Yt:,tign�.! io'n�r- �, A.•r •s .Y� •Y .Y S � � 1• � 'r i •r } '♦ _ � -
`�te�rr,. t�-,,•v�-^- ,l�``�•� ?''; '•- •► ..' _ 'r _ ; / : - _
�„�'���. =�:tom"-v'�:rr � ���,•;�- ,;mot -< "•.- - - i . � ,;� •j• _ •; _ , r , _..� �^ �, :' (� •` _ •
�er,_i+ #-.. z.'�rt � T� ♦ ,.=t. , •4'.� ,i i �„ - J7 `+ �•' —_ ;rtt'. - -,♦• •
4 J��,.- r `'' ��• :�.i.: �. +f.. ~,l, y_,'•4'ts•i'`' -ya ••'• -. � [ 'y'♦ I f i - �-`I 'Y + � ,� •' , ,• -
.J't, .'SF ., . '' t .j1 .t •.. 1. i + - �•+,r. �- y, � • <
• • -t' w� ..,,,, I��t,,,,���,•c, .- . � 1 � - •' J I � r - 1 w ♦ 1 i r `' .t- j
'`-._,�i_ca..��✓• �.brsa, - :_Y - _ .i , I•_ -. � ♦ .i ~ •' , _ �•_ ..,�'. � •.o i .. •� -y_ d1 - '•,; •`-+�
•L '♦Y .r'• � ♦. i_ }fr � .a -� � -'+' `• at •� -�tlT _ b� r _ � { W'
IT
. ♦i � � v . jii
t ♦• w
c : -+`I• ' �r T' TN•,.:.R
2
.10
�'-� ••L• jj} �. ,','- , .. lw _ _' _ • rh_... !�; y
..� .:��• `e. ••�v j�a'X.{, y'T•. *�.'-• - y-'. ��i- •� 'S _ �ii- •~ •r :. j'+t t'„ �� _...', ~L,• J•.1K.
%Z.,�=?.` " 'L •• tiJ+' +�-f` '::•} lit - •; : s.,; -.. - ,� ` 'r, ! 1 ! ,r -, ...'- ...-::r• .,.. •'•• .
-• •^',t Y•i�t: +,r--��a• ♦V7- `.J_. .��' ,1. �. .. yrS L, �" +, �1'.' �r� - •! r"L � t •�.
-•yam~"''. .:�.t: _ .,�•:♦ .�j i_. _O, :'.•.t!,'i• - _ • -.••-•� _ -1:- •�•'♦•'�,j,.,c w�'�;. + • �,
♦ '*''.' _t..•� Alt Patti• Y. '•`�j .�r iC P •.wc ♦-.t +., : .. .• 'u - •" '•' : ,: - .T�
�- v �ar...s ✓r ,, •y.a• �. ,T• r �}f��/Il•-�.Y• ' • t f ..• "' _ P•r . •,-4�p ; t (, -�� a ,ii,'� • ! 1 :. � :i •�� ly }y �
a' ,r�'+7�y �� � Yr i� Ty o•Yr"7 t"1-.}r v. �..L :. i\•,�•i'< '1j' .,�...'f` '.wa-•' i+- .� _yi: �'T •fir S, ra
'; rr . v j i+ ♦ .T�, =.e.- i�"..' t .=. - . +` r , .-.wv y_ ♦ ti j: ems.
T,•�•y"4*•.y..ili'�.-,•sh�-�,ay.�'{�r.�s,--�!:+�y7. {�.. ,.,. - _�1•tj_: ,_�• ?�.. '�{....�._�,.a„♦ rr%'�-`J.w. •••• L- !l�r'�'}.�.
3�1!'y%,�.y`a'{-":i141'"!, t•l►. t ,; rb �.•a .. i^.f �"� i 'l'_ ... .-- • ... .*..^ ��• ... � . • _,,^ .. - t . '` •' _ w".- t:
•ilt'c. yj..- a I' 4 t,A, 3•tom •qr r-• j ! t .1 a _ 1 _ \
..•T �a Ie.:*>� f:�•�l•4> +..lot
;�...Sti -r. ..� •!.-.♦ • r - r. l ♦ . -t �. •�. L. r. .t r • ��' '. :' .t.'
