HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930105
AGENDA
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 5, 1993; Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
2ND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
CITY HALL
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COfv1MENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Block Conditional Use Review, Kim Johnson (continued from
November 3, 1992)
B. Snare Residential GMP Scoring, Kim Johnson
C. UTR Zone District Text Amendment for Commercial Parking,
Kim Johnson
D. Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment, Diane Moore
IV. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
DATE: January 5, 1993
RE: Upcoming Agendas
Special Meeting - January 12th
AACP Endorsement - Joint meeting (CH)
Regular Meeting - January 19th
Common Ground Housing Subdivision, Stream Margin Review & Special
Review (LL)
Rio Grande Subdivision (LL)
Zaluba 8040 Greenline Wall Amendment (LL)
Thalberg Conditional Use Review for a 2nd Dwelling (KJ)
Regular Meeting - February 2nd
Text Amendment for Trellises in Open Space (KJ)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Katia Stringfield, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the agent of Savanah Ltd. Partnership, the applicant in connection with
a PUD Amendment request for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
and an amendment to the text of the Aspen Land Use Regulations which are
the subject of public hearings by the Aspen Planning `nd Zoning
Commission on January 5, 1993
2. I complied with the notice requirements of Sec. 6-205(E) of the Aspen
Municipal Code by the mailing of notice to property owners within 300 feet
of the subject property on or before December 21, 1992.
3. The foregoing statements are true of my own
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
7�ler nal knowledge.
/ `
A.at ' tr' gfield
a Ltd. P to rship
ast Coope e, Suite 200
►spen, Colora 81611
The foregoing Affidavit of Katia Stringfield was acknowledged before me this
4th day of January,1992.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: � 1 J-q l Q1
OTAR PUBLIC
Address:
I, Joseph Wells, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the agent of Savanah Ltd. Partnership, the applicant in connection with
a PUD Amendment request for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
and an amendment to the text of the Aspen Land Use Regulations which are
the subject of public hearings by the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission on January 5, 1993.
2. I complied with the notice requirements of Sec. 6-205 (E) of the Aspen
Municipal Code by posting of the notices illustrated on the attached
photographs on the subject property on December 23, 1992.
3. The foregoing statements are true of my
-,,Joseph /Wells
.'' 602 Midland Park Place
s
Aspen, Colorado 81611
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Affidavit of Joseph Wells was acknowledged before me this
4th day of January, 1992.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: � /�1 Iq q
J- 5� n L--
NOTARY 14JBLIC
Address:
-0?(,Q,�
U
November 24, 1992
Mr. Dave Tolen
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office
Delivered by FAX to 920-5580
Dear Dave:
Since there has been some confusion about the revisions to the employee
generation figures included in the Ritz -Carlton PUD Amendment
application, I thought it would be helpful to restate the figures another way to
try to clarify.
Under the original approvals granted in 1985 (Roberts), 447 lodge units were
approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD.This total included 172
lodge GMQS allocations and 275 replacement lodge units. When this
approval was amended as spelled out in the First Amended and Restated PUD
Agreement, the maximum number of lodge units was reduced to 342 (292 in
Phase I, or Lot 1, and 50 in Phase II, or Lot 5). This reduction in the total
number of lodge units permitted in the PUD had the effect of reducing the
lodge GMQS allocations for the project from 172 to 77, since the buildout
could be accomplished with these 77 allocations and the 275 replacement
units. Nonetheless, when we recalculated the employee generation figures for
inclusion in Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
we retained the original allocation of 172. In the calculations of employee
generation from lodge operations, the balance of the Phase I buildout of 292
lodge units was therefore made up of 120 of the replacement lodge units as
reflected in Exhibit B.
In the 1992 Amended PUD Submission or Lot 1, the ma nubuildo for
lodge units has been further reduced to (257 in Phase I, or Lot 1, ani 2% in
Phase II, or Lot 5). When we recalculated the employee generation figures for
the project for inclusion in the new application (page 13), we retained the
same format as Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
but we decided to acknowledge that some of the original lodg allocation of
172 could not be utilized because of the reductions yin the ) 2- buildout
of lodge units permitted in the PUD. The rnxxr buildout in the PUD can
be achieved with the 275 replacement units and odge QS allocations.
TherefoWcodge
he 257 lodge units in Phase I is made up of replacement units
and the GMQS allocations; this is reflected in the chart on the top of
page 14 of the application, which deals only with Phase I lodge units.
Mr. Dave Tolen
page 2
To some extent, these generation calculations are unimportant because of the
audit which will ultimately establish the actual employee generation of the
project: in addition, the owner's original commitment to house 198.5 has
been maintained in the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you still
have questions about the calculations, however.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
cc: Dianne Moore
Perry Harvey
Ferd Belz
Under Ordinance 12, Series of 1991, Savanah is obligated to provide housing for two
additional employees for the Ice Rink and Park approved for Lot 6, and for a third
additional employee if food service is provided. These additional employees will be
housed in deed -restricted rooms in the Grand Aspen as provided for in the
ordinance.
The First Amended PUD Agreement (Section E) requires that the affordable housing
obligation for Hotel Phase II (or Lot 5), if any, be established by an amendment
process, based on the final development program for Hotel Phase II. Existing
development on Lot 5 presently includes a 155 unit full -service hotel with
conference, restaurant and bar facilities. In all probability, reconstruction on Lot 5
will result in a dramatic decrease in employee generation. Nonetheless, the amount
will be established in a future amendment. The affordable housing obligation for
the 8 residential GMQS units in Hotel Phase II will also be established in the
amended Submission for Lot 5. The remaining residential units in the PUD,
including those to be utilized in the development program for Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
are replacement units; the affordable housing obligation associated with all of the
replacement residential units, which was established under the original PUD
Agreement at 29 to be housed, was reaffirmed under the First Amended PUD
Agreement (Exhibit B).
In order to establish the revised employee generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena
Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing resulting from the addition of
residential units sought by this amendment request, the same factors used in
Exhibit B of the First Amended PUD Agreement have been applied to the existing
development and to the remainder of the proposal: ,
di Arle1
l
1. Lodge Operation:
New lodge rooms (229) 229
New 1-BR Suites (26) 26
New 2-BR Suites (2) 4
'Total Bedrooms (257 units) 259*
Living Rooms Q 25% 7
Total Rooms 266
Employees per lodge room .36
Employee generation 95.76
13
Existing lodge rooms being rebuilt
(257 units les allocations)
m
Employees per .20
p
Em loyYee credit :6 ' 25. o
Net new employees x5546 ?a. r
GMQS employees housed 60%
Employees to be housed 431.&'47'.4,
* The number of hotel bedrooms is two greater than the number of hotel units
because of the second bedroom in the two Ritz -Carlton suites.
2. Accessory Food and Beverage:
New restaurant sq.ft. (net)
New lounge sq.ft. (net)
New kitchen sq.ft. (net)
Subtotal, New food & beverage sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
3. Accessory Retail:
New net leaseable retail sq.ft.
Employee per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing net leasable retail sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
4. Non -Accessory Commercial GMQS, Phase I:
New retail
Employee per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
14
3,713
3,163
4,441
11,317
12.8
114.86
4,900
9.0
44.1
100.76
60%
60.46
5,770
3.5
20.2
700
3.5
2.5
17.7
60%
10.6
0
3.5
0
0
5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4):
Population of unrestricted units
4 3-BRs Q 3.0/du (58%) 12.0
Employees to be housed (42%) 8.7
6. Employee Housing Replacement:
Employees to be housed 29.0
Summary of Employees to be Housed:
1. Lodge Operations -334-- .�
2. Accessory Food & Beverage 60.5
3. Accessory Retail 10.6
4. Non -Accessory Commercial GMQS 0.0
5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4) 8.7
6. Replacement Housing 29.0
Total, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement �9
Employees to be Housed
The revisions to the program proposed in this application for the Ritz -Carlton site
result in a net reduction in full-time equivalent employment from 247.5 to 214.6, or
32.9 employees from that approved under the First Amended PUD Agreement.
