The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.rz.802 W Main.Long FamilyO 4 Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help F1 h~odule Help ..//3yII ~a1`+ L} p~ ~y (~ conditions ~ Sub Permits ' Valuation I Public Comment I Customer Reguest I Attacfjmenls Main Routing Status I Arch/Eng I Parcels ~ Custom fields ~ Fees ~ Fee Summary ~ Action s ~ Routing History Permit Type aslu _ Aspen Land Use 2004 Permit # 0081.2005.ASLU ~ Address 802 W MAIN ST ~ Apt/Suite Cdy ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 J ~I Master Permit ~ Routing Queue aslu Applied 1011 J/2005 J Project J Status ending Approved ~iy-~ ! i Description REpUESTING REZONING OF PROPERTY TO MU ZONE DISTRICT Issued ~-J Final ~J Submitted STAN CLAUSON 925-2323 Clock Running Days ~ 0 Expires 10/12/2006 r~ ~ Visible on the web? Permit ID: ~ 35978 Last Name Phone first Name PO BOX 2289 ASPEN CO 81612 v ~) > owners tact name AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: \ ~ \ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: f , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~~(~~~ /~f l~;Y ~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the Crty of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from ~ue Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wi~e and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.3~14.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (1 S) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ~, (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the azea of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fiReen (15) days prior to the public hearing on su^~ ~^,~^~^~~^~^ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknow,t edged before me this ay of , 200 ~ by cJA.1'YI~i LIIrLOI~' lay 7, 2006 • Aspe~Times Weekly li WITNESS MY HAND AND O,F~FIC~IA~L~S~E,AL My commission expires: ~'~TI- Notazy Public Puel.lc nancR R8: ZONE CHANGE IiEQCE5T !OR AU2 WE5T MALV STREET I ONG FAMILY I\ VF,STMEA9 ti NOTICE, IS HEREBY CIVLN [hai a public hrerinq will be held on Mondag May 22, 200fi, al a mewling to be61n at 5:110 pm. before the Aspen CI(y Council. CJiy Connell Cbanibers, Clly Hall, 130 5. Calena SL Aspen. [n consider nn npplicr lion submitted by 5ten Clawson Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ne Long Family Invesimems, LLLP, requesting a change to the zo~dnG of the pmper(y from the R-151feddenHZl Zone UisVicl [n (he MU Mixed Use Lone Disidcl. The sob7ed property is located a[ R02 West Main SVeei. Aspen. CO 81fii5 antl is legally described as Lots Q, R, mid 5. 81ock 12 in the Townslte and Ciry o[ A pen. The ed dress of the applicanl'a representative Is S[an Clam Aasociates, INC. 200 Last Main 5[ree4 As nm,, al, Rlsu_ Eor (urtlier information. coniad Joyce AIIRaIer nt Ne Gty o[ Aspen Community Development De- parimenq 130 5. Calena SL. Aspen. CO 9]11429.2954 (or ~ by email joyces@ciaspeacoms). s/Helen Kalin tilenderutl IIII Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Tunes Weekly on May Z, 2U06. (3ti94) ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THEPUBLICATION Q;~OTAq~ Li~ r°°••aoe,o ',~P~~ N1y (g5jp1 E7WIfGi OW25i2009 )TOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) HERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 802 West Maio Street, Aspeu, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3 January 2 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkia ) I, F. L. (Stan) Clauson (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 19 day of December .2005 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heazing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) r f+~nrv "D ~B p ~ 2006 ASPEN ~ gU1lD1NGDEPAR~ X Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in ~ any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Sig The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~~EM~R , 200,3, by F ~ ~-Sr~,v ~ ~rgu rai/ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: y-s _~~ Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: 'YOF THE PUBLICATION OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ~OVERNIVIENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ,~. .~. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 802 WEST MAIN STREET, LONG FAMILY INVESTMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting a change to the zoning of the property from the R-15 Residential Zone District to the MU Mixed Use Zone District. The subject property is located at 802 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81615 and is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the Townsite and City of Aspen. The address of the applicant's representative is Stan Clauson Associates, INC. 200 East Main Street, Aspen, CO, 81611. For further information, contact Joyce Allgaier at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2754, (or by email joycea@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Jasmine Ty¢re Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 2005 City of Aspen Account Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.averycom UtlNsei le gabarit 5760® ~ /.S'~e Gz6 1-800-GO-AV"' ~'~ 715 W MAIN LLC AARONS MARTHA I 715 W MAIN ST #101 2221 TUDOR DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH 44106 ANDERSON LISA JO ANDREWS JUDY D PO BOX 172 1043 HIGHLANDER DR ASPEN, CO 81612 SEASIDE, CA 93955-6231 ASPEN COLORADO LLC ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS 100 N EIGHT ST # 5 ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BABOS TODD 1 % BEAL ADAM PO BOX 3798 PO BOX 1189E ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BLANCHARD NATALIE M 33% BODURTHA SUSAN M 100 N 8TH ST 719 W MAIN ST #206 ASPEN, CO 81611 j ASPEN, CO 81611 BRINKMEYER THOMAS K ' BROWN ALBERT L JR OPRT 719 W MAIN ST #200 1767 E MCMILLAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CINCINNATI, OH 45206 BRUFF SHERLYNNE GUEST BRUNT THOMAS & KRISTINE 1245 OLD TALE RD PO BOX 304937 BOULDER, CO 80303 ST THOMAS, VI 00803-4937 BUTLER MARIE CHILES DWIGHT 814 W BLEEKER #C-4 107 N 7TH ST #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTOPHER MARIDEE CONNOLLY MICHAEL M 8894 E ASTER DR 814 W BLEEKER ST 61 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85260-8431 ASPEN, CO 81611 COULTER G LYNNIE PO BOX L3 ASPEN, CO 81612 COX BRANDON FERTIG DALE M 1020 E BROWARD BLVD FORT LAUDERDALE, FL AVERY® stfio® ALEXANDER VALERIE PO BOX 2629 ASPEN, CO 81612 ARETZ REALTYINC 4725 S MONACO ST #330 DENVER, CO 80237 ATKINSON SUZANNE E 100 N EIGHTH ST #19 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERGER BRUCE NICOLAS PO BOX 482 ASPEN, CO 81612 BREIDENBACH WARREN C 225 ABRAHAM FLEXNER WY #700 LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 BROWN KARRIE 816 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BULICZ KEITH PO BOX 2826 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC 734 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW ATLANTA, GA 30305 CROSSETT JENNIFER A & MURRY SHAWN P 345 DOWNING ST 33301 DENVER, CO 80218 ,~1 A83Atl-O9.008-L ®09L531tl1dW31~eatlesfl Im cession antibourra a et a secha era ide ~ www.averycom Utlllsez le gabarit 5160® 9 ' P 1-800-GO-AV' ^' A~~® 5160® DAILY KIMBERLY DAW N 5326 20TH STREET CT E BRADENTON, FL 34203-4406 DAVIS DEWAYNE 745 BUGGY CIR CARBONDALE, CO 81623 DOUGHERTY JEAN S & DAMIAN P 107 N 7TH ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 ENGELMAN TOM SHEAN JOHN 107 N 7TH ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 FATTAHI AMENEH AS TRUSTEE FELDMAN BARBARA S & CHESTER 306 WORDSWORTH CT PO BOX 8193 ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 I ASPEN, CO 81612 GAMARRA ANA M & JUAN C GIBANS JONATHAN PO BOX 9877 PO BOX 8098 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI I GOLDSMITH ELLEN GLATMAN BRUCE ROY 719 W MAIN ST #101 20034 CALVERT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 GRUETER PAUL ERICH HAMLIN CONNIE E 719 W MAIN ST #103 719 W MAIN ST #207 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HARPER JAMES R HARRY SALLY 50% 2 SEASIDE LN #404 ' 1710 RANDEL RD BELLEAIR, FL 34616 OKLA CITY, OK 73116 HEISLEY MICHAEL E TRUSTEE HERRICK DARBY C/O K J LONG 724 W HOPKINS ST 2004 DIANA DR ASPEN, CO 80611 MENDOTA, IL 61342 HISPATEL CORP HOGGATT JERRY S C/O FINSER CORP B KEON 2356 AIRPORT DR 550 BILTMORE WY DIAMONDHEAD, MS 39525 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 HOPKINS STEPHEN C HORSEY SUSAN H 820 W MAIN ST 107 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 61611-1639 1~1 Aa3Atl-09-008-L FARRELL PATRICK G PO BOX 12160 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRANCIS MARY VIRGINIA 711 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611 GIBBON ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 715 W MAIN ST STE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 GORDON KATHERINE ELMORE JOHN 814 W BLEEKER #E6 ASPEN, CO 81611 HANLEJEFFREYT 126 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HART SAMANTHA KELLY 99% PO BOX 3798 ASPEN, CO 81612 HINRICHS NANCY R 100 N 6TH ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOOK BRADLEY K & PAMELA D 782C NORTH KALAHEO KAILUA, HI 96734 HULL LESLIE PO BOX 2403 ASPEN, CO 81612 ®09L5 31tl7dW31 many asD a......... ~.,...,a.......~ ..........,. Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avery.com ®AVERY® 5160® Utillsez le gabarit 5160® ~ ~ 1-800-GO-AV' '~ JENKINS J CHAD 1% PO BOX 9081 ASPEN, CO 81612 JENKINS JULIE N 719 W MAIN ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 JEROME OFFICE ASPEN CO LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 51611 KAPLINSKI KRISTAN M 107 N 7TH ST #102 ASPEN, CO KNIGHT GLENDA C PO BOX 328 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST C/O ADVOCATE ASSET MANAGMENT SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA STE 1510 CHICAGO, IL 60606 LARY LANCE R PRINCE ANNMARIE 719 W MAIN ST #301 ASPEN, CO 81611 LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES PTNSHP 1715 SOUTH BLVD HOUSTON, TX 77095 LOURAS PETER N & MARY M 100 N STH ST #33 ASPEN, CO 81611 LYLE ALEXANDER T 719 W MAIN ST #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARCUS ANN H 735 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1133 MATTHEWS DEE R 5137 52ND ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 KENT MARY SUE 1/2 728 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 KRAHE SHARON PO BOX 8615 ASPEN, CO 81612 KURTZ KAREN L TRUSTEE 3044 JEFFREY DR JOLIET,IL 60435 LAVERMAN JENNIE S 104 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LONG FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLLP PO BOX 1251 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 LUU INVESTMENTS LLC 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MAEWEST LLC ATTN: DOROTHY A SHARP 706 WEST MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTIN JAY & DOROTHY R 4-A OXFORD ST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ' MAWICKE FREDERICK H 719 W MAIN #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 KRUGER RUTH B PO BOX 5098 ASPEN, CO 81612 EARNER JACQUELINE L 376 DAHLIA DENVER, CO 80220 LEVINE MICHAEL A 3785 NE 208TH TER AVENTURA, FL 33180 LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST BOX 3849 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUU TONG KHON TRAN TUYET LE 814 W BLEEKER ST #B4 ASPEN, CO 81611 MANIE MICHAEL B 1/2 PO BOX 11373 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARTINEAU DANIEL J & AMY N S 26024 N 104TH WAY SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255-8001 MCBAY WILBUR & SHARON 1713 CHESTERBROOK VALE CT MCLEAN,VA 22101 n AN3Atl-O9-008-L ~ ®09L531V'IdW3l~anyasR ImRression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.averycom ~ A~~® 5160® Utl isez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AV"""6' MEYERLAURA 134 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MITTON JOSEPH &PATRICIA 1/2 INT FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT 1015 VOLTZ RD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062-4722 NEVINS WENDY S 736 HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 P B HOLDINGS LLC 725 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 POLSE KENNETH A 8 JOYCE L REVOC 1992 TST 452 SCENIC AVE PIEDMONT. CA 94611 RICCIARDI RIK 100 N 8TH ST #14 ASPEN, CO 81611 S&G INVESTMENTS LLC 201 N MILL ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MOUNTAIN OFFICES LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHURMAN JOHN & CAROLYN 3073 VIRGINIA ST MIAMI, FL 33133 MEYER MARY ANNE PO BOX 11238 ASPEN, CO 81612 MORRISON SUSAN M REV TRST 3093 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES, FL 34102-7920 OBOYLE DEBORAH J PO BOX 729 FREDERICKSBURG, TX 78624 PARIS JOHN HERNANDO 2222 SANTA MONICA BLVD STE 301 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404-2307 PULLIS JONATHAN C & REBEKAH 106 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ROTHMAN MARK S 4800 HEMPDEN LN 7TH FL BETHEDSDA, MD 20814 SAUNDERS OPRT TRUST 8 SALLY HARRY 50% 1710 RANDEL RD OKLA CITY, OK 73116 SHERIDAN DAVID R II 1/2 PO BOX 11373 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N R NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MINNESOTA MATERNAL FETEL MEDICINE 2115 DWIGHT LN MINNETONKA, MN 55305 NAKAGAWA MICHAEL AGUILERA DENINE 821 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 OVERTON PATRICIA J 100 N 8TH ST #24 ASPEN, CO 81611 PERRY ALLISON K & TIMOTHY V 822 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 REED BRENT H 100 N 8TH ST #6 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 RYAN RICK 8 DAWN 814 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SCRAPPER WILLIAM H 814 W BLEEKER ST #B6 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERMAN GARY M PO BOX 3066 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIMS DAVID 816 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H SMITH CHRISTOPHER H 8 DEBORAH STEINBERG EDWARD M 6 TOMI A 715 W MAIN ST #201 PO BOX 12366 814 W BLEEKER ST #AI ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RIl3Atl-O9-008-L ®09L5 31tl7dW3J. ~Gantl asD .ImRression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.averycom ®A~~® 5160® Utllisei le gabarit 5760® ~ 1-800-GO-AV""`~ STELLJES PETER V PO BOX 2444 ASPEN. CO 81612 SUTHERLAND ELIZABETH 719 W MAIN ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 TARKENTON SARAH ELLEN 820 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 TOPELSON ALEJANDRO 4725 S MONACO ST #330 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 UHLER FRANCES M 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B2 ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 TRAN HONG HUONG 814 W BLEEKER ST #C1 ASPEN, CO 81611 VALLEY MIA 740 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TURCHIN MARTIN & CHERYL 3060 MIRO DRIVE SOUTH PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 VALLEY MIA C 100 N 8TH ST #20 ASPEN, CO 81611 WABISZEWSKI SUSAN 1/2 WALTZ FAMILY TRUST WEIEN J ROBERT C/O MARY KENT 6075 LA JOLLA SCENIC DR 709 W MAIN ST 728 W HOPKINS AVE LA JOLLA, CA 92037 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST BLEEKER INVESTMENTS LTD WHITFIELD DONNAMARIE C WILLIS GERALD L 13787 PINE VILLA LN 732 W HOPKINS AVE #A3 PO BOX 9751 FT MYERS,FL 33912 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOLFER MARY ELIZABETH 99% YAW LOREN FLETCHER YULE LEAH E & LEAH PO BOX 9081 PO BOX 2629 130 S 7TH ST #62 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 Ai13Atl-O9-008-L ~ ®0915 31tl7dW31~any asD r ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 802 West Main, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 22 Mav 2006 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, F L. (Stanl Clauson (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 4 day of Mav. 2006, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heazing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signatur The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~y , 200, by F, L CSrn.~) C us o,y WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~}- s- 24r~$_ - c~ Notary Public CTACHMENTS: 1FTHE PUBLICATION F THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGl~ VERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL +., i~ ~. J PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ZONE CAANGE REQUEST FOR 802 WEST MAIN STREET, LONG FAMILY INVESTMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 22, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Stan Gleason Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting a change to the zoning of the property from the R-IS Residential Zone District to the MU Mixed Use Zone District. The subject property is located at 802 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81615 and is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the Townsite and City of Aspen. The address of the applicant's representative is Stan Clauson Associates, INC. 200 East Main Street, Aspen, CO, 81611. For further information, contact Joyce Allgaier at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2754, (or by email joycea@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Helen ICalin Klanderud Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on May 5, 2006 City of Aspen Account Impressio 9antibourrage et a sech~e rap~i~drA ~/ ~ www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit 5160® 'V~ .1 lc 1-600-GO-P""~`tY 715 W MAIN LLC AARONS MARTHA I 715 W MAIN ST #101 2221 TUDOR DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH 44106 ANDERSON LISA JO PO BOX 172 ASPEN, CO 81612 ANDREWS JUDY D 1043 HIGHLANDER DR SEASIDE, CA 93955-6231 ASPEN COLORADO LLC 100 N EIGHT ST # 5 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATKINSON SUZANNE E 100 N EIGHTH ST #19 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERGER BRUCE NICOLAS PO BOX 482 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRINKMEYER THOMAS K 719 W MAIN ST #200 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRUFFSHERLYNNE GUEST 1245 OLD TALE RD BOULDER, CO 80303 BUTLER MARIE 814 W BLEEKER #C-4 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTOPHER MARIDEE 8894 E ASTER DR SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260-8431 COULTER G LYNNIE PO BOX L3 ASPEN, CO 81612 n ASPEN MAIN ST LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN. CO 81611 BABOS TODD 1 PO BOX 3798 ASPEN. CO 81612 BODURTHA SUSAN M 719 W MAIN ST #206 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROW N ALBERT L JR OPRT 1767 E MCMILLAN ST CINCINNATI, OH 45206 BRUNT FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 304937 ST THOMAS, VI 00803-4937 CHILES DWIGHT 107 N 7TH ST #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOLLY MICHAEL M 814 W BLEEKER ST 61 ASPEN, CO 81611 AVERY® 51600 ALEXANDER VALERIE PO BOX 2629 ASPEN, CO 81612 ARETZ REALTYINC 4725 S MONACO ST #330 DENVER, CO 80237 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BEALADAM PO BOX 11898 ASPEN, CO 81612 BREIDENBACH WARREN C 225 ABRAHAM FLEXNER WY #700 LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 BROWN KARRIE 816 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BULICZ KEITH 719 WMAIN - #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY ASPEN/SNOW MASS INC 734 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW ATLANTA, GA 30305 COX BRANDON CROSSETT JENNIFER A FERTIG DALE M MURRY SHAWN P 1020 E BROWARD BLVD 345 DOWNING ST FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 DENVER, CO 80218 AN3Atl-O9-008-L ®09L5 31t/1dW31 ptiany asD „~..