-s�'+� •r••r:i.' at'•.ff, •`.•a" .'..r .'^• tr.•,.... �{'. 1• ... •• -t� _ -•' •. �_. •'�✓ -t '� •.r•-' f... •i
I
rr - k ^�} �A� p�z,.., . t �`y,r�� +•-�fj•'pa� 'C !`� . Iry Lr � � ,p. � -+
-%�' .i;`-��•• �-•r""i ' ` •ye�i� .="•il�. /�t�`a - ar. �3• �..t' ,i . c- � � f"'�• � � .. �1� a i ' � ,, ,
�- ;.,t®..'� }, s � � • �,. T'r ;.Z +.r - t Jam' �,; ` p r '�,: �i r . = _T - +. - . - ! � :,
ysa�� „�.�'y7�,. i :e r •,��• �.. „�� �. ten% �f �'? • �-' « • ♦ - 1.^ -
•-a� 's� �r. sirs , i1ty •� J n� � 'w, y •.Y a. - � tt i
•
y
z_C _ ; . x - - . ' •t, � '� `. '� ` jx'.T; ...�� a. ,y r ..r4y . _y'} •� -�_ '.-..? i i.c ,: r • .' .
-�` r� -: :S s. _ ^. ._- . •y _'`„� }f.. ,- • 0'3'�. � �� �� �� �� 'fix' r , � r'..��
-
•
a
- �• -. .. _ �. it i .� , .�1 �.• ' fi •• f{ � 1 ' •
jl
�
1 •
•i I .Iflf>�1
• � }•+`•1•t•'`L• •r � ���� III �j � �.
r � �+ � I f N • jl ! •t
I •' I.I�t'
�, r•r •i,•�II'• �tat,t ■e••r
1 t
.•• ! � � I �� Ili i � .r
r. ti Il�• 1� I �ili�
Id TH
jL
-�Y��' �� J.1/�f'�•A:`,I,_�i� ', •• � it ', I!' .. , •/
.. • Y • .j.:ir.r 5:�•;ri t.:�' ".•• : r '•t'�':+ I ' � ' I i�° ' i
• ..' '..�.��,�. •.r�..•.,:,,•.;:.� taw � it I i I i
• 4 ��+,�;.�:•�.; :..�• -> flit jl j I ' 1' � ,_ 1
1 ' '4',•� ;�r� �%'t .'`'1+� ,;..H1•` ' jr•'' • • • i i III; 't
. _ �� i Z r+•� .J -gyp`` �
r •'
' :d�•Iti•r:�' a ,i!f,,•3-Y. �; i.`.,. �� :.
. iaTAoa-u-irr 1
12J;D IZE APMC7aTON FMI
1) proj o,Ct . Nam,, Farish Hallam Lake ESA
2.) Vroject Ixxation 844 Roaring Fork Road, Aspen, Co
.Lots 5-9 & parts of Lots 10 & Ili' Aspen _Company -Subdi City of Asp4n, C
(indicate stet address, lot block rx=ber,, legal , t . -
L aWrCPr32te)
3) Present Zorxixyj R-15 .4) Lat Size 14 0 OU s q f t .
.Mrs. Steven P. Faiish
5) Applicant's Name, Address Hxxv-- 2 2 0 0 Willowink Apt 1-6F
• Houston, TX 77027
713-871-A76Q
6) Representative I's Namd, Address & Pbone I n i k r a 1 1 i n
.Gjdeein Kau.f man
1280 Ute Ave #10 315 E-- Hyman Ave
A,-,nen., rn R1611 Aapez�, rn 81611
925-4252 925-8166
7) 7ypem of Application• (please char-k all that apply):
Ocnditional Use Ouxmptual SPA Omoepbaal Historic Dev-
Special Review Final SPA • Fiml Ristor:ic Dev-
8040 CXxxuil-ine Minor Historic Dev-
Sb:eam Mamji.A Final PM
Historic TIPM molition
VAOUntain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
•
#VP-XCtWI-IV IVOt2TXIMCnt GMW JaallOtMent
rnt Spl-itJrnt Mne
Adj M-aDent
8) Description of Existing Utes -(n=ber and type of existing -structures
aWroxinate ft-; rx=ber of badroams
any ptreVIOUS approvals to the
property) -
Existing single family, one story 2-bedroom 2-bath residence
of approximately 1880 sq. ft. with a.one car carport.*
9) Description of Developmer& Application
Alter and add onto existing structure to create a new 4-bedroom
5-bath house of approximately 5424 sq. ft.
partial basement & 2-car garage.
ILO) Have you attached the followirzf.
Ya s Pespo nse to Attachm!nt 2,, Mi ra � &*md-scion Oontents
NIR ReSpon� to Attzchment 3, Specific Subm;scion Oontent-s
N R rbesponse to Attachment 4, Review Stwxbx& for Your Application r.