This is consistent with the compromise arrived at with the City (which led to the
adoption of the First Amended PUD Agreement) to develop a program for the PUD
which would result in significantly reduced hotel rooms and amenities and
therefore reduced impacts on the community. At 60% to be housed, the credit to the
overall PUD obligation is 19.6 employees to be housed.
Although the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit
Place and Replacement Housing within the PUD is reduced by 19.6 employees to
141.9, Savanah is nonetheless maintaining its prior commitment to house 198.5, as
well as to house 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz -Carlton in
excess of 330.8, if any, to be determined by the audit procedure established in the
First Amended PUD Agreement.
C Effect of the proposal on required parking:
Under paragraph B(6) of the First Amended PUD Agreement, 220 subgrade
spaces are required to be provided on Lot 1 for the approved 294 lodge
15
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Block Conditional Use for a Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Continued Public Hearing
DATE: January 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this
item on November 3, 1992. The Commission decided to continue to
hearing to January 5, 1993 in order to allow City Council to
consider the request for Landmark Designation prior to the
Commission's final determination of the conditional use request.
Another Commission concern was the parking reduction on the parcel.
On December 8, 1992, Roxanne Eflin reported to the Commission that
the Council approved Landmark Designation on first reading, and
requested that the Commission leave the conditional use
continuation set for the January 5, 1993 date. The Commission
consented to this schedule.
On December 23, 1992, the Historic Preservation Committee approved
a Final Development Plan for 311 North Street. The applicant had
altered his plan to include on -site all parking required by the
land use regulations (1 space per bedroom). Attached is the staff
memo from Roxanne Eflin to the HPC, including the revised site plan
showing six parking spaces. Also attached is the Planning staff
memo from the November 3, 1992 meeting. Another concern voiced
by the Commission was that the proposed addition is 6.5' from the
site lot line. Staff must re -iterate that this setback meets the
code requirements.
Based on the revised parking plan, and the compliance with the
review criteria for Conditional Uses, staff continues to recommend
approval of the Block duplex at 311 North Street with the following
conditions first listed in the November 3, 1992 Planning memo:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run-off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R-6 zone shall be
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4 ) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu amount as calculated at the
time of issuance of building permit for the amount of FAR
increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment shall be made to
the City Finance Department for deposit in the ordinance 1
account. A copy of the payment receipt must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform to setback requirements
or receive a variance.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 1/5/93."
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Block Conditional Use for a- Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Public Hearing
DATE: November 3, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a 1,884 s.f. second dwelling unit to be
attached to the existing dwelling, creating a duplex on a lot of
7,500 s.f. with conditions. The structure is being concurrently
considered as an historic landmark. Official designation must be
obtained in order for this conditional use to become effective.
APPLICANT: Beate and Martin Block, represented by Jim Weaver
LOCATION: 311 North St., Lots 3,4 and 1/2 of 5, Block 40 of
Hallam's Addition
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of an additional 1,884 s.f. 3 bedroom dwelling
unit to create a duplex. 'dotal FAR, including the existing 3
bedroom residence, will be approximately 3,300 s.f. Duplexes are
allowed on lots as small as 6,000 s.f. if the parcel is a
designated historic landmark. Landmark designation is being
requested concurrently with this conditional use. The applicant
has submitted floor plans and elevation drawings. See Attachment
"A"
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"B "
Housing: The creation of the new dwelling unit requires compliance
with Ordinance 1, the housing replacement ordinance. In order for
a cash -in -lieu payment to be deferred, the resident must qualify
as a working resident or as a senior citizen who is a former
working resident.
Engineering:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run-off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
2) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R-6 zone is one
space per bedroom, or six on -site parking spaces. If the
7
parcel obtains landmark designation and subsequent parking
reductions, It is recommended that the maximum number of
,,spaces be included in the existing parking area.
3) The second unit will require a separate water meter. Other
utilities may require separate metering also.
Zoning: The rear deck appears to conform to the setback, but the
stairs appear to encroach and need a variance.
STAFF COMMENTS: This proposed unit will create a duplex, which is
allowed on this 7,500 s.f. lot only if the property is designated
as an historic landmark. A non -designated parcel in the R-6 zone
must contain at least 8,000 s.f. in order to develop a duplex. The
landmark hearings are being held concurrently with the conditional
use hearing. The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: If this property receives landmark designation, the
duplex allowance provides incentive to retain structures which
contribute to Aspen's heritage.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The duplex use is compatible with the other residential
uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The design of the new unit
must be in harmony with the original Herbert Bayer house, and must
receive approval from the Historic Preservation Committee.
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.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the owners to live in the
new unit and their family (children and grand children) to occupy
the original unit when visiting. A total of six bedrooms will
result from the proposal. Parking spaces were not shown on the
site plan, but staff calculates that 5 spaces would fit on the
gravel driveway within the property boundaries. The Applicant must
locate one more on -site space or reduce the bedrooms on the
2
71 L
property. The HPC may grant a variance for one space based on
historical compatibility. There are no other adverse impacts
anticipated by this proposal.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing home and neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: As a current out-of-state resident, the applicant
apparently does not meet the residency requirements for deferral
of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu payment for the new dwelling
unit. The dollar amount for the. new 1,884 s.f. unit is $15,693.72
and must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
----------------------------
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a duplex on a lot of 7,500 s. f. in the R-6 zone
with the following conditions:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run-off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R-6 zone shall be
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4 ) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu amounalculated at
FAR increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment
4 ? l�y� 3
shall be made to the City Finance Department for deposit in
the Ordinance 1 account. A copy of the payment receipt must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform to setback requirements
or receive a variance.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 11/3/92."
b ►. Uu�^^'( �t, Cx '' ��-�-s! . t�c� -7�Z t �i'l�tti._A
1 /
c„ Z
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
4
REFERRAL COMMENTS: A summary of City Engineer and Parks Department
comment is as follows. Complete memos are attached as Exhibit "B" .
Engineering: Engineering would have some concern about snow and
rain drainage into public rights -of -way. No encroachments shall
be involved. Open framing is preferable shade than canvas, but
canvas coverings may be employed for 90 days during the summer.
Special Review is appropriate place for consideration of these type
of details.
Parks: Umbrellas are more suitable for shade because they are
isolated to tables and are removable. They also provide better
rain protection than an open trellis structure. A trellis with
vines may invite the same insect problem as the trees at the
Cantina location. Staff sees no benef it to the proposed amendment.
Historic Preservation: On January 13, 1993, the HPC discussed the
proposal to provide referral comments to the Planning Office. The
Board was overwhelmingly in support of the concept. The following
individual statements were made:
1. Umbrellas are difficult shade protectors - either you're in full
shade or in full sun. A varied approach to dealing with the sun
should be sought.
2. Rain can cause problems with dining - allow detachable canvas
covers to be used with the framework. Be flexible to enhance
function and creativity.
3. The structure itself must be architecturally exciting on its
own.
4. Under the old parachute at the Epicure (now the Cantina) was the
most delightful space to sit and eat. Structures should be non-
permanent (a reversible situation can add to flexibility and
changing creativity). Use of glass/plastic tops should be allowed.
5. We want to see these type of structures used in any application,
not just al fresco dining.
6. Operative words are "open -sided", "translucent (light
emitting)", "landscape & garden oriented structure". Avoid the
noun "trellis", or town will be invaded with inappropriate
trellises.
PROCESS: An amendment to the Land Use regulations in the Municipal
Code requires a two-step review: recommendation by the Planning
Commission and final adoption via ordinance adoption by the City
Council.
If the Commission determines that review of proposed structures
should be handled under Special Review by the Commission, staff
3
recommends that Special Review for the Cantina's proposal occur at
this time. Special Review standards are attached as Exhibit "C".