~•t ~~.e•...... Runuw aai~ a6enwc oue wer Impression antibourrage et a sethage rapide ~ www.avery.com ~ gVERYO 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-600-GO-A~'" "Y DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN DAVIS DEWAYNE DOUGHERTY JEAN S & DAMIAN P 5326 20TH STREET CT E 745 BUGGY CIR 107 N 7TH ST #201 BRADENTON, FL 34203-4406 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 EATON BARNEY E & PAULA G EIDSON JOY REV TRUST 50% ENGELMAN TOM 725 W BLEEKER ST EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REV TRUST 50% SHEAN JOHN ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 271 107 N 7TH ST #203 SULPHUR, OK 73086 ASPEN, CO 81611 ESPOSITO DANIEL E FARRELL PATRICK G FATTAHI AMENEH TRUSTEE 6169 S BALSAM WAY #280 PO BOX 12160 2460 LUCIANA WAY LITTLETON, CO 80123 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661-3237 FELDMAN BARBARA S 8 CHESTER FRANCIS MARY VIRGINIA GAMARRA ANA M & JUAN C PO BOX 8193 711 W BLEEKER PO BOX 9877 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81612 GIBANS JONATHAN GIBBON ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI 100 N 8TH ST UNIT 1 715 W MAIN ST STE #203 GLATMAN BRUCE ROY ASPEN, CO 81611-3145 ASPEN, CO 81611 20034 CALVERT ST WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 GOLDSMITH ELLEN GORDON KATHERINE GRUETER PAUL ERICH 719 W MAIN ST #101 ELMORE JOHN 719 W MAIN ST #103 ASPEN, CO 81611 814 W BLEEKER #E6 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAMLIN CONNIE E HANLE JEFFREY T HARPER JAMES R 719 W MAIN ST #207 126 S 7TH ST 2 SEASIDE LN #404 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BELLEAIR, FL 33756 HARRY SALLY 50% HART SAMANTHA KELLY 99% HEISLEY MICHAEL E TRUSTEE 6200 N ANN ARBOE AVE PO BOX 3798 C/O K J LONG OKLA CITY, OK 73122-7403 ASPEN, CO 81612 1179 N GLENHURST DR BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009-1013 HERRICK DARBY HINRICHS NANCY R HISPATEL CORP 724 W HOPKINS ST 100 N 8TH ST #2 C/O FINSER CORP B KEON ASPEN, CO 80611 ASPEN, CO 81611 550 BILTMORE WY CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 HOGGATT JERRY S HOOK BRADLEY K & PAMELA D HOPKINS STEPHEN C 2356 AIRPORT DR 782C NORTH KALAHEO 820 W MAIN ST DIAMONDHEAD, MS 39525 KAILUA, HI 96734 ASPEN, CO 81611 A213Atl-O9-008-L ®09G531tl1dW31®tianyasn ~09LS~A?I~AH 1~//1 .......~............. e......... __.. _e__..._ _.._ ...-- Impression antibourrage et a secha g apide ~ vvww.ave com ~- ~ ry• ~ AVERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-A`r'~Y HORSEY SUSAN H 107 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1639 HULL LESLIE PO BOX 2403 ASPEN, CO 81612 JENKINS J CHAD 1% PO BOX 9081 ASPEN, CO 81612 JENKINS JULIE N 719 W MAIN ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 JEROME OFFICE ASPEN CO LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 KNIGHT GLENDA C PO BOX 328 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 KAPLINSKI KRISTAN M 107 N 7TH ST #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 KRAHESHARON PO BOX 8615 ASPEN, CO 81612 KRUGER RUTH B KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST KURTZ KAREN L TRUSTEE PO BOX 5098 C/O ADVOCATE ASSET MANAGMENT 3044 JEFFREY DR ASPEN, CO 81612 10 SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA STE 1510 JOLIET IL 60435 CHICAGO, IL 60606 , EARNER JACQUELINE L LARY LANCER LAVERMAN JENNIE S 376 DAHLIA PRINCE ANNMARIE 104 N 8TH ST DENVER, CO 80220 719 W MAIN ST #301 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 , LEVINE MICHAEL A LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES PTNSHP LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST 3785 NE 208TH TER 1715 SOUTH BLVD BOX 3849 AVENTURA, FL 33180 HOUSTON, TX 77095 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOURAS PETER N & MARY M LUU INVESTMENTS LLC LUU TONG KHON 100 N 8TH ST #33 435 E MAIN ST TRAN TUYET LE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 814 W SLEEKER ST #64 ASPEN, CO 81611 LYLE ALEXANDER T MAEWEST LLC MANIE MICHAEL B 1/2 719 W MAIN ST #204 ATTN: DOROTHY A SHARP p0 BOX 11373 ASPEN, CO 81611 706 WEST MAIN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTIN JAY & DOROTHY R MARTINEAU DANIEL J & AMY N S MATTHEWS DEE R 4-A OXFORD ST 26024 N 104TH WAY 5137 52ND ST NW CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255-8001 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MAWICKE FREDERICK H MCBAY WILBUR & SHARON MEYER LAURA 719 W MAIN #205 1713 CHESTERBROOK VALE CT 134 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MCLEAN, VA 22101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~.narc~i~oww Il~i/1 A83Atl-O9-008-L ®09L531tl1dW31®tientlesD Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avery.com a AVERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® "'" 1-800-GO-A`'~"Y MEYER MARY ANNE PO BOX 11238 ASPEN, CO 81612 MORRISON SUSAN M REV TRST 3093 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES, FL 34102-7920 OBOYLE DEBORAH J PO BOX 729 FREDERICKSBURG, TX 78624 PERRY ALLISON K & TIMOTHY V 822 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 REED BRENT HAMPTON 67% BLANCHARD NATALIE M 33% 100 N 8TH ST #6 ASPEN, CO 81611 RYAN RICK 8 DAWN 814 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SCRAPPER WILLIAM H 814 W BLEEKER ST #B6 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERMAN GARY M PO BOX 3066 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIMS DAVID 816 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 STEINBERG EDWARD M & TOMI A 814 W BLEEKER ST #AI ASPEN, CO 81611 MINNESOTA MATERNAL FETEL MEDICINE 2115 DWIGHT LN MINNETONKA, MN 55305 NAKAGAWA MICHAEL AGUILERA DENINE 821 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 OVERTON PATRICIA J 100 N 8TH ST #24 ASPEN, CO 81611 POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L REVOC 1992 TST 452 SCENIC AVE PIEDMONT, CA 94611 RICCIARDI RIK REV TRUST 100 N EIGHTH ST #14 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 S&G INVESTMENTS LLC C/0 KENT SECURITY SERVICES 14600 BISCAYNE BLVD N MAIMI BEACH, FL 33181 SHADOW MOUNTAIN OFFICES LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHURMAN JOHN & CAROLYN 3073 VIRGINIA ST MIAMI, FL 33133 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H 715 W MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 STELLJES PETER V PO BOX 2444 ASPEN, CO 81612 MITTON JOSEPH &PATRICIA 1/2 INT FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT 1015 VOLTZ RD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062-4722 NEVINS WENDY S 736 HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PARIS JOHN HERNANDO 2222 SANTA MONICA BLVD #301 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404-2307 PULLIS JONATHAN C 8 REBEKAH 106 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ROTHMAN MARK S 100 N 8TH ST #12 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAUNDERS OPRT TRUST & SALLY HARRY 50% 1710 RANDEL RD OKLA CITY. OK 73116 SHERIDAN DAVID R II 1/2 PO BOX 11373 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H 8 DEBORAH PO BOX 12366 ASPEN, CO 81611 SUTHERLAND ELIZABETH 719 W MAIN ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 n Aa3Atl-O9.008-L ®09L5 31`dldW31®tia~tl asfl Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avery.com ~ AVERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-A"``'Y TARKENTON SARAH ELLEN 820 W MAIN ST ASPEN. CO 81611 TOPELSON ALEJANDRO 4725 S MONACO ST #330 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 TRAN HONG HUONG 814 W BLEEKER ST #C1 ASPEN, CO 81611 TURCHIN MARTIN 8 CHERYL 3060 MIRO DRIVE SOUTH PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 VALLEY MIA C 100 N 8TH ST #20 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEIEN J ROBERT 709 W MAIN ST ASPEN. CO 81611 WILLIS GERALD L PO BOX 9751 ASPEN, CO 81612 YULE BRADLEY A 130 S 7TH ST #B2 ASPEN, CO 81611 UHLER FRANCES M 814 W BLEEKER UNIT 62 ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 WABISZEWSKI SUSAN 1/2 KENT MARY SUE 1/2 728 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 WEST BLEEKER INVESTMENTS LTD 13787 PINE VILLA LN FT MYERS, FL 33912 WOLFER MARY ELIZABETH 99% 823 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1135 VALLEY MIA 740 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 WALTZ FAMILY TRUST 6075 LA JOLLA SCENfC DR LA JOLLA, CA 92037 WHITFIELD DONNAMARIE C 732 W HOPKINS AVE #A3 ASPEN, CO 81611 YAW LORENFLETCHER PO BOX 2629 ASPEN, CO 81612 1~1 Atl3Atl-O9-008-L ®09L531tl1dW31®'Va^tlasll .......[..,..,....... c .................a__..._ _.._ ... _. ~G7 ~ I,' N~ uJ~- ~~ ~~ I I G~t~-}~ ob~re(~o~t ~s~ s~~= i~~ ~1 ,i G -~ ~n ,;. ~ ~- '~ ~~ j ~~ II~ ;~'" a ~• a u~-1td. laz -Mtn ~ Ix s~~c,~ ~ ~s;u.( i C~~ cw~l cue ~- u,n~iss~"ti . ~i ~ ~, ~ ~^^,. ~. ~ ~~~- ffi ~ a ~~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ - ~ ~ this ~~~~ ., ~-r"6 ~s ~ G~ ~ ~a. ~ ~ i I,~g ~ 1aJ~ rw ~.t~ ~ u. ,~} ~ .: -~ ~n ~t ~. ~ +~ ~'' ~re v ~ c. r~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ (~, . Ut~rr~ ~{v ``Ji ~,~~~,s. '~ tv,~~t.l~N1GS :, ~~I~ ~ . , . 1%tols ~5,~ . U~.h~ A~ ~ s~ c~ ~k~ uv~ ~~~a~ . z~ ~ . ~~~av~c~ -(-~,nrr~-s. ~/~- ~.PJ~,Wkav~ '~--- ~~- ~I„~,(~ Ivy ~ c,,n~lr-.~ ~~~k- - ~~~I~,S ~a,~~~. Tzcni ~.,U,S ~ 5~1 c~cs- e:~~(~- ~ ~ ~. ~~~. '~c~S ~ f:~<<e /tits al~w~ l~ vsts. Na~F s~~ 4~ ~ ~~- ~ Ma. ~,~.