FARISH RESIDENCE
HALLAM LAKE ESA
Project Description
January 25, 1995
The applicant, Anne Farish, proposes to significantly alter and make
additions to her existing single family residence located at 844 Roaring Fork
Drive on Lots 5 - 9, Parts of 10 & 11, and adjacent parcel as shown on the
attached drawings, consisting of:
Site Plan
Site Sections
Landscape Plan
Existing Floor Plan
Existing Exterior Elevations
New Basement Plan
New First Floor Plan
New Second Floor Plan
New Roof Plan
New Exterior Elevations
The lot area is 30,400 square feet and is in City of Aspen Zone District R-
15 which allows an F.A.R. of 5424 square feet. The existing structure is a small
one story frame two -bedroom, two bath house with an attached one -car carport
which was constructed approximately thirty years ago. Mrs. Farish, a long-time
Aspen resident, has owned the house since 1977. The program for the new
project was conditional upon the owner's desire to keep as much of the layout of
the existing house as possible, while creating a new master bedroom, master
bath, three guest bedrooms, two -car garage and other improvements necessary
for her family's needs.
The property currently has approximately seventy mature trees
surrounding the house, as can be seen on the survey drawings, and
approximately forty of these are located on the Hallam Lake side of the lot (see
attached winter and summer photos).
The trees that are located on the street side of the property, in
combination with the setbacks, severely restrict areas available for future
development. The design solution was in part determined by this situation as
well as the owner's request that, hopefully, no trees would have to be removed.
As can be seen on the site plan, the options for expansion were located in the
front yard/driveway area, an extension of the original house to the west, and a
second floor, all of which created a rather linear plan, parallel with the street and
slope, but not dissimilar to the original house orientation. Most of the houses
along Roaring Fork Drive have the same orientation characteristics.
The existing living room wing footprint is to remain unchanged and lies
within the 15 foot top -of -slope zone; the new master addition at the west end will
have no encroachment into the top -of -slope zone, and the new second floor has
no encroachments into the top -of -slope zone; the remaining structure meets the
Hallam Lake ESA requirements.
The massing of the house was intended to minimize the two-story element
and to utilize a hipped roof design, with as many one-story elements as possible,
in order to reduce the mass to the greatest extent while still maintaining the
proportions necessary for the design. Dark colors are proposed in order to
blend with the color character of the site as viewed from Hallam Lake.
Window areas were kept in balance with the mass, with no two story glass
elements, and was a conscious effort to keep the house at a scale appropriate to
it's location.
All parking and service areas are located on the north and east sides of
the house and will not be visible from Hallam Lake. }
r � i
Ordinance One requirements will be met through the cash -in -lieu option.
�b
FARISH HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW
Response to Review Standards
1. "No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting,
shall take place below the top of slope."
The applicant does not intend to do anything below the top of slope
except planting which would be in accordance with this standard.
2. "All development within the fifteen foot setback from the top of slope shall
be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen -
foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 7-
404D of this Article 7."
There are two areas in this application that will require development
within the top -of slope setback areas:
1. Existing living room wing at the south easterly comer.
As shown on the survey drawing, part of the existing structure lies within
the top of slope setback area. With an existing roof overhang that
extends past the top of slope line. The applicant intends to re -use the
existing foundation for the new development and will reconstruct the walls
and roof so that the roof will not extend past the top of slope line.
2. An existing patio lies within the top of slope set back area.
The landscape plan shows how the applicant intends to develop the on -
grade elements within the top of slope. setback area. Approximately half
of the existing flagstone patio lies within the setback area. A new
extension to the patio is shown approximately 16 feet to the west,
encompassing an existing cottonwood tree, and new flagstone steps
down to grade. The southerly edge of the patio area is proposed to have
a new stone faced planter that would also extend across the south end of
the living room structure. The intent is to avoid having a railing by
stepping the 'finish grade" down in 30 inch steps, as allowed by the
building code. The existing patio has no railing, and the applicant has
proposed this "stepping" to maintain this condition in a safe manner.
The applicant believes that the conditions of Section 7-404D of Article 7
have been met by this design.
\1
3. "All development outside the fifteen -foot setback from top of slope shall
not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree
angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured
and determined by the zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at
Section 3-101 of this Chapter 24."