Implementation of the approval would become effective upon final
adoption of the text amendments by City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff and the HPC recommend that the new text
apply to any open space, not only commercial outdoor dining. Small
seating areas facing south would be likely candidates for such
"landscape / garden -oriented" shade structures. The most likely
types of review for these structures are: administrative - through
Engineering, Planning and Zoning staff; HPC for historic parcels
or within historic overlay districts; HPC, becuase of the design
related issues, for parcles that are not within historic overlay
districts or historic parcels; or P&Z via Special Review, such as
reviews for restaurant use in open space. In addition to
architectural design, any review must consider operational
characteristics such as drainage, snow shedding, encroachments, and
shading.
Keeping with the efforts to streamline application processes and
reduce caseload for the P&Z, staff proposes that administrative
review is adequate except for the historic parcels or overlays.
However, staff is not particularly able to make difficult design
decisions. Projects within an Historic Overlay area would still
require HPC approval. As an alternative, staff could elicit
referral comments from the HPC on design issues for administrative
reviews. If an applicant opposed conditions imposed by an
administrative approval, a logical appeal process would be through
the P&Z. These alternatives should be discussed by both the P&Z
and HPC.
In light of HPC's comments, the Planning office forwards the
following language for consideration:
Section 3-101 (definitions):
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections
above ground level such as building eaves, and light -
penetrating landscape or garden -oriented structures) and shall
include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state,
as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways,
fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual
relief from the mass of the buildings."
Section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review)"
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
4
a
OATES, H UGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 2
December 4, 1992
may be installed in required open space in
conjunction with commercial restaurant uses where
the effect thereof (i) does not appreciably impact the
view into the open space from the street at the
pedestrian level, (ii) maintains visual relief from the
mass of adjacent buildings, and (iii) does not
otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of
the open space.
Background
This request is made on behalf of The Chitwood Plaza Company, a Colorado
general partnership, the owner of The Cantina Restaurant located at 411 East Main Street,
Aspen.
The Cantina Restaurant contains approximately 4,207 square feet of indoor space
and 759 square feet in a courtyard between the restaurant and the walkway that affords access
to and egress from the Pour La France restaurant next door. The indoor capacity of the
restaurant, disbursed among 34 tables, is 130 people. The courtyard accommodates 7 tables
with seating for 30 individuals.
Presently, during the summer months only, the courtyard is used to accommodate
diners. This use of the courtyard has never resulted in an actual increase in the number of
dining patrons. Rather, when weather permits, diners tend to fill up the courtyard first and,
thereafter, begin seating inside. Never in the history of the restaurant operation have both the
courtyard and the inside seating been filled to capacity.
Initially, shade from the sun in the courtyard area was afforded through several
large potted trees. These proved to be unworkable because of aphid infestation and were
replaced with umbrellas. A trellis -like apparatus, along the lines of that shown on the
accompanying drawings, in place of the umbrellas would not only accommodate and preserve
the essential qualities of open space but will result in far preferable aesthetics from the
pedestrian level than the several umbrellas. An umbrella is just that - an umbrella. Its use is
essentially restricted to function. As the accompanying drawings show, a trellis or similar
apparatus can be made architecturally far more compatible with surrounding buildings, can better
accommodate a more sophisticated landscape plan and can, thus, enhance the open space
experience for the public.
W
OATES, H UGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 3
November 24, 1992
Review Standards
The review standards set forth in the Land Use Code for map or textual
amendments to Chapter 24 appear to relate primarily to map amendments. In any event, with
respect to those review standards we offer the following:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portion of Chapter 24.
Response: The proposed amendment seeks to expand features that might
be incorporated into required open space and, to that extent, conflicts with
existing provisions (i.e. Section 3-101, definition of open space, subpart
J thereof) in this regard. We have been unable to find any other portions
or provisions of Chapter 24 with which the proposed amendment conflicts.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Yes
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment contemplates review and approval
under Section 7-401, et seq. of the Land Use Code which will insure
compatibility of any use proposal with existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that
might be incorporated into required open space, not to eliminate open
space, and only after special review approval. The proposed amendment
would not appear to have any impact whatsoever on traffic generation, and
l�
OATES, H UGHES & KNEZEViCH, P. C.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 4
November 24, 1992
any effect upon road safety in a given instance could be addressed during
special review.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to
which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such
public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment would not result in any increased
demands upon public facilities.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that
might be incorporated into required open space within building improved
environments, as opposed to the natural environment. Moreover, the
proposed amendment would facilitate more ambitious landscape plans
within required open space and conduce the incorporation of more natural
and vegetative materials into the building environment - a highly desirable
objective.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character and the City of Aspen.
Response: The proposed amendment, particularly given the requirement
of special review and, as applicable HPC review, would not foster any
inconsistencies with the community character of the City. And, because
of the increased landscaping flexibility the proposed amendment would
foster, the public's open space experience ought to be enhanced.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
OATES, H uGHEs & KMEZEVtCH, P. C.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 5
November 24, 1992
Response: Not applicable.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is drafted such that the qualitative
features of open space (i. e. view from pedestrian level) must be preserved.
To this extent there would not appear to be any conflict with the public
interest.
We look forward to discussing this request with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council at the earliest possible agenda times.
Accompanying this letter are:
a. The completed Land Use Application Form;
b. The check of the applicant in the amount of $1,002.00 to
cover the filing fee;
C. A disclosure of ownership of the property on which The
Cantina Restaurant is situate; and
d. An 8-1/2 X 11 vicinity map locating The Cantina restaurant
parcel within the City of Aspen.
e. The letter of the Applicant confirming its representatives
authorized to act on its behalf in connection with the
application.
Let us know if there is anything further with which we might supply you.
13
1Cu
swam
goal
V7
74 1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 01-6n r APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office ;-
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Directo
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: January 5, 1993
RE: Text Amendment for Open Space as Requested by the
Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company
Upon review of the request for a textual change to the definition
of open space as detailed in the Aspen Land Use Code, chapter 24,
section 3-101, I would recommend against any change to the
definition. As stated in the code, open space is defined as "any
portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or
unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of
permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above
ground level)...". The request to include trellis -like structures
in the definition, as requested by the Chitwood Plaza Company,
significantly alters the original intent of the definition of
"unobstructed from ground to sky". Additionally, an eave only
projects a maximum of 1-2 feet into an open space area, whereas
the trellis would cover the entire area of open space. A trellis
is also a permanent structure. Umbrellas are much more suitable
and compatible with the open space of the Cantina outdoor seating
because they are isolated with the individual tables and are
removable structures. Additionally, a trellis would most likely
provide less protection from the elements due to the open slats
between the frame structure. An umbrella provides at least some
protection during a light rain. I do not see the landscape benefit
of the trellis to the open space. If the intent of the trellis is
to grow vines, then the Cantina may be setting up the same type of
problem they had with the trees, insect infestation.
This request can set an unnecessary precedent for permanent
structures in open space. While a trellis can allow for an open
feeling to the outdoor seating, I would recommend against amending
the code for trellis -like structures in open space. I do not see
the benefits of the structure to warrant an amendment to the code.
8
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 67�!_
Date: January 15, 1993
Re: Text Amendment to Open Space
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
The Engineering Department has no objection to the text amendment proposal. As we
discussed, we would be concerned at the time of Special Review about snow and rain
being drained onto the public rights -of -way. We would want to be certain that no
encroachment into the public rights -of -way is involved.
In the apparent spirit of open space, it might be preferable for the patio shade covering
to be limited to open, "trellis -like" or lattice framing rather than a solid covering such as
canvas. On the other hand, canvas type structures might be employed more on a seasonal
basis, being in place for only the 90 days of the summer season, with the open space truly
open for the remainder of the year.
In any event, I am sure that details of particular situations can be worked out during the
Special Review process.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
1V193.I
l�
PLANNING i ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT of 0 , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7-404
Sec. 7-403. Applicability.
Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special
review in Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3.
Sec. 7-404. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be
approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compat-
ible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent
with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not
limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
3. For the reduction of required open space in the Commercial Core (CC) zone
district only, the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the
required amount of open space on -site will be more consistent with the character
of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to
the standard.
As general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account the following. It may
be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a
street corner, or the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian ameni-
ties, or the open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an
adjacent historic landmark, or the open space is intended for a particular func-
tional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. It may be
inappropriate to have open space on the site when other buildings along the
street front are built to the property line, especially along public malls, or when
the open space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public purpose.
When the commission determines open space is inappropriate on the site, it may
reduce or waive the requirement if the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu
according to the following formula:
"Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the percentage of the
site required to be open space which is to be developed, equals value of payment."
The appraised value of the property shall be determined by the submission of a
current appraisal performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser.
The payment -in -lieu of open space shall be due and payable at the time of
Supp. No. 1
1697
§ 7-404
ASPEN CODE
issuance of a building permit. All funds collected shall be transferred by the
building inspector to the finance director, for deposit in a separate interest
bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purchase or
development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or
adjacent to the Commercial Core (CC) zone district.
Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present
owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the
fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid,
unless the council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific
project, in which case the council may extend the time period by up to three (3)
more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the
finance director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year
from the date payment was received.
For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the
basis of the first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made
for a project for which a building permit is cancelled, due to noncommencement
of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the
finance director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of the
building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn state-
ment that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the
dated receipt issued for payment of the fee.
When the HPC approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into
required open space, such that the amount of open space on -site is reduced below
that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived.
4. For the Residential/Multi-Family (R./MF) zone district only, increases in external
floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of Article
5, Division 7, Replacement Housing Program. To obtain the increase, the appli-
cant shall demonstrate a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the additional floor area
allowed is used to increase the size of the affordable housing units beyond the
minimum size standards of the city's housing designee and the development
complies with the standards of Section 7-404 A.1. and 2.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by special review,
the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are
met.
1. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (0), Commercial Lodge
(CL) or Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone districts, the applicant shall make
a one-time only payment -in -lieu of parking to the city, in the amount of fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per space required, based on the cost for such spaces
stated in the report entitled "Physical and Financial Conceptual Design for Two
Parking Facilities for the City of Aspen" prepared by RNL Facilities Corporation.
Approval of the payment -in -lieu shall be at the option of the commission. In
Supp. No. 1
1*:1:3
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: February 2, 1993
RE: Rio Grande Subdivision
SUMMARY: The City seeks subdivision approval for the Rio Grande
property. Subdivision is necessary for two primary reasons: past
legal descriptions and surveys have not been accurate and a
subdivision plat will clarify ownership; the City would like to
exchange portions of the land within the Rio Grande SPA with the
County and potentially adjacent property owners and the Municipal
Code prohibits the exchange or sale of land that has not been first
subdivided. -
Attached for your review is the proposed subdivision plat, Exhibit
A.
Staff recommends approval of this application.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
LOCATION: Rio Grande property between the Roaring Fork River and
Pitkin County Courthouse and the alley in block 86.
ZONING: Public with SPA overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision to create parcels for exchange.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering - The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to create
parcels with existing development so land may be exchanged and
ownership issues resolved.
The existing development on the Rio Grande Property has already
provided the infrastructure improvements that would be required of
a normal subdivision. Asphalt streets, concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, trails, street lights, trees, undergrounding of aerial
utilities have all been performed. The property has been partially
monumented with survey monuments, and the monumentation of the
boundaries will be completed in the spring.
A subdivision plat has been prepared which meets the requirements
of the Municipal Code.
PROCESS: Subdivision is a two step review. The Commission shall
make a recommendation to Council regarding this proposal.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Background - Over the years, the City has obtained pieces of the
Rio Grande property through various transactions. The surveying
and legal descriptions for the various parcels have not been very
accurate. A subdivision plat will define ownership boundaries
which will help future planning efforts for the property.
The City would like to exchange certain portions of the land within
the Rio Grande SPA with the County. At this time the City and
County contemplate the following transactions: (1) The City will
convey the library parcel to the County. (2) The City will convey
title to the property north of the County Jail for future expansion
of the Jail (which would require a GMQS Exemption review process).
( 3 ) The County will convey to the City the property upon which the
municipal parking facility has been constructed. (4) The County
will convey to the City the portion of the land within the County
Courthouse Subdivision upon which the Youth Center has constructed
a building.
Certain land area of the Rio Grande parcel is being used for
parking by the tenants of the Bass/Obermeyer buildings. The City
may wish to formalize discussions with those property owners and
either exchange, sell or lease the property. According to the
Municipal Code, no land may be exchanged, sold or leased without
prior subdivision approval.
No additional development is proposed for the Rio Grande SPA.
Subdivision Review Standards - Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C.1., the
General Requirements for subdivision are as follows:
1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: Previous development on the parcel has been consistent
with the conceptual SPA master plan for the Rio Grande parcel and
individual final SPA development plans. The proposed subdivision
is not inconsistent with staff's current work on the Rio Grande
conceptual SPA plan.
(b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The intent of the subdivision is to complete
transactions that were initiated during the development of the
various public activities on the Rio Grande parcel. In addition,
the ability to clear up title on the property surrounding the
Bass/Obermeyer buildings is not intended to change the operating
characteristics of that area.
2
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The subdivision will define parcels that are already
developed for the purpose of exchange (see Exhibit A). The small
parcels surrounding the Bass/Obermeyer buildings are too small to
support separate development but could add to the size of the
Bass/Obermeyer parcels and apply to future development. Yet that
would depend upon whether the lots are sold/exchanged or leased to
adjacent property owners.
The land area between Rio Grande Drive north to the river has been
identified as one parcel. Future development will be reviewed
based upon the recommendations of the conceptual SPA plan, and will
not be affected by the subdivision. In fact an accurate property
boundary will help future development decisions.
(d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the
requirements of this chapter. Although some of the created parcels
are small, dimensional requirements in the Public zone district
are established by conceptual and final development plans. The
conceptual and final SPA plans for the first phase of the Rio
Grande property (Library, garage, and Youth Center) set the
development parameters for those parcels. Future discussions
regarding the small parcels around the Bass/Obermeyer buildings
will consider consistencies with past and current Rio Grande master
planning efforts.
The code prohibits subdivision without first obtaining development
rights for newly created parcels. However the only parcels created
of any size have already been developed (Library, garage, Youth
Center) except for the large parcel between the road and river and
the parcel across from the Eagles Club. Those parcels may
eventually be developed based upon the conceptual SPA plan and most
likely exempt from GMQS. The rest of the parcels are too small to
realize individual development.
Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. 2 - 5, the pertinent subdivision
requirements are as follows:
2. (a) Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not
be located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock
slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
3
RESPONSE: There are no natural hazards that exist on the site that
would endanger the current or proposed activities.
(b) Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the subdivision is to clear up
inefficiencies in land ownership and correct inaccuracies in
property boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Rio Grande
subdivision with the following condition:
1. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be filed with the Clerk
and Recorder within 180 days of final approval.
3. Any future development or exchange of the newly created parcels
shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council approval of
the Rio Grande subdivision with conditions 1, 2 & 3 listed in
Planning Office memo dated February 2, 1993.
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Subdivision Plat
4
�a
PLANNING & 0N S S ION
ti. EXHIBIT
19
BY
MILL
S'
4, 82.23 4 86.79' r N 19
q3o ,► o r 21
..� m I w w
I
�,...— ,99'£91 „6b,0S o* I N ; ,°7 = > ? /T 'k +O 1 01
m, o
O c -+ a O,-1 O:
I 0 �� �,
I =
1Lo 01 w►
N Dad- ^' w 1 on m, \� . .
.