{ /1M~{i;,, ~- w~ ~ ~S ~'"`b~n car 6 - '~ _~~~~ ~~~ d~~~ ~d-~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ r-. ,,~ MEMORANDUM 1!1 I.. TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council 1 FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director (J' " RE: 802 West Main Street Rezoning, Long Family Investments LLLP- Public Hearing 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006 DATE: May 22, 2006 ~~\~~ APPLICANT /OWNER: Long Family Investments, LLLP represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 802 West Main Street CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District PROPOSED ZONING: MU (Mixed USe) Zorie District SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone District to the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. No specific development plan is proposed at this time. A future mixed use development is anticipated and would need to be in conformance with the Land Use Code. The site is comprised of three (3) Aspen Townsite lots, totaling 9,000 square feet in size. CURRENT LAND USE: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling of approximately 1,747 sq. ft. STAFF & P&Z RECOMMENDATION: Approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal by a three (3) to one (1) vote. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property located on the northeast comer of the intersection of 7`" Street and West Main Street. The property is located within the Aspen Townsite, is currently zoned R-15, and is being proposed for designation as MU, Mixed Use. The Applicant is not proposing any development at this time but would be subject to the provisions of the underlying zoning that would set the standazds for development on this 9,000 squaze foot lot. The existing single-family residence would remain until such time as a development scenario was proposed. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this rezoning. The corner of Main and 7`s Streets is, and will likely always be, a heavily trafficked intersection. It also represents a "gateway" to the historic Townsite of Aspen. Development on this corner should reflect the importance of this corner, in terms of both uses and massing -there should be some prominence to the development in this location. Staff believes the development of asingle-family residence or a duplex does not reinforce the importance of this corner. This is not to say that a building should "loom" over the intersection. But an appropriately-scaled development, similar to the 7`h and Main affordable housing project, would bemore-appropriate massing for this comer. A duplex would likely be trying to "shield" itself from its context. Staff believes this indicates incongruence between the use and the context -land uses should reflect the context in which they exist. In this manner, uses feel like they naturally fit. For example, asingle- family home naturally "fits" within the heart of the West End neighborhood. In any event, the context of this corner especially on the ground floor, is a tough environment. But, staff believes that amixed-use building, with a commercial use on the ground floor is better able to fit within this context. Also, staff understands the desire for more locally-serving commercial uses. This is a stated goal of the AACP and has continued to be a concern. Staff believes this is an appropriate area to increase the amount of commercially zoned land - it is on Main Street, it is within an azea that is already commercial, and it is accessible (visually, pedestrian, auto). The expected mix of development (from staff s perspective) is professional offices, affordable housing, and free-market housing. Staffbelieves this is amore-appropriate mix of uses for this pazcel than a duplex or single-family residence. Zoning Context: (Also, see Exhibit C for full zoning texts.) Several of the properties to the south of the subject property, across Main Street toward the mountain, are zoned R-15; the same zone district in which the subject property is currently located. Properties to the north and west of the subject site aze zoned R/MF PUD and include such multi-family complexes as the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing and The Villas. Diagonally across the 7`h and Main Street intersection is the 7`s & Main Affordable Housing. To the east, starting with the Christian Science Building and Hickory House, the MU Zone District begins and continues on both sides of Main Street into the commercial core to the Jerome Hotel. This same azea is overlaid with the Main Street Historic District designation. There are a variety of land uses at the greater intersection of 7th and Main, in the vicinity of the subject property. There aze numerous multi-family residences, some duplexes and single- family residences and then the mixture of office/commercial/restaurant uses along Main Street. 2 r^ The following options are available fora 9 000 s.f. lot in the R-15 Zone District. ^ The existing single-family house may be redeveloped as asingle-family residence with an allowable floor area of 4,080 sq. ft. and a height of 25 feet. The followin options are available fora 9 000 s.f. lot in the Mixed Use Zone District. ^ The existing single-family house maybe redeveloped as a single family with an FAR of 3,660 sq. ft. and for a duplex it would be 4,080 sq. ft. and a height of 25 feet. • A mixed use building could be built with an allowable commercial FAR of 6,750 sq. ft. (.75:1) and afree-market residential FAR of 6,750 sq. ft. (.75:1). Both of these uses could be increased to 1:1 floor azea ratio with special review. The affordable housing component unlimited as long as the cumulative development on the entire site does not exceed 2:1. Very recent code amendments require that the total amount of free-market residential floor area on the parcel shall be no greater than the total floor area attributed to the commercially-oriented uses on the parcel. This would not allow for alop-sided development, heavily weighted towazd a free-market component. • Mixed use development on the property would be allowed to go up to 32 feet in height and residential structures may rise to 25 feet. The Bavarian Inn residential units immediately adjacent to and west of the Long property were limited to only 20 feet with flat roofs to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood. The Bavarian Inn structure, itself, located to the north across the alley from the property is limited to between 25 and 32 feet in height, depending on density. New mixed use development would be subject to the Growth Management Quota System requirements. For a new mixed use development the review authority falls with the P&Z and requires positive findings regazding the existence of growth management allotments, consistency with AACP, 60% employee generation mitigation and minimal impact on infrastructure. ^ Any new mixed use development would need to meet the Commercial Design Guidelines, Off-street pazking, and dimensional requirements and be subject to driveway access approvals and other infrastructure (sidewalk, curb, street tree, etc.) requirements. ^ If the property were rezoned to MU with the Main Street Historic District Overlay then the floor area ratio would drop from 2:1 for mixed use to 1:1 (or 1:1.25 by special review). District designation would also give the HPC purview over the design elements of any future development to ensure compatibility with the Main Street corridor. Historic District designation is not being applied for. Access: Access to the property is currently from Main Street. This is not a concern at this time along with a rezoning proposal; however, Staff would like to acknowledge that the access may need to be configured to be from the alleyway. Full evaluation of this matter would need to occur at the time of development review. 3 ,-.. ,M„ ..~ .,~ REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the recommending body to City Council on a rezoning request. A public hearing must be conducted and the criteria by which the Commission evaluate the application are attached in Exhibit A. A public hearing will also be conducted by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. There aze both physical changes that have occurred and policy directive that support this rezoning. The Community Development Director does fee] that the extension of the MU District is appropriate for this site and significantly preferred over asingle-family or duplex residence at this site. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATP/E): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006, upon second reading." Attachments: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -Zoning Map with Properties in Vicinity Exhibit C - MU & R-15 Zone District Code Sections Exhibit D -Application (Distributed with May 8`h first reading packet) Exhibit E - P&Z Resolution No. 07, Series of 2006 & Minutes 4 r^ -^* i... ..,. Exhibit A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in direct conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning could allow for a pattern of residential and mixed use development that is consistent with the residential development pattern that exists in the neighborhood especially that pattern and mixture of uses found along Main Street. Staff also finds that if the full build-out of the site were to occur, that the building size could be significantly larger than what is around it. The Bavarian Inn structure is around 5,915 sq. feet and what could occur on the Long property would be 18,000. The maximum allowable FAR in the R/MF Zone District is 1.5 to 1, MU is potentially 2:1. Another consideration under this criterion is the purpose statements of the MU and the R-15 districts. The R-15 district is more favorable to higher density residential development (would be in keeping with the current pattern on this side of 7`s Street). But, the MU district could also bring about this result with multi-family residential along with a mix of uses that potentially could serve this part of the town and be more appropriate with the traffic impacts to residential use. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP. The AACP advocates for mixed-use development that brings about vitality and diversity in this area. The AACP specifically calls for the revision of the locally-serving commercial zone districts (done), stemming the loss of locally -serving commercial space (ongoing), and the creation of additional locally-serving commercial zone land. The application presents this opportunity and presents a cleaz decision for the community - an additional single-family/duplex or a mixed-use building. The application also directly addresses a stated policy of the AACP Economic Sustainability section -Encourage local ownership of businesses. Recommendation #3 of the Economic Sustainability Report was "Develop abroader-based economy by supporting commercial and affordable housing opportunities... Study ways to encourage locally owned and operated businesses. Explore ways to develop locally owned and local serving retail space." Staffbelieves this application is consistent with these policy directives. Staff also believes this application to implement 5 .~. ~, w ...,, action items of the Economic Sustainability Report -Retain and expand through infill SCI opportunities wherever possible to help counter Downvalley economic leakage and provide needed goods and services to Aspen residents. Study mechanisms for affordable retail development. Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned MU, R-15, and R/MF PUD so the proposed rezoning application would create neither spot zoning nor a zone incompatible with the environs. The development of this site as mixed use would provide a buffer between the residential development to the west and the increasing traffic impacts of Main Street and continue the pattern of use along Main Street (which is definitely mixed use). The subject property is also in a place that would be subject to street noise and lights so it does not present itself as the best location for a single family dwelling or multi-family. The bottom floor dwellers of the 7`h and Main Affordable Housing have had problems with noise and headlights onto their property. The Long property could have the same problem if developed with multi-family on the bottom floor. The mixed use approach to the property could allow for the siting of the commercial/office use to be closer to the street, than the residential component and extend a pedestrian orientation of the built environment. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Findine The possibility exists under MU zoning for the property to develop with a much higher intensity of use than under R-15 zoning. Considering the location of this proposal at the "S- Curves", certain access points could exacerbate the traffic situation. These would need to be discussed upon submission of a development application, but staff believes that the access issue can be resolved with possible limitations to turning movements onto 7a' Street, and alley usage. (Presently, the traffic flow is regulated on the alley @ 7a' Street. This was put in place at the time of the Bavarian Inn redevelopment-traffic is limited by signs that allow only right-in only onto the alley from 7`h and right-out only from the alley. Access to the development from the 8`h St./alley intersection is discouraged by a "Service and Emergency Vehicle Access Only" sign). For the purposes of analysis, we can look at the maximum build-out of the site of 18,000 squaze feet of mixed use which would have to be residential and mixed commercial/office. We do not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning because the street infrastructure and access to transit exists. Any future site design would need to be closely scrutinized for specific driveway locations onto the adjoining streets. Staff believes this criterion is met. 6 `~ V ^1 ~+,r/ E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a continuation of the MU zoning. It most definitely would be a change to this corner of the Main Street "S Curves" but if looked at within the entire Main Street context, this zoning is consistent. Staff finds that this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The R-15 zoning of this property accommodated the existing single-family structure and is the only R-IS property north of Main Street (in the immediate azea). The neighborhood includes significant multi-family development to the west and mixed-use development to the east. One could find that with the fairly recent development of the Bavarian and duplex housing, residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern on this side of 7th. Traffic in this vicinity has increased since the latest rezoning of this property. CDOT's Record of Decision supports the "Modified Direct" (which would go right by this property), and the recent implementation of MU rezoning along Main Street aze recent changes. The AACP desire for mixed-use development, mixed-use neighborhoods, and a desire for local serving commercial development also demonstrate recent changes. This rezoning could both implement the desired policy of mixed-use development and provide a buffer to the ..~ .~ residential area to the west from the impacts of traffic. Staff believes that asingle- family/duplex residence has significantly less opportunity to address these goals. This criterion does not require a "change in conditions" to support a rezoning, only that any changes be recognized in the rezoning discussion. Staff believes there are both physical and policy changes that have occurred that support this rezoning. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8 ,.-, 802 W. Main Vicinity Map with Zoning ~~ ~~ ~~ ._ ~, ~. ~1 gyn. <z~ ~ `; ~~ ,r~ .2. _ _ ,. '~ ~ Bavarian AH ~, .v 4 rd _~...... w~ ~' i-b~',a~.,. tyq^v ~ p ,~ R Jm Subject Property r~ Hickory House „~"a 5 Zone D 7th and Main AH Chrisian Science Church ,~r ~~ ~. a h N 0 87.5175 350 525 700 Feet ~lC~'11 ~ 1'~ g .~, ,~„ 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A. Purpose. The purpose oftheMixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for avariety oflodging, multi-family, single-family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or fre- e- quent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. - B. Permined uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: 1. On Historic Landmark Properties: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commercial Uses, and Bed and breakfast. _ 2. Service Uses. 3. Office Uses. 4. Lodging, Timeshaze Lodge, Exempt Timesharing. 5. Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. 6. Public Uses. 7. Recreational Uses. 8. Academic Uses. 9. C?,uld care center. 10. Affordable Multi-Family Housing. 11. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing. 12. Single Family Residence. _ 13. Duplex Residence. 14. Two Detached Single-Family Residences. ` - 15. Home occupations. 16. Accessory uses and structures. 17. Storage accessory to a permitted use. C. Conditional uses. The following uses aze permitted as conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515 D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all pemutted and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: L Minimum lot size (sguaze feet): 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties: b. Duplex dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties. c. All other uses: Not applicable. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. ~/ ~: ~. ~ • Part 700, Page 39 ~. -°~, 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet) 5. 6. Minimum rear and setback feet : 5. 7. Maximum height a. Commercial, Lodge, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing; Multi-Family, and . Mixed-Use Buildings: 32 feet. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings: 25 feet. 8. Minimum distance between buildin son the lot feet : 10. 9. Pedestrian Amenity Snace: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) A. The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2:1. For properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum cumulative FAR shall be 1:1, which maybe increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 1. Commercial; Lodge; Timeshaze Lodge, Exempt Timesharing; Arts, Cultural and Civic uses; Public Uses; Recreational Uses; Academic 1Jses:.75:1,"which may be increased to 1:1 bySpecial Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 2. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation," other than the cumulative FAR limit stated above. 3. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing:.75:1, which maybe increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. ' B. The following FAR schedule applies to single-family and duplex uses when devel- oped as the only use of the pazcel: 1. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior. to the adoption of Ordinance 7, Series of 2005: 100% of the allowable floor azea of an equivalent- sized lot located in the R6 zone district: (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established. Replace- ment after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area. 2. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Or- dinance 7, Series of 2005: 80% of the allowable floor azea of" an equivalent- sizedlot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City ofAspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor azea. (Ord. No. 56-2000, § 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001, § 5 (part); Ord. 1-2002 § 20; Ord. No. 7-2005 §1 (part), 2002) City ofAspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 40 ~~~ ~... 26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery ofthe City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain aze also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are pemutted as ofright in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; S. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses aze permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-i,~i) tOne distiLCt, Subject iv the Starld3rdS aild prCCedl:reS estabilshed in Chapter 26 425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic Uses. 3. Agricultural Uses. 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child caze center. 7. For historic landmazk properties: bed and breakfast and boazdinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (sguaze feet) Fifteen thousand (15,000). For Historic Landmark Properties: three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum lot area Der dwelline unit (souaze feet- a Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmazk Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boazdinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet) 75. Historic Landmark Properties: 30. 4. Minimum front vazd setback (feet)- Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum side vazd setback (feet) Ten (10) . 6. Minimum rear Yazd setback (feet) City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 1 b w ,, w.,, Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum heieht (feet)• Twenty-five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet) Ten (10). 9. Percent of oven space repaired for building site No requirement. 10. External floor azea ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of recordl Lot Siz e Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (S uare Feet) Sin le-Famil Residence* tacked Dwellin s or one Du lex* 0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet offloor azea for each 100 each 100 in lot azea, up to a square feet in ]ot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 squaze feet of floor area offloor area. 3,000--9,000 2,400 squaze feet offloor azea, 2,700 squaze feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 squaze feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- ~ area for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea, up to a squaze f et in lot area, up to a ~ maximum of 4,500 square feef of floor maximum of 4,080 squaze feet area. offloor azea. 9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet offloor azea, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 , plus 7 square feet offloor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a squaze feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 squaze feet of floor maximum of4,500 squaze feet area. offloor azea. 15,000-- 4,500 squaze feet offloor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 squaze feet of floor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea, up to a squaze feet in lot azea, up to a maximum of 7,020 squaze feet of floor maximum of 6,600 square feet area. offloor area. 50,000+ 6,600 squaze feet offloor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area squaze feet of floor azea for each addi- for eaoh additional l00 squaze tional l00 squaze -feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *Total external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor azea allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwell- ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic . City of Aspen Land Use Code. Lune, 2005. - Part 700, Page 11 - .~w Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City ofAspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 squaze feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7) , ~~ _r- ~o abl -City ofAspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 00,Page 12 .. . ~, ~./ ~.J RESOLUTION N0. 07 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG FAMILY PARCEL" LOCATED AT 802 WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU (MIXED-USE) ZONE DISTRICT FROM R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT) FOR THE LAND DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parce[ID:273512308005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting to rezone the Long Family Pazcel located at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District to MU (Mixed Use) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Deparhnent recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Mazch 21, 2006, after being continued from January 3, 2006, February 7, 2006, February 21, 2006, and Mazch 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, at a final hearing on April 18, 2006, by a three to one (3-1) vote, recommending that City Council rezone the subject property to the MU Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development or review standazds and that the approval of the rezoning is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone the subject property containing Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District to the MU (Mixed Use) Zone District. ~XHi bid E Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in this approval and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18th day of April, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ,,-. ,`. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes - Februarv 07, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Commissioners John Rowland, Steve Skadron, Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. Dylan Johns, Brandon Marion and Mary Liz Wilson were excused. Ruth Kruger was seated at 6:00 pm. James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk were also present. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/OS): 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Matchless Drive Subdivision/PUD. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for 910/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision/PUD to February 28`h; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LONG FAMILY REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 802 West Main. Joyce Allgaier explained this application was for a rezoning without any development application associated with it. Allgaier stated that it was a rezoning from R-15 to Mixed Use. Allgaier stated it was a 9,000 square foot piece of property owned by the Long Family Investments represented by Stan Clauson. Mixed Use came through the Infill Ordinance and it was found along the Main Street corridor from this end of Main Street right down to the Jerome. Currently there was a single family dwelling on the property; if it were redeveloped the single family dwelling could be developed as large as 8,080 square feet under the R-15. The allowed height was 25 feet. Allgaier said if it-were rezoned mixed use the single family house could be 3,660 squaze feet and a duplex would max out at 4080 square feet. There were more uses allowed under mixed use. The maximum square feet for a mixed use building would be 18,000 square feet (a 2:1 Ratio); 6,700 square feet for free market housing; a maximum of 6,750 commercial square footage within a mixed use building and affordable housing was unlimited up to the maximum 2:1 ratio. The maximum height for mixed use or multi-family would be 32 feet; if it were a single family or duplex the height limit would be 25 feet. Any mixed use development would be subject to the commercial design guidelines; off-street parking guidelines; the other dimensional standards set in the MU Zone District. 2 ~~ ~.. Aspen Plannine & Zoning Commission Meetine -Minutes - February 07, 2006 Allgaier said that staffrecommends approval of this project. The impacts that were associated with that intersection and the future impacts of that intersection with high traffic volumes and a neighborhood that could support a mixed use with offices, residential and affordable housing; the provisions of the AACP support the rezoning. Steve Skadron asked if actions like this one (rezoning in an area like this) create the possibility of a domino effect of rezoning; where each adjacent R-15 property might determine itself the best use. Allgaier replied that has been known to happen especially when there is more of the opportunity for sprawl along a commercial core. Allgaier said that she didn't think that could happen here just because of the land uses that already exist and the new affordable housing. Skadron said the purpose of the mixed use zone district was to provide for a variety of different uses buY it doesn't require a variety of mixed uses, does it. Allgaier replied no, but there were stringent limitations as to how much you can build. Skadron asked what the effect of the Historic Designation Overlay. Allgaier responded the floor area ratio goes from 2:1 to 1:1 with the Historic Overlay subject to design review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Allgaier said the applicant did not request the Historic Overlay. Skadron asked the height of the 7'h and Main Affordable Housing. James Lindt replied that it was approved at 32 feet. John Rowland asked why restaurant or food facilities were not part of the conditional use. Allgaier replied that it was more trying to give Historic Landmarks additional uses. Jasmine Tygre asked under the mixed use provision in the code what would trigger review of the project. Allgaier said the planning commission would review of the growth management quota system requirements and commercial design guidelines evaluated, so there would be a process for any mixed use building. Lindt said that if a single family house or duplex were proposed they would not need a growth management review; if they were to do a mixed use or multifamily complex would require growth management review and subdivision review. Tygre asked if you put in a 200 square foot office, would you be eligible for the 18,000 square feet under mixed use. Lindt replied that you would. Tygre asked the relative frontages of the Main Street side and the 7"' Street side of this property. Allgaier responded there were 100 feet on the 7`h