All areas of the proposed development comply with the height limitations
as described in the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Section 7-506 and as
defined in Section 3-101 of Chapter 24 with the exception of the south-
easterly portion of the existing living room. The living room area flat roof
height is to be raised approximately 1 foot at the alcove area; the main
room will have a new hipped roof that rises from the flat away from the
slope to the north, thus minimizing the massing as much as possible. As
can be seen by the photos, the existing vegetation effectively screens the
house from Hallam Lake.
4. "A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications.
Such plan shall include native vegetation of no less than fifty percent of
the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All
vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die."
The applicant submitted a landscape plan, sheet no. 3, as part of the
development application. The applicant believes the existing vegetation
exceeds the fifty -percent coverage requirement. The applicant agrees to
maintain vegetation.
5. "All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no lights directed
toward the nature preserve or located down the slope.
Ibe applicant proposes to use recessed downlights in the roof overhang
along the patio areas.. The fixtures will have a black baffle typical of this
type of fixture that prevents glare. There will be no lighting directed
toward the preserve or located down the slope."
6. "No fill material or debris shall be places on the face of the slope. Historic
drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs
cannot be drained down the slope."
No fill material or debris will be placed on the face of the slope. Historic
drainage patterns and rates will be maintained through the use of drywells
and french drains where required. No pools or hot tubs are proposed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT _ , APPROVED ,
19 BY RESOLUTION
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department &R -
Date: February 27, 1995
Re: Farish Hallam Lake ESA Review
(844 Roaring Fork Road; Lots 5-9 & parts of 10 & 11, Aspen Company Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site Drainage - The application satisfactorily discusses control of drainage over the slope to
Hallam Lake. The new development plan must also provide for no more than historic flows to
leave the site along the driveway to Roaring Fork Road. Any increase to historic storm run-off
must be maintained on site.
2. Sidewalk., Curb and Gutter - The site is located in an area which has neither sidewalk nor curb
and gutter. The proposed development plan does not indicate any development in the public right-
of-way that relates to precluding pedestrian use. The applicant will be required to sign and pay the
recording fees for a sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement agreement such that the property owner
is responsible to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter when indicated by the City.
I Driveway - The current driveway is non -conforming because the Municipal Code only permits
one driveway. The development plan proposes to remove one of the two driveways thereby
providing conformance for driveways.
4. Parking Spaces - The location, number and size of parking spaces is unclear on the
development plans. The final development plan shall clearly label and dimension all parking
spaces.
5. 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
e
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: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
Mrs. Steven P. Farish, 2200 Willowick Apt. 16E, Houston, TX 77027
Dick Fallin, 1280 Ute Ave., 410, Aspen
M95.58
TO
OGLEBRY WIL80N LODGE ID:304-243-4070 FEB 28'95
4 , I/
..�,4 r
12:45 No.O03 P.O2
Q-\
IN
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Gish, Public Works Director
Kim Johnson, Planning Department
Date: February 28, 1995
RE: The Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan
Summary: This presentation to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission is a summary
of the 1994 season events with recommendations from the committee on changes for the 1995
season. This discussion is not meant to be a review of the conditions of approvals of the
Meadows P.U.D. That action was taken earlier by P & Z and found to be in compliance.
The committee reviewing the traffic impact could not agree with a unanimous consensus on
all of the issues. Each individual or entity was given the opportunity to write a summary of
their issues to be included as part of this referral memo. The cut off for the summaries to be
included as part of this memo was February 28, 1995. The attached comments were received
in time to be included as part of the packet:
A. RFTA - Paul Hilts - February 20, 1995 letter to Bob Gish
B. Aspen Music Festival and School - February 28, 1995 letter to Bob Gish
C. James D. Peterson - February 28, 1995 letter to Bob Gish
D. West Side Traffic Committee - February 28, 1995 letter to P & Z
Items of Consensus:
* Progress has been made by eliminating 75% of the bus trips through the west end.
* Support environmental impact concerns by reducing PM10, noise and dust.
* Support the use of public transportation.
* Enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience.
* RFTA has a flexible schedule and will support the communities requirements.
* The Aspen community places a high value on the cultural activities and
performances conducted on the Meadows property.
* Paid parking is not a consideration for the MAA parking lots at this time.
* West end residents have less of a problem with autos then buses.
* Maintain existing bus routes and drop off locations at the parking lot.
* Support of the paid parking plan. .
* Signage will remain the same in 1995 as installed in 1994.
* Number of daily trips and schedule of buses through the west end.
* Routes of the buses through the west end.
* Issues relating to the ending time of events.
* Noise and pollution of buses through the west end.
* Some residents want year around bus service through the west end.
* Need for smaller quieter buses (request of west enders).