�' ►� I
rmr N 1 m w ----- ! o f
w --rL { J 0o I Cl O
mw
O w 1 wN
z m-
a m0 ° yrb.• y; 1 ao' C!'q 0/o'pp, n10�a /
In ire, mo 0
> CDO C '►' '►' 1 5 0.2 6 q3 /p , �o ►n u /
o m a�°4o``.0`+ i N N14050'49"E R�So 9, 5S5, m O G0 o
m r 1 io 5 6.00' py .� atm 0 / u
z x £ I 9b I ► ,0z -. 1.3 /! ry A. 0 o
i _' _ I� q
0 ----- .. _ � fps �r O / .4
ru
z
N s -► o u u 2r m
O o • aLo 0OD IPA va,
i
4 /
/ / O
wr / N o
y 0 /
uv /
61'£8 M„6b,090bIS N N w N
a N
N J T °''
3 /
1S -
v' AU
Z914L
M 809ZobIS
y 1 ( N
,p(4,� r \\
you O
W al 0,
O> 00
4, Y ♦ C
�r w
� 2
Vn 0
' -r
41 rr C
i
i
i
OO N N
-s O�
v K
O m
0 u a
s �
O N
N � �
- m �
xm
K
O Z
r O'" o
0
w
my
m;
GO E p ,+,
w m
xz
m�
a0mDo00
iZ
v Z C m z ZC
C =
A
w
W
m ; ;
O
A
a
o
m C -zi z
m m VI
v
m 0 n Z w ;
z
m
Z Tim a 0
- -� A Z
-�
D
•8rKr
P4 rH
az
w �
C O
O C
vz
L �
w
00
zm
Z
m
A
z
1\ \ 1
It \1
`►'
m
00
f
1
%.
\
4 1
1
�
\� cp
►'
Z
w
N
%0,4
\ a
0
tiu;'
LIM
OD
� �
// r
o
0,
/
9A
/
5f<'b6
I
JC.99 OF 151�
v
'O
0
v
A
A
n+
V,
W p.
s
ci
r Z C
w
0 4
1
O
1
LOT I LOT I
16 7 00,
i
EDGE -
Cq OF RIVER
s330 S N670 33'W 92.341
p, S0
F 00 00 II w, � 1
)T 8* O eSp S 47009'OOl,yy �38' �2 � �0\
0� 36.95
,I73019'31"W 149.90, S40op4�00"E,46.73I
N 16049' 23 E
45.75' kp N64059-54 N6q°ag5g„
yy w
0 9.49 23C
KL US OBERMEYER O
0
E LOT 9* 0,
N 140 5049 �:
37.96
LOT 3
A = 92.24' CREEKTREE SUB[
3 4( R :409.26'
CD- 0 40 6 --12054 47
co N. 66 4 ��,C.8?N51021'51 W
O N
0'. % O4' w C.L=92.04'
Z
6LEEKER ST.
LOT 2 (n �------
BLOCK 21
OUX- LYNCH BLOCK 20 _ 1
3DIVISION EAST ASPEN EAST ASPEN
TOWNSITE z TOWNSITC
c
-D DURING CONSTRUCTION
;CED IN THE SPRING OF 1 993.
-E SU6DIVISIOtj PLATS
131E6
CRETE MONUMENT
_R 13166
,_ R EUETTNER 13166 WC
-no
WA
4$
�e y
ti •O
O
Ol
W
�
O
0
o �
w
N
;
z N 33o
s3,
ID
,;n
kor
E
t29o�
0 Zoe
4
0
so. �.
W
�
� o
O W
N
O cG
o
0 0
N
w
N
W
N Ri
O �
t11
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
._ - _.:� ` —' 7 ,l' SST `• ;� _s �..._�
i
V13 1i
On the day of December, 1992, I posted on the property
known as 111 West Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado, a Notice of the
hearing on January 5, 1993, before the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion concerning the application of WILLIAM D. SNARE for one resi-
dential unit, Residential GMQS Allotment.
WarrAi Sheridan
6
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1700 BROADWAY • SUITE xwx 720
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEPHONE (303) 861 •7055
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The enclosed list was prepared by Aspen Title Corpor lion,
order No. A92-050. It shows all.owners of property within'3.0
feet of the development parcel owned by applicant, Will amz D. Snare.
I certify that on December 9, 1992, a copy of the Public
Notice furnished by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen,
Colorado was mailed to each of the 71 owners listed therein by first
class U. S. mail, postage pre -paid.
William M. Griffith,,
Attorney and Personal Represen-
tative of applicant:
William D. Snare
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning
RE: 111 W. Hyman Avenue - 1992 Residential Growth Management
Scoring for One Unit (public hearing), Growth Management
Exemption for One Affordable Housing Unit
DATE: January 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office has scored this project and finds
that it meets the minimum thresholds established in the residential
growth management section of the land use regulations. The
Commission may choose to either adopt staff ' s score or score the
project itself. This is the only residential Growth Management
submission for 1992. A minimum of 6 units are available for
allocation.
APPLICANT: William D. Snare, represented by William Griffith
LOCATION/ZONING: 111 W. Hyman Avenue (Lot G and 1/2 Lot F,
Block 61) R-MF (Residential/Multi-Family)
PROCESS: The Commission shall arrive at a score for this project,
review the GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing unit, and the
forward the findings to City Council. Council grants the growth
management allocation and the exemption through ordinance adoption
procedures.
BACKGROUND: This one unit is the last of four units to be
configured as two duplexes. The other three units were constructed
in 1981 as growth management exemptions resulting from the lot
split of the parcel. The proposed free market unit contains a
garden -level one bedroom deed restricted apartment, as does the
existing residence on the site. Please refer to application
package,`and Exhibit "A" which amends the original submission.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"B". A summary of highlights are as follows:
Water:
1) Sufficient supplies exist for this project.
2) A new tap fee will be required for the new half of the duplex
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) Design, materials and construction shall be in accordance with
the standards of the City of Aspen.
1
Electric•
1) The single phase transformer adjacent to this property may have
to be upgraded upon review of the load profile of this building.
Fire Marshal:
1) No comments at this time.
Housing Office•
1) Category 1 deed restriction is acceptable.
2) Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant must
file a deed restriction with the county clerk/recorder.
3) The mechanical room for the principal dwelling cannot be
accessed through the employee unit as the unit has to be a
completely private unit.
Sanitation District:
1) Sufficient capacity is available for this project.
2) A shared service line agreement may be required if the duplex
shares a common service line.
3) A pro -rated surcharge will be applied for downstream
constraints.
Environmental Health:
1) The provision of employee housing close to the employment center
of town will have potential benefits for air quality.
2 ) The proposed wood burning fireplace does not conform to Aspen's
fireplace regulations. The duplex as a whole will be evaluated for
allowed number of gas fireplaces/appliances prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Engineering:
1) Storm drainage is mitigated on -site.
2) The applicant has agreed to provide four parking spaces as
required by code.
3) Existing roads may handle the proposed development.
4) The proposed Hyman Ave. curb cut is not approved. Alley access
must be used for this project.
5) On -site trash and snow storage locations are not designated.
6) Any encroachments into the public right -of way must obtain
license from the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits.
2
7) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
must provide:
- - a storm run-off plan prepared by a Colorado registered engineer
- an erosion control plan
8) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
applicant must provide:
- certification of the storm run-off design by the design engineer
- any curb and gutter repair
9) A condominium plat must be filed which meets land use code
requirements prior to the conveyance of the unit.
10) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts
which may be formed for construction in the public r.o.w.
Roaring Fork Energy Center: The application lacks specific details
on many aspects of energy conservation. The project takes
advantage of solar orientation and solar gain.
STAFF COMMENTS: This is the only residential growth management
submission for 1992. At an minimum, after other GMP exemptions are
excluded, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for
competition. This minimum is 6 units, so the proposal does not
exceed the available allocation.
Growth Management Scoring Staff has scored the project and finds
that the minimum thresholds required by the land use code have been
met. The Commission may elect to accept staff's score and forward
this project to City Council for allocation of the dwelling unit.