* Smaller buses would not have capacity to meet transportation needs of RFTA/MAA
(smaller buses would require more trips).
* The use of a combination of sizes of buses. Big buses for major events and smaller buses
for off peak schedules.
* - Signage may be considered visual pollution.
* West end residents want speed limit reduced.
Reduce parking impact to west end residential areas.
Recommendations for 1995 season
1. Maintain the signage, speed bumps and traffic patterns established for the 1994 season.
Install the speed bumps on new Meadows road which were not used in 1994.
2. Request additional traffic enforcement from the Aspen Police Department.
3. Request approval from the Aspen City Council for additional antique street lights on
Gillespie and Fourth street. This would improve the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
4. Request that a pedestrian walkway be established between Third and Fourth on Gillespie
on the parking lot side of the roadway to improve the safety for pedestrians before and
after events. This would be a split rail fencing and gravel walkway which would be taken
down each year after the season is over.
5. The MAA will enhance the bus pickup spots in the parking lot. This would be
accomplished by establishing designated bus stop locations, with safety cross overs,
concrete sidewalks and additional signage. The MAA will develop their own plan and
implement the ideas before the 1995 season starts.
6. The MAA will expand the coordinations position duties to include information to
vehicles on Gillespie telling them that the parking lot is full and where would be the best
place to look for a space.
7. Close the service road from Third/Gillespie to the back of the tent area to all1parking.
Parking along the road creates a problem at the end of events. The City of Aspen Streets
Department will post this area no parking for the season.
2 -V
w
8. Require all courtesy vans, taxis and all forms of public transportation to use the front
drop off area. These vehicles will not have access to the back of the tent.
9. Move the bus shelter to an area designated by the MAA near the bus drop and pick up
area. This will further define the pick up and drop off area.
10. Provide a phone in the bus shelter.
Summary: The City of Aspen Public Works and Planning Departments have attended all of
the traffic committee mitigation discussions. We have also spent several evenings observing
the start and ending of MAA events. We have had excellent responses from the MAA, Aspen
Institute, RFTA and citizens working on the committee. In our opinion the events and
supporting functions for the events all went very smoothly.
Within each of our meetings, individuals were allowed to express their opinions and thoughts
on issues under discussion. We maintained respect for each others opinion, however there is
no way that everyone's individual concerns can be accommodated. The committee as a whole
must place individual concerns aside and make reasonable compromises for the benefit of the
majority.
What City staff has heard and learned is that the MAA, Aspen Institute and RFTA are experts
in what they do, when they have been challenged, they responded appropriately and
professionally.
Recommendations: City staff recommends that the 1995 MAA season basically be the same
as what was completed in 1994. We further recommend that the recommendations in this
memo be implemented for the 1995 season. To implement these recommendations, we will
require funding from City Council for the lighting and commitment from the MAA that they
will complete the recommended work.
We want to thank and encourage all of those individuals to work together in tweaking and
making the system better. Our big opportunity will be with the buses, schedules, sizes, noise
and pollution.
Enclosures
M 19_95
To: West End Traffic Mitigation Committee Members
From: Robert Gish, Public Works Director
Re: Final Summer 1994 MAA Season Review With P & Z
Date: February 7, 1995
It is apparent from talking to individual committee members that another coordination meeting
would not be productive. City staff understands the issues and we can present our committee
summary to P & Z. The purpose of this meeting is to review the 1994 activities and propose
changes that should be incorporated into the 1995 season. This meeting is not a compliance review
meeting.
Next Meeting
March 7,1995
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Hall
Time to be announced
Kim Johnson and Bob Gish will be preparing the summary memo for P & Z. Our memo will make
recommendations for the 1995 MAA season. The recommendations will reflect what we feel is in
the best interest for the 1995 MAA season, RFTA support functions, adjacent neighborhoods, user
impacts, patrons, students, visitors and impact to the City of Aspen. We will be objective in our
recommendations based on what we have personally observed and heard in our committee
meetings.
To ensure that this process is fair to everyone, we will include and appreciate written positions from
the MAA, Aspen Institute, RFTA, citizens or citizens groups to be included as part of the summary
memo. These written statements should be received by Bob Gish no later then February 28, 1995
to be included as part of the packet to P & Z. This will allow individual P & Z members time to
review the material in their packet in preparation for the March 7, 1995 meeting.