The staff's score summary is as follows:
category
public facilities
quality of design
energy conservation
prox. of support services
min. threshold
4.8
4.8
2.4
2.4
staff score
7.75
10
3
5.5
provision of housing 7 7.4
In addition to minimum point thresholds in individual categories,
the project must attain a minimum of 60% of the sum of available
points in the first four categories, or 33.6 points. This project
3
3
was scored at 33.65 points by staff. Attached as Exhibit "C" is
staff's score sheet and comments. Score sheets will be available
to the Commission at the public hearing if it is determined that
Commission scoring is desired.
Bonus points may be awarded by the Planning Commission for
exceptional projects. Staff does not believe that this project
warrants bonus points.
Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to
Section 24-8-104 C.l.c. the City Council must approve deed
restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing
guidelines. However, the Commission shall review and forward a
recommendation to Council regarding the housing proposal. The
review of any request per this code section shall include a
determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the
proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of
bedrooms in the units, their size, the rental/sales mix, and the
price categories to which the dwellings will be deed restricted.
Response: This application.is providing deed restricted housing
for 37% of the persons generated by the project (1.75 out of 4.75
persons). The 800 s.f. one bedroom apartment is proposed to be
deed restricted as low-income Category 1 housing. According to the
Housing Office comments, the maximum monthly rental is $379.00.
The unit can be condominiumized and sold off separately because
multi -family structures (tri-plexes) are allowed in the R-MF zone
district.
The project is providing one parking space for the unit. Access
is through a separate outside entrance as well as an internal entry
if the apartment is used by a caretaker. The apartment is limited
to six month minimum lease periods. The owner of the principal
dwelling has the right to place a tenant of their choice as long
as said tenant is qualified through the Housing Office. A copy of
all leases shall be forwarded to the Housing Office. The deed
restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded
with the Pitkin County Clerk prior to the issuance of any building
permits. The Housing Office has provided a copy of a deed
restriction for this unit within referral memo. However, the
language is specific to accessory dwelling units rather than a
fully deed restricted unit. Appropriate language must be obtained
from the Housing Office prior to finalizing the restriction for
approval. The most critical changes are specific to the deed
restriction to Category 1, and the ability to condominiumize and
sell the unit separately from the principal dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
111 E. Hyman Growth Management allocation for one free market unit
4
and Growth Management Exemption for one Category 1 deed restricted
unit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to score the 111 E. Hyman project at
total points and find that the minimum point thresholds have
been met."
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of GMQS Exemption for
the Category 1 deed restricted apartment as proposed within the
111 E. Hyman application and amendments."
Exhibits:
Application Package
"A" - Amendments to the Application
"B" - Referral Comments
"C" - Staff Score Sheets
5
X,
November 1, 1992
T0: Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
I. LOCATION: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61
City of Aspen; Also to be
111 West Hyman Street
II. PROPOSAL:
This proposal is being submitted on behalf of William D. Snare. We
are proposing to duplex. the house at 113 West Hyman by adding an
identical unit to the East side of the house. If approval is obtained,
we would also ask for Employee Ilousing Bonus Overlay Re -zoning to com-
plete one deed restricted affordable housing unit. Approval was ob-
tained for re -zoning of 113 West Hyman for construction of a similar
employee unit.
The Hyman Street duplex subdivision was formed in 1979. It consist
of 5 lots fronting on West Hyman Street between First Street and Gar-
misch Street. These lots have been owned by the applicant since 1958
and are a part of applicants house and lots he has owned since 1953.
In 1980-81, construction was completed on one duplex and 1/2 of the
other duplex. These units were sold at that time. The applicant now
desires to complete the final stage of the project by constructing the
other 1/2 of the duplex.
III. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
a. A 6" cast iron Aspen City water main is located in the street,
directly in front of the proposed duplex with sufficient capa-
city to serve all of the proposed development, including the
employee unit if approved. The estimated daily demand for the
one-half duplex and employee unit would be 180 gallons.
b. A City of Aspen sanitary sewer main is located in the alley dir-
ectly behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve
the proposed unit. The estimated sewer demand for the one-half
duplex and potential employee unit would be approximately 180
gallons per day.
C. Surface water will be drained into dry wells constructed on thr
site. This will alleviate any drainage into the existing story
drainage system.
-l-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson,Planning
RE: L/TR (Lodge / Tourist Residential) Text Amendment for
Commercial Parking - public hearing
DATE: January 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this text
amendment which will allow commercial parking in the L/TR zone
district as a Conditional Use, upon review and approval by the
Planning Commission.
APPLICANT: This text amendment is being proposed by Savanah
Limited Partnership for future applicability by the Ritz -Carlton
Hotel.
LOCATION: This will affect the areas in the city limits zoned
L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential. See Exhibit "A" for zoning map
information.
BACKGROUND: Commercial Parking is a permitted use only within the
CC (Commercial Core) zone district. The Ritz -Carlton Hotel is
located in the L/TR zone district. The Hotel has completed a 217
space underground parking garage. The Hotel anticipates that there
will be many unused parking spaces based on seasonal variations in
hotel occupancy and wishes to be able to rent these spaces on a
daily basis to the general public. The Hotel has submitted both
this text amendment application as well as an application for
Conditional Use under the proposed text. The Conditional Use
application will not be scheduled for review until the proposed
text amendment is ratified by ordinance
adoption.
The draft Aspen Area Community Plan Transportation Action Plan
outlines a comprehensive, integrated transportation plan to reduce
traffic congestion and offer alternatives to use of the private
automobile. Two components of the Transportation Plan are the
establishment of a pay -for -parking system and a resident permit
parking system. Implementation of these programs will require the
City to have a variety of alternatives in place in order to
adequately manage our transportation problems. A couple of obvious
alternatives are increased utilization of existing parking spaces
and/or construction of a new parking structure. Additionally, one
of the Action Plan recommendations was to determine the number of
under-utilized private parking spaces within the commercial core
area and to create ways for the public to utilize these spaces.
The reasons behind this recommendation were to explore ways to
01
increase efficient use of existing parking stock to reduce
congestion and assist in parking management strategies for the
citizens and guests of Aspen.
Through a recent inventory of public parking spaces within the
commercial core, it was determined that.over the last five years
the City has reduced the overall number of on -street parking spaces
while development has continued. This has contributed to the
increased traffic congestion within the commercial core and nearby
residential neighborhoods. A contributor to this is the overall
increase in traffic volumes in the upper Roaring Fork Valley.
Additionally, a survey of residential neighborhoods adjacent to the
commercial core has estimated that there are at least 700 "spill-
over" vehicles currently parking in the residential neighborhoods
at the peak time (noon to 4pm) during the peak winter season. The
City needs a variety of options to deal with parking management.
The ability to offer private rental parking promoted by this text
amendment is just one aspect of the comprehensive transportation
plan.
PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted new language for inclusion in
the L/TR zone's list of Conditional Uses, Section 24-5-214.C. This
proposed text would read:
115. Commercial parking on a day use basis for excess
capacity in a parking structure or garage built on
the same parcel as, and in connection with, a full
service hotel."
REFERRAL COMMENTS: A summary of City Engineer Chuck Roth's
comments are as follows (complete memo is Exhibit "B"):
1) Proposed language should be modified from "excess capacity" to
"fluctuating demands on design capacity".
2) Engineering supports the possibility of applying this amendment
to other zone districts. Conditional use review allows for
thorough examination of different applications.
4) Other considerations for this proposal might be "sunset" review
of the ordinance, requirements for annual review/reporting, fees,
etc.
5) Developers could build more parking than required by code and
rent out spaces. This would be a community benefit.
PROCESS: An amendment to the Land Use regulations in the Municipal
Code requires a two-step review: recommendation by the Planning
Commission and final adoption via ordinance adoption by the City
Council.
2
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant submitted language which provides
for limited usage of commercial parking in the L/TR zone, ie.
within a "parking structure or garage... in conjunction with a full
service hotel." Staff prefers that the new text apply to parking
configurations other than structures or garages, and not to limit
a conditional Use to only "full service hotels". The land use
regulations do not define a "full service hotel", so application
of this language might be difficult. A small lodge might have as
adequate a management capacity to monitor a day use parking
situation as a larger lodge/hotel operation.
It is not recommended that uses other than lodge/hotel or
commercial sites be able to utilize this Conditional Use provision.
Residential parcels would not have the monitoring capability that
the other commercial ventures would have. Also, commercial parking
is more compatible with businesses rather than residential uses.
Also, as mentioned by the City Engineer, the proposed term "excess
capacity" should be changed to "fluctuating demands on parking
capacity". This would reflect the true nature of the situation,
that even when a parking program (number of spaces) conforms to
code requirements, actual demand may be low due to low occupancy
or alternative transportation options provided by the lodge or
commercial use. Under-utilized parking could then be rented to the
public per conditions determined at the Conditional Use hearing.
Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
review criteria for text amendments:
1) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the
zoning regulations, but is an expansion of the regulations.
2) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This proposed amendment will provide limited number of
additional parking adjacent to the core area and mountainside
attractions. It is evident that this area of the City is heavily
impacted by the automobile and by offering alternatives to use of
the auto, along with better parking management, traffic congestion
should decrease. One of the goals of the AACP is to reduce traffic
congestion and air pollution in the downtown area.
3) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: As proposed, the amendment would apply to the large
3
portion of the downtown area next to the base of the mountain zoned
L/TR. The natural attraction of the gondola area and base
activities can support additional parking. Each proposed site and
operation plan would be reviewed individually under the Conditional
Use criteria to determine specific positive and negative impacts.
Staff discussed the possibility of incorporating this amendment
into other commercial and lodge districts. Again, each proposal
would receive individual consideration before a business could rent
excess parking on a daily basis. If this idea appeals to P&Z and
Council, staff should be directed to prepare another text amendment
to this effect.
4 ) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: Utilizing available parking for general public use
should reduce on -street parking congestion to a degree in the area
surrounding a site which has an approved Conditional Use to rent
spaces. This proposed amendment could also eliminate some vehicle
movement caused by the 90-minute parking "shuffle" which occurs
when guests and employees move their autos to avoid parking
tickets. As each site is evaluated through a Conditional Use
public hearing, potential problems would be identified and
considered.
5) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: As mentioned in the City Engineer's comments, paid
parking on private property might lessen usage of the Rio Grande
parking structure, but this should not be a reason to deny this
code amendment. However, there is a basic difference in parking
users of the Rio Grande Garage and those users of potential L/TR
parking. Pricing and location will likely keep the Rio Grande
facility at maximum occupancy. The flexibility allowed by the
amendment could potentially forestall construction of other
municipal parking facilities. No other impacts to public
facilities are expected by this proposal.
6) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: In the case of established parking areas, full
utilization would reduce on -street parking and the parking
"shuffle" mentioned earlier, which in turn should improve air
quality. Once residents and visitors are aware of other parking
options, "drive around" traffic could also be reduced. If a new
4
project is approved to include excess rental parking, no
detrimental environmental effects are anticipated because the
project must still meet underlying zoning requirements for
setbacks, open space, and landscaping.
7) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: Reducing on -street parking reduces air pollution and the
visual intrusion of the automobile. This may also open the door
to provide alternative pedestrian areas on the street level.
8) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The downtown core has witnessed a reduction of parking
spaces in recent years along with an increase in auto traffic.
More efficient use of any available parking spaces will help this
situation for guests and local citizens.
9) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Response: The proposal does not conflict with public interest.
It should enhance the conditions of the core area. By insuring
review of each plan as a Conditional Use, the intent of the zone
districts and use of specific sites will be upheld.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends adding the following
language to the list of Conditional Uses in the L/TR zone:
"5. Commercial parking on a day use basis for
fluctuating demand on parking capacity on a parcel
occupied by a lodge, hotel, or other commercial
operation."
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve an amendment to Section 24-
5-214.C. of the Aspen Municipal Code adding a new use to the list
of Conditional Uses for the L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) zone
district as recommended by Planning staff in the January 5, 1993
Planning Office memo."
Exhibits:
"A" - Zoning Map Indicating L/TR Zone Districts
"B" - Engineering Referral Memo
5
A
DK
I
now. P, Apr W.
-.t7 OW11- � I M--J�
EMNI-
ENWIT
rLA-NaIM; & I_UP'1M1bblUn
EXHIBIT iI " APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION •
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C,,,V
Date: December 21, 1992
Re: Text Amendment-L/TR Zone Conditional Use Review for Commercial Parking
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. In discussing the application with the public works director, our primary concern is for
possible negative impacts to the public rights -of -way. The proposal may result in more
actual traffic on streets in the area, but not necessarily more than the project was designed
for when traffic generation and design trips per day were considered.
There could be a concern that hotel guests may find their parking spaces rented
out to day users, and thereby be forced to park on city streets. But it is doubtful that a
hotel of the quality of a Ritz -Carlton would operate in such a manner. Nevertheless, the
application appears to be lacking in making a policy statement that precludes abuse.
We also discussed the possibility of loss of business at the City Parking Plaza, but
this did not appear to be reason to recommend against the proposal
2. The proposed language could be modified from "excess capacity" to "fluctuating
demands on design capacity."
3. We have discussed with the Planning Office the possibility of applying this amendment
to other zone districts than just L/TR. The Engineering Department supports this concept.
The conditional use review process would allow for thorough examination of varying
conditions for different applications, such as whether more parking is desirable in certain
parts of town.
4. The Planning Office has confirmed that the Transportation Implementation Committee
has approved this proposal, and through that committee, the Commercial Core and
Lodging Commission. We recommend that the new Transportation Director he consulted
also.
J<-
Page 2
Text Amendment
December 21, 1992
5. Other considerations might be addressing the proposal on a "sunset" ordinance basis,
requiring annual review, reporting, fees hourly only, or flat rate, daily use only.
6. The proposal implies that developers could build more parking than required for their
project and lease or rent it out. This could be beneficial to the community. Perhaps such
developments might lead to condominiumized parking places in the future. The proposal
could possibly therefore be an incentive to provide additional parking in Aspen.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Directo � r
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Subdivision - PUD Amendment for Lots 1, 3
and 5, Subdivision of a Portion of Lot 1 into Lot 1A, and
Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization of Blue
Spruce Building
DATE: January 6, 1993
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the First
Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement
for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and approval of the subdivision
of a portion of Lot 1 into Lot 1A, and subdivision exemption for
condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building.
APPLICANT: Savannah Limited Partnership, represented by Joe
Wells and Perry Harvey.
LOCATION: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision is located at the base of
Aspen Mountain, south of Durant Avenue, between Galena Street and
Monarch Street. The Ritz -Carlton Hotel is constructed on Lot 1 and
the Blue Spruce Building fronts on Durant Avenue. Lot 3 is the Top
of Mill site and Lot 5 currently contains the Grand Aspen Hotel.
ZONING: Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) with PUD overlay.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests
a PUD Amendment to transfer all 22 hotel units approved for the
second and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building to the planned
re -development of the Grand Aspen Hotel. This will leave a total.
of 257 hotel units within the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, and allow for a
total of 72 hotel units to be built when the Grand Aspen Hotel is
re -developed. In exchange, the applicant requests that 6 of the 47
residential units planned for Lots 3 and 5 be transferred to the
Blue Spruce Building. These will be the only residential units
built in conjunction with the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. No significant
alteration of the exterior of the Blue Spruce Building and no
change in the square footage is proposed to accomplish this
revision.