It may also be necessary to schedule and meet with the Aspen City Council for funding to
implement recommendations made by P & Z.
cc: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City Manager
L 13.95
Uk
DATE: February 20, 1995
TO: Bob Gish
FROM: Paul Hilts
Director of Operations
3FH----
,Roaring Fork Transit Agency
RE: MAA Bus Service
Thanks once again for your efforts in working so hard with the
MAA, RFTA and local west end residents, on the summer bus service
provided for the MAA. Below you'll find my thoughts and comments
as they relate to last summer's service and this coming summer's
service.
OBSERVATIONS RE; SUMMER 1994 SERVICE:
In general, I felt that the service ran smoothly. and
efficiently until the last few days of the season, based on the
parameters agreed to at the start of the season. Our working
relationship with the MAA was excellent. They went the extra mile
in making the new transit pick up/drop off area as workable as
possible, from both an operational and customer service point of
view.
They worked with us closely in determining when transit.
service would be needed, and when it would not.
The City of Aspen Streets and Engineering people also did a
good job putting in place the necessary signage relating to this
service. I would especially like to commend Bob Gish for the
extraordinary lengths he went to in order to try to please everyone
involved. This, of course, is an almost impossible goal, but he
did his best to -try to make it work for everyone.
Ridership for the 1994 Summer season, on the MAA route, was
99,152, up 7.40 over the year before. It was the third highest
ridership year we have ever experienced for this service.
The only major problem we experienced all summer occurred at
the end of the summer. At that point we were requested to change
the pick up/drop off procedure at the tent. The approach that was
suggested was not well thought out and ended up creating an
inordinate amount of confusion on the part of the regular users of
this service. When we make a change to our services we have over
100 drivers we must communicate information to. We also must deal
with our riders, many of whom don't speak much English. Changes
oftentimes create confusion. in this case it also fostered the
perception, on the customers part, that we really didn't know what
V)
the heck we were doing. This kind of approach erodes the
confidence that mass transit depends on to encourage usage.
My other major concern about allowing this approach to occur
is that it subverts the process that was agreed to up front, and
which was abided by with respect to all participants. A small and
vocal group of residents did not allow for input into the process
by.people whose neighborhoods would'be directly impacted by this
experiment. These same people have been demanding for years that
they be listened to. However, when that approach no longer suited
their needs they attempted to try a different approach, one that
did not allow for citizen input from others who would be directly
affected. This gives me great cause for concern and makes me
wonder why we even had a process in the first place.
SUGGESTION SUMMER 1995:
As is the case with all transit service, frequency and
simplicity encourage people to use it. It is our opinion that a
more frequent and understandable approach to serving the tent area
would increase usage on this route, and would decrease auto traffic
and congestion in this neighborhood. RFTA is ready and willing to
provide more frequent service to this area if that is the desire of
the City.
CONCLUSION; At this stage in the game we feel like we have all
done as much as is possible, with regards to minimizing bus and
auto impacts in the west end. RFTA and MAA are doing everything
we/they can do to provide an understandable and user friendly level
of service. This service benefits the west end by reducing auto
usage in this neighborhood.
RFTA will continue to work closely with the MAA to meet this
goal. We will continue to provide service to and from the tent,
within one half hour before and after each scheduled event that
requires service. We will leave this call up to the MAA.
The MAA is an important part of the Summer scene in Aspen.
All of us need to do everything we can to insure that our guests,
MAA students, and the needs of the community as a whole, are met.
OR
o
AsPEN Music FEsTIVAL
AND SCHOOL
hit INUG iffl"
Date: February 28, 1995
From: Edward P. Sweene
To: Robert Gish
Subject: P & Z Meeting: March 7, 1995
In follow-up to your memorandum of February 7, I would like to re -submit our memorandum
of October 19, 1994, as it accurately describes our observations of our 1994 Auto
Disincentive Program. I have therefore attached a copy of that memo for the packets for the
upcoming P&Z meeting.
Again, many thanks for your efforts throughout this lengthy process.
2 Music School Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • Phone 303.925.3254 Fax: 303.020.1643
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, INC.
Music Associates of Aspen �
MEMoxnxnuM
Date: October 199 1994
From; Robert Harth, President & CEO, M.A.
Edward P. Sweeney, Director of Op ons, M.A.
To: Robert Gish, Public Works Director, City of Aspen
Subject: 1994 Traffic Mitigation
Pursuant to exhaustive planning sessions in the Spring of 1994, M.A.A. implemented a
number of modifications to the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan. We feel that the
adjustments have been successful for the most part.
Specifically, this was the first season that our new parking lot configuration -was in place.