It should be noted that the applicant has requested 6 residential
units with 3 bedrooms per unit. The L/TR zone district permits 1
1
bedroom per one thousand square f eet of lot area. The proposed Lot
lA encompasses 15,085 square feet, however, 3,023 square feet of
this land is vacated Dean Street and vacated lands shall be
excluded from the calculation of allowable floor area, density or
required open space. Thus, only 12,062 square feet of Lot lA can be
utilized in determining the lot area. This translates into 6
residential units with a maximum of 2 bedrooms each for a total of
12 bedrooms on Lot 1A.
The applicant also requests subdivision approval to create a new
Lot lA of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Lot lA corresponds with
that portion of Lot 1 north of Dean Street and it includes a
portion of vacated Dean Street (the Blue Spruce Building). The
subdivision will enable the applicant to establish a "Common
Interest Ownership Community" (formerly known as a condominium) for
the proposed residential units in the project.
The applicant requests condominiumization to create separate fee
ownership for only the residential units. The applicant has
committed that the ownership of Condominium Unit One (accessory
retail area on first level) will remain in the same ownership as
the hotel improvements on Lot 1.
PROCESS: PUD Amendments are approved pursuant to the terms and
provisions of Final PUD Review, provided that the proposed change
is consistent with or an enhancement of the Final Development Plan.
If the proposed change is not consistent with the Final Development
Plan, the amendment is subject to both Conceptual and Final review.
This proposed amendment is subject to the provisions of Final PUD
Review.
Final PUD requires a recommendation by P&Z and final action by
Council, at which time an amended PUD Agreement is adopted.
Subdivision and condominiumization require a recommendation by P&Z
and final action by Council, done concurrently with Final PUD
review.
The processing of a GMQS amendment and re -scoring of the project is
not necessary to implement this proposal. The applicant does not
propose any significant changes to approved design features, public
facilities, or other commitments made in obtaining the GMQS
allotments. The allotments which are being transferred between
Lots 1 and 5 have previously been approved for both lots and were
evaluated during the original GMQS competition, based primarily on
commitments made for the entire PUD, which remain unchanged.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Following is a summary of the comments received
by the Planning office from referral agencies. Complete copies of
the original memos may be found in Exhibit "D".
2
a
BECKr GLENNIS GEORGE 001 000109 STATUS:A 2735 124 71 011
20`9 SNOWMASS CREED; ROAD
?SASS, CO 31654
C,- 10 COOPER
DER BERGHOF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 1
CONDOS -LAND ACT 32000 ASD 4590 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IMPROVMENTS ACT 129000 ASD 15360 AC 0.000 SF 800
TOTAL VALUE $22,950
YEAR BUILT 62 ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 08/04/92
WEIGAND, NESTOR R. JR
1 c " , NORTH MARKET
C ITA,
HYMAN STREET DUPLEX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT S
CONDOS -LAND
ACT 138000 ASD 19790 AC
ACT 62000 ASD 8890 AC
TOTAL VALUE $28,680
YEAR BUILT 79 ADJUSTED YEAR I
X iCHANGE 08/0d/92
0.000 SF 0
#..0r
WEIGAND, NESTOR R. JR.
1r-^ NORTH MARKET
i ITA,
E
! HYMAN STREET DUPLEX
p"IflouvwxIM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIT 2
BK 0413 PG 0792
BK 0585 PG 0180
BK 0585 PG 0182
BK 0585 PG 0184
CONDOS -LAND ACT 275000 ASD 39440 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IMPROVMENTS ACT 140000 ASD 20080 AC 0.000 SF 1955
TOTAL VALUE $59r520
YEAR BUILT 79 ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 08/04/92
NICHOLSON, WILL F ® JR
NT-44OLSON, SHIRLEY B.
AERRY STREET
DER P
HYMAN STREET DUPLEX
Nolomp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 1
BK 0385 PG 0354
CONDOS -LAND ACT 413000 ASD 59220 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IMPRO'VMENTS ACT 202000 ASD 28970 AC 0.000 SF 2877
TOTAL VALUE $88f190
YEAR
BUILTi ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 08/04/92
I VES w THEODORA H .
31 a 1. BEL AIR DRIVE
I 'VEGAS,
t
CITY AND TOWNSITE QE ASHEN
E11 - SIC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HLK 51 LOT E — G
E 1/2 OF LOTS E. F. AND Gs
i
SK 0401 PG 0994
2 LEGALS: HK401/PG994 CONVEYS
1/2 INT IN LAND AND 100%, OF
IMPS TO IVES. SEE SCH#134500
SINGLE c ACT 375000 j i
SINGLE j.: PRO0 M
Ngummulgi
YEAR BUILT 80
ADJUSTED
YEAR BUILT t
ASSESSED •11/09/92
0.000 SF 1#1
0.000 SF 2836
TIERNEY, MICHAEL P AND
T T "RNEY, ANNE
I BOX 2391
AL_zN,
000104 NEST COOPER
ASPEN (BEST
Alow-mllufiv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 5
BK 0515 PG 0954
BK 0511 PG 0434
BK O643 PG 0211
rSIR "is r - -I 1i
ACT 12000 ASD 1720 AC 0.000 SE 0
ACT 51000 ASD 7310 AC 0.000 SF 878
TOTAL VALUE $9,030
YEAR ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED t i 9-o
AZ
DF.TORIAf
COOPER
A
001 000325 STATUS:A 2735 124 59 011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT
4
BE
0574
PG
0398
BK
0255
PG
0985
BK
0288
PG
0872
BIB
0589
PG
0595
CONDOS -LAND
.f "OM
TOTAL VALUE
YEAR BUILT ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 09/30/92
7460 AC 0.000 SF 0
29830 AC 0.000 SF 1088
$37,290
HALE, TERRY L. 001 000294 STATUS.A 2735 124 69 010
10A WEST COOPER AVENUE
T Nr CO 81611
G �04 WEST COOPER
ASPEN WEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 3
BIB 0549 PG 0068
CONDOS -LAND ACT 52000 ASD 7460 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IMPROVMENTS ACT 208000 ASD 29830 AC 0.000 SF 1088
TOTAL VALUE $37f290
YEAR BUILT 72 ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 08/04/92
TED ASSOCIATESe LTD. 001 000066 SaTATUS:A 2735 124 69 009
C/O SPENCER F SCHIFFER
r S. MONARCH ST®r SUITE 201
�- -- ._-'N r CO 81611
ASPEN WEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 2
BIB 0335 PG 0437
BK 0421 PG 0769
BK 0484 PG 0680
CONDOS —LAND ACT 52000 ASD 7460 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS—IMPROVMENTS ACT 208000 ASD 29830 AC 0`000 SF 1088
TOTAL1"ALUE •
YEAR BUILTADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED i *08/04/92
WHITAKER, SANDRA J.
POOT OFFICE BOX 8751
N,
61 iO4 WEST COOPER AVE
ASPEN WEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 1-A
BK 0297 PG 0944
BK 0362 PG 0114
BK 0362 PG 0019
BK 0398 PG 0466
CONDOS -LAND ACT 52000 ASD 7460 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IMPROVMENTS ACT 208000 ASD 29830 AC 0.000 SF 1088
TOTAL VALUE $37,290
YEAR BUILT 72 ADJUSTED\YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 08/04/92
' 'WIbKINSON, DAVID A. 001 000394 STA'TUS=A 2735 124 Og 007
3- r+A VETA PLACE
K ® NY 10950
ASPEN WEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 1
BK 02E5 PG 08d9
CONDOS -LAND ACT 52000 ASD 7450 AC 0.000 SF 0
CONDOS-IM PROVMENTS ACT 208000 ASD 29530 AC 0.000 SF 1088
TOTAL VALUE $37r290
YEAR BUILT 72 ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT
ASSESSED 01/01/92 LST CHANGE 00/03/92
ITr
',Nor
I ' 1
'Ali ML
;_;i`��
IV
............
AL-Mo.
511�
I.
POO--