The new layout has proven to be a tremendous improvement. The internalized bus lane
significantly improves traffic circulation and parking on Gillespie Street while providing.
sufficient area for bus loading after concerts. One small problem is that the bus shelter is*too
far to the west. Patrons arriving on R.F.T.A..tend to cut directly across the parking lot rather
than use the provided walkway. This situation can be remedied by moving the actual pick-up
and drop-off area to the far eastern end of the bus lane. Also, a split -rail fence along the
north edge of the bus lane will help to discourage pedestrians from climbing over the parking
rails.
During the busy weekend concerts, we had two staff persons on duty in the parking lots.
Their duties included checking permits for the backstage lot, directing traffic through the
Gillespie Street lots, and closing those lots when they were full. It is essential that Gillespie
remain open to traffic and parking because, once our parking lots are full, Gillespie is the
only route that allows cars to circulate back for street parking. As in past years, we -did
experience problems with enforcement. Many drivers chose to ignore the signage and .the
instructions of our parking stall. "We are grateful for the tremendous support provided by the
Aspen Police Department.
While M.A.A. strongly supports the biennial review process of the Aspen Meadows Traffic
Mitigation Plan, it should be noted that there continues to be a number of "personal agenda"
issues which are detrimental to presenting a cohesive, consistent, and frequent mass transit
system to the public. While we are sensitive and sympathetic to neighbors'' concerns about
buses, if we are to provide the public with a transportation alternative to the automobile,
buses will have to go down streets in the West End to get to the Aspen Meadows. Although
the current routes, which have been studied extensively by M.A.A., R.F.T.A., the City of
Aspen, and concerned neighbors, work effectively and efficiently, there are people who live
on these streets who propose changing the bus routes for no cogent reason other than to get
Post Office Box AA, Aspen, Colorado 81612 303/'925-3254 Fair: 303/925-3802
Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. - Aspen Music Fesd%il & School
0'
the buses off "their" street, An example of this was towards the end of the recent season,
when there was a suggestion to return the bus stop to Gillespie Street. This suggestion was
prompted by individuals. who live on 5th Street and do not want the buses to go by their
homes. This proposal is in direct conflict with the original condition imposed by City
Council in the Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement. Further, it makes no sense to split the bus
stop between the bus lane in our parking lot and Gillespie Street. We would be putting our
transit patrons once again in conflict with automobiles, the very situation we corrected with
the new parking lot configuration.
Since the Creation of the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan in 1991, M.A.A. has been
successful .in increasing the use of public transportation to the Music Tent. In support of the
City's Auto -Disincentive Plan, we are getting people out of their cars and encouraging them to
walk to the Meadows or take the bus. Our 1994 audience survey shows that over 33% of our
patrons did not use an automobile to get to the Aspen Music Festival concerts. This
compares favorably to the recent A.C.R.A. survey of summer visitors which showed that over
80% of people visiting Aspen came by automobile.
We believe that we can improve on these numbers if we can provide frequent and reliable
service and respond to our patrons' complaints that we do not have adequate bus service.
This, of course, must be balanced with the need to be sensitive to our neighbors' concerns of
buses on the streets. We believe we have been successful in achieving the correct balance
and are proud that we have been able to reduce the number of bus trips through the West End
by some 75% while at the same time increasing ridership by 7 1/2%.
Finally, I would like to thank the City of Aspen for the countless hours of staff time devoted
to this process. Also, M.A.A. is grateful to the ongoing efforts of R.F.T.A. to provide an
efficient transit alternative to the automobile.
In conclusion, the biennial review of the Traffic Mitigation Plan has provided a useful forum
for new ideas and modifications to the original plan. We plan to work with these changes
during the coming season to track their effectiveness. We look forward to our next review in
1996.
cc:
City Manager
Mayor and City Council
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
R.F.T.A.
Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Review Committee
J1y- _o. ,
JAMES D. PETERSON
February 28, 1995
Mr. Bob Gish
Public Works Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: West End Traffic Mitigation
Dear Bob,
My wife and I support the MAA and appreciate the summer music festival which
is a wonderful asset to our community and personally an enjoyable event for us each year.
As a resident of the West End, I have been interested in potential solutions to
impacts of summer MAA bus traffic on the West End neighborhood. I recently attended
a committee meeting in which some very interesting points were made concerning
reducing the number of bus trips through the neighborhood based on ridership on certain
days and times.
I personally feel the problem is not so much the number of bus trips each day. The
problem is the noise and pollution impact as a result of the large diesel buses being an
inappropriate vehicle for use on quiet neighborhood streets.
The MAA needs a certain frequency of bus service to accommodate a varied
schedule of rehearsal times. A 1994 survey of ridership illustrates that many time slots
are serviced by large buses carrying very few riders.
I would like for the parties involved and the Planning Commission, while reviewing
this issue, to consider the following possible alternative solution which could provide
equal or increased frequency of service to the music tent:
A vehicle similar to the quieter, smaller 15 passenger Galena Street Shuttle would
be used to make continuous 10 minute loops through the West End (see red line route or
attached map.) The special music shuttle could be painted in a manner to identify it with
the music festival and be easily recognized by MAA students and concert -goers alike.
The shuttle could pick-up and drop-off at a stop on Main Street near the Sardy-Hotrs�a U_.;
pick-up and drop-ff at the music tent parking . lot
J
FEB 2 8 1S°5 1
POST OFFICE BOX IT14 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612. (303) 945-TS55
Mr. Bob Gish
February 28, 1995
Wage 2
Students from Marolt housing or concert -goers riding RFTA into Aspen heading
east on Main Street would exit at the Paepcke Park stop, walk across Main Street at the
Aspen Street traffic light and board the shuttle at the Sardy House stop. (See blue route
on attached map.) Students and concert -goers leaving the Ruby Park RFTA terminal
downtown would exit their bus at the Sardy House stop and board the music shuttle to the
music tent parking lot.
The concert buses with larger ridership could make direct trips from Ruby Park to
the MAA parking lot before concerts and return after the concerts. The shuttle could
continue its ten-minute loop consistently from 8:25 to 23:15 p.m.
The advantages would be:
1. The need for larger buses would be reduced for 80% - 90% of trips. Thereby
decreasing noise and exhaust pollution in the neighborhood.
2. MAA would be better serviced as the music shuttle could make more trips to and
from the parking lot at the tent.
3. Large concert demand would still be served by large buses for those events.
4. MAA would have a special vehicle identified with the summer festival.
5. Concert -goers could easily walk from the downtown core to the Sardy House
shuttle stop and walk back to town after the concert from the Sardy House stop
"y after the concert.
6. The open-air character of the shuttle vehicle is a more pleasant riding experience
in the summer than the large bus.
I am writing to present this as an option for consideration by the various interested
parties at the March 7, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as I will be out of town at that
time.
Enc.
Sincerely,
r
I
Is-
c
ul
CL
IL
k da
ID
4 1
rj 0
40
0
HOSHUVO
WIWA
3: 00 .1
00
0
z
00
0 "let
j _
z
0
Isw
0
9
To: Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission
From: West Side Traffic Committee
Date: February 28, 1995
On. March 7, 1995 members of the West Side Traffic Committee
are scheduled to come before the Planning & Zoning Commission
to discuss the status of the Aspen Meadows SPA Traffic Mitigation
Plan, specifically the MAA's portion of that plan.. However,
the SPA Traffic Mitigation Plan was designed to mitigate the
traffic through our neighborhood. We find the MAA and RFTA
proceeding contrary to the intent of the SPA and because of
their refusal to' even meet with us to discuss our findings
regarding unnecessary bus trips, we are making the following
request.
We request that before the Planning and Zoning Commission
arrives at a conclusion, that you request the MAA and RFTA to
meet with us along with an objective member of P & Z, to go over
the bus trip data that we have had compiled and mhnT yted.. by James
Daggs and Associates. Based on this computer analysis, we feel
some buses can be eliminated as RFTA is not living up to its
own directives shown on its trip sheets, that a bus must have
a minimum of 15 students riding before the bus can come through
the west side neighborhood for a tent drop off. We would like
to work toward reducing the number of buses traveling to and from
MAA facilities, (both the tent and Harris Hall) based on the
results of the ridership data compiled from RFTA trip sheets.
We suggest that Tim Mooney represent the Planning and Zoning
Commission in this meeting as he has volunteered in the past that
he would be willing to participate in such an evaluation.
W,
Page 2.
We have tried to work together with the MAA and RFTA
and participate in an end of the year analysis as directed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. This has not occurred and
we cask L. that you direct MAA and RFTA to meet with us with the
goal of further reducing minimal ridership buses through our
neighborhood.
Furthermore,. the solution to the noisy pol . lifting bus problem
would be quieter less polluting buses which were promised and
have not been forthcoming. We would suggest that under the .guidance
of the Planning and Zoning Commission that all parties involved
work toward procuring these quieter less polluting buses ct utilize
the quieter less polluting buses presently in the RFTA fleet.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.
cc: Bob Gish
4