Street and 90 feet on the Main Street side because it was made up of three individual lots of 30 feet by 100 feet. ..., Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission MeetinS -Minutes - February 07, 2006 Michelle Bonfiles Tevo, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the Long Family stated that in their application they are not recommending any residential use on the ground floor level of this property because of the impact of traffic. Bonfiles Tevo said that because of the traffic they were asking for mixed use; they saw this site as a transitional site from the commercial uses along Main Street into this dense residential area. Tygre stated concern for not having a specific development application, which was normal in a rezoning, but she wanted a better idea of what the commission was letting the city in for with a rezoning. Allgaier said there were many options for what the mix could be in the mixed use zone. Public Comments: 1. Neil Siegel, Villas of Aspen Board Member, said they were a townhouse community of 36 townhomes and their position was that the applicant was premature unless tied to some development plan. Siegel said that there were synergistic effects that can't possibility evaluate in terms of density, height, traffic implications and the like. Siegel said this was a tricky intersection coming from any direction. Siegel said that this was not a buffer as mixed use because the Villas of Aspen were right there and very residential. 2. Eric Cohen, co-listing agent of the subject property, said there were a fair amount of discussions on the mixed use change and what the outcomes would be. Cohen stated he did not think that the three units with a small office space would work; he suggested the first floor commercial service orientated uses, smaller free- market and significant affordable housing on the upper floor. Cohen said the mixed use was the incentive to placing affordable housing on site. Jasmine Tygre asked if affordable housing was a requirement of mixed use. James Lindt answered it was not a required component; there were incentives to doing on-site affordable housing services or mitigates both components of development (commercial and free-market). John Rowland stated that he was in favor of the rezoning; the neighborhood had a hybrid mix of different zoning categories and felt it was appropriate. Steve Skadron said that he liked the application however he was concerned for a future mixed use project with a lot of uncertainty of what the project might consist of and the impact of traffic on the neighborhood. Skadron said that he could 4 _.___ ... .~. Asuen Planning & Zoning Commission Meetin¢ -Minutes - Februarv 07.2006 ultimately support this with a specific development application but he was not comfortable with it as it stands now. Brian Speck said that he felt the same way John did and a mixed use project made sense in the area and supported it. Jasmine Tygre stated concern for this because she did not believe this was an appropriate site for a mixed use project; even through it was an extension of Main Street the Main Street that was east of 7`h was completely different, they were two different entities. Tygre said this was more of a 7'" Street property than a Main Street property and the uses were more in line with residential. Tygre said the impacts of deliveries was a problem for this site and did not feel this was an appropriate area for this kind of mixed use zone; it was a disservice to the other parts of the residential area. Tygre said that it was possible that a mixed use project of a particular type might be successful here in which case she would like to see another way to apply for it through a PUD or a site specific review, which could be evaluated and not the blanket rezoning approval to a kind of use for only certain circumstances. Tygre said that she could support a particular project. Michelle Bonfiles Tevo requested a continuance. James Lindt stated that the applicant could request a continuance (26.304 Common Development Procedures of the Code) and a second continuance could be by the commission's request. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Long Family PUD, 802 West Main to February 21 S`; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: 410 SOUTH WEST END STREET -SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 410 South West End Street. James Lindt stated the proof of public notice appeared to meet the jurisdictional requirements. Lindt noted the application was submitted by John Provine and Ronald Soldering living Trust subject to review for subdivision, growth management for affordable housing and certificate of compliance for multifamily replacement program to construct 2free-market units and 2 affordable housing units at 410 South West End Street. Planning and Zoning was final review on the growth management for the affordable housing and recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision 5 ~.~ Aspen PlanninE & Zoning Commission Meetine.- Minutes -February 21, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Brian Speck, Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 6:00 pm. Dylan Johns and Mary Liz Wilson were excused. James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk were in attendance. COMMENTS Steve Skadron complimented the Deputy City Clerk on the detail of the minutes. Brandon Marion asked if the auto disincentives were actually working or not. Allgaier replied that they have not taken any action at this point but it would be appropriate to ask City Council to direct staff to pursue with assistance from the pazking department. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to direct staff to create a resolution on the auto disincentives; Steve Skadron seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Allgaier stated that because of the Hannah Dustin's complexity it would likely take two meetings; with that in mind that hearing would be continued. MINUTES MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from 12/06/05, 12/13/05, 01/03/06, and 01/17/06; seconded by Brtan Speck. All in favor, approved. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved to approve the minutes from 11/29/05; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. (Steve abstained). DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/07!06): LONG FAMILY REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN Jasmine Tygre opened the ~ublic hearing for 802 West Main. Notice had been provtded at the February 7` Heanng. Allgaier provided on overview noting where Main Street came into this property with the straight shot possibility. The current zoning was R-15; a single family dwelling could be built there of 4080 square feet. Allgaier said that if it were a mixed use building they would be allowed up to 18,000 square feet cumulatively for a mixture of uses; the maximum square footage for a free market component of a mixed use 6,700 square feet or .75 floor area ratio; maximum for the commercial 2 .~ ~,.. Asaen Plannine & Zoning Commission Meetine -Minutes - February 21 2006 and office component would be the same 6,700 square feet and affordable housing had an unlimited square footage up to the maximum 2:1 ratio. Allgaier said there needed to be a code amendment to make the code clearer for the mixed use provisions so there would not be more free market residential and only a small office component. Allgaier provided 5 options for P&Z to proceed: (1) Deny the application for rezoning; (2) Approve the rezoning and request staff initiate a code amendment immediately; (3) Approve the rezoning and include in the resolution the effective date of the rezoning; (4) Approve the rezoning with a PUD overlay requiring some provision which precludes a lopsided mixed use development; (5) Continue the public hearing for a six month period and initiate a code amendment immediately. Allgaier said that staff supported the Mixed Use Rezoning and likes the idea of designating it with a PUD and thinks that option 3 would work and does not want to see that lopsided mode of development. Brandon Marion asked the number of units that could be placed on the property if it were Residential Multifamily and what height limit. Allgaier replied between 6 and 12 units with a 25 to 32 foot height limit for a multifamily structure; it depended on the parcel density with a greater than one unit per 1500 square feet then the building height could be 32 feet. Allgaier said it was an incentive for more density and to intensify the use of the land. Marion asked if the applicant at a later time could come in for the rezoning and a development plan as a PUD application as opposed to approve as zoning subject to a PUD. Allgaier replied if the applicant proposed it that way; if they proposed both the rezoning and a mixed use development that required some approvals from the planning commission and growth management. Allgaier said they do not have the authority to tell someone what kind of application they need to submit. Allgaier noted that a PUD refers to the underlying zone district, which is what is used as a review basis. Allgaier said that if the commission wanted 3free-market multifamily units in the application and it covered the concerns then it could be their PUD and they would not have to come back. Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be dimensional requirements in the mixed use ,zoning; there would be so much office or commercial square feet. Allgaier replied yes it would include something like that to help package it better to obtain the goal. .. . Ashen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -February 21, 2006 Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long; he pointed out that the Longs have lived in Aspen for over 45 years and grew up in this house. Clauson said this property represents a little finger of R-15 into one of the densest neighborhoods as the RMF (Residential Multifamily) and continues the streetscape of Mixed Use, which was the Office Zone. Clauson said this house contained an office at one time. Clauson stated that the record of decision from CDOT .was that Main Street would be continued out remains a factor for appropriate redevelopment of this property. Clauson said the issue was what can happen in a mixed use district almost inappropriately of having a minimal amount of commercial to avail them to a large single family residence, which was not the point of this application. Clauson said looking at the options numbers 1, 3 and 5 do not provide a resolution because the code amendment could entail a considerable amount of discussion. Clauson requested the commission look at option 2 because it was consistent with the nature of the site and the nature of this application. Clauson said that if the commission doesn't feel that option 2 provides enough protection then option 4 the PUD overlay might offer that additional protection; they don't think that it is necessary because it was inconsistent with the site and application. Roger Long said that the Long Family Investments was truly not developers; it was an instrument formed to protect family assets, which their father initiated. Roger Long stated that they agreed with the way the property stands now as being inappropriate as a residential structure and the mixed use zone was appropriate. Ronald Long added that they felt as the development and traffic increased that this was a house on the highway and not a house in the West End; in the future West Main was still going to be on the highway. Ronald Long said that a Waxed use structure could also serve as a buffer to the surrounding residences and hopefully mitigate the highway impacts. Steve Skadron asked the impact traffic would have in the MU Zone on the adjacent RMF zone. Clauson replied that staff provided an analysis and comment that they don't believe that the traffic impact would be significant relative to the background traffic that is currently there. Clauson said there was no short cut through the Villas that would cause impact that area. Skadron inquired about the businesses that would attract the traffic and determine the amount of traffic. Clauson said the amount of commercial square footage was 6,700, which was the maximum amount and most likely an office nature given the location would have a minimal impact. Clauson stated that only a historic structure could have a restaurant and not this structure. 4 r., ,,,, . ~ .,,r Asaen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -February 21 2006 Brian Speck asked if the large trees would be preserved. Ron Long replied a large spruce and a ponderosa pine were on city property. Public Comments: 1. Tom Melberg, co-listed property, stated the property was listed below what a single family lot would go for in the West End. Melberg said that most of the commissions concerns would be addressed by the real estate market forces of the property location. 2. Neil Siegel, representing the Villas, said the traffic implications as discussed were not predicated on a worse case condition for the property and because there was no development plan it can't be considered under a desirable situation or what is likely but rather what is the most pernicious potential use and evaluated on that basis. Siegel said that it is apparent the trickiness of the 7"' and Main is circulation around and the traffic implications are real. Siegel said the purpose of the MU district was to provide a transition between the existing commercial use and the residential use; as presently set forth there is no commercial use whatsoever to the West of 7'h and in that district. Siegel said that rather than providing a transition it is an encroachment. 3. Eric Cohen had questions with regards to whether they were seeing a project or just getting an approval and subject to what ever comes in based on that project. Cohen noted that he sat on the City Planning and Zoning Commission and on the Infill Committee. Tygre said that Joyce has done an admirable job on the explanations. Tygre said that when there were additional questions to the extent to which the language of the Mixed Used Zone really accomplished what the Infill Committee, City Council and P&Z thought it was going to accomplish. Tygre said the loopholes put P&Z into the stumbling block. Marion said P&Z has never seen an application with this many options connected with it; there was some ambiguity in what they were dealing with. Marion said that there was no question that this was a transitional or tough property to figure out. Marion said if there was justification of the continuation of the MU Zone District because basically there was a finite point to it right at 7`h; if we extend that one property does the next property move across the boundary. Marion said that if the code is wrong then the code has to be fixed and look at the application in light of that code. 5 ~F<J Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes - February 21, 2006 Skadron asked if this will cause a domino effect for rezoning for each of the adjacent properties. Allgaier responded that MU came down Main Street; next to the subject property was Affordable Housing and across the street was a new duplex. John Rowland concurred with Brandon and Steve on the uncertainties but when you put on the planner hat and think of this intersection as urban design, this is an established node with an element missing that is this property. Rowland asked if this property was on the pedestrian walking distance. Allgaier replied that Hopkins was to the South and it was located right on the transit stop on the corner. Rowland said that as a city we should embrace this opportunity as a welcoming node or some sense of arrival; there were no pedestrians walking around. Brian Speck said that he was similar to John's concerns and sympathetic to some of the concerns about the future but as a commission we have to make decisions to the applicant as they sit before the commission. Speck agreed that this was more of a commercial node and liked the Mixed Use complex. Tygre said that she did not believe this was an appropriate spot for a mixed use project; the importance of 7`h Street marking an end to the Mixed Use District was expressed well by Brandon. Tygre said the Mixed Use District ends at 7`h; that may change but it doesn't change now and to take that one piece surrounded by Residential Zoning on the other side of 7`h Street given the existing traffic circulation problems in that area seems to be a poor location for Mixed Use Zoning. Tygre stated the code had to be changed but it doesn't effect her decision about this particular application. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #7, Series of 2006, recommending that City Council rezone the "long Family Property" located at 802 West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Marion, no; Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2. MOTION WITHDRAWN. Discussion of motion: Skadron asked for clarification of option #4. Allgaier explained the option #4 would approve a rezoning to MU with a PUD Overlay, which is the application of zoning to a piece of property. It was not granting approval of a specific PUD; the applicant would have to come in with a specific development application. Allgaier said since there was not a proposed site specific development plan because there was none proposed; the application was rezoning. Skadron said that he was looking for control of what was going to happen on this site. Allgaier said that you have to trust what this zoning yields what MU is 6 r. ,. , Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission Meetine -Minutes February 21, 2006 intended to do; what was allowed by right in that zone district that is appropriate for that site. Allgaier clarified that a PUD Overlay would require the applicant submit a complete PUD application for review with option #4. Allgaier stated that a property cannot be rezoned contractually; rezoning means that it meets the review standards and the commission is comfortable with that rezoning. Allgaier said the question was do you feef the MU is appropriate here. The commissioners discussed Option #4 and chose not to act on that option because of the uncertainty of the MU zone district. The applicant requested a continuance for language to be drafted for PUD wording that appropriately meets the concerns of the commissioners. NEWMOTION.• Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Long Family Investments, 802 West Main Street to March 21 S`; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: 414 North ls` Street, Hallam Lake ESA Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the 414 N. 15i Street, Hallam Lake Environmentally Sensitive Area Review. Chris Bendon stated that notice, publication and mailing were provided. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing to March 21S`; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDITON Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Hannah Dustin Mixed Use Addition. Joyce A]Igaier stated the applicants would provide the overview and all the aspects of the application. Stan Clauson, representing Hyman Avenue Holdings LLC, stated this was a combined application including a number of parts; subdivision; growth management for affordable housing; addition of mixed use development; free- market residential units; commercial design review; special review and condominiumization. Clauson said there were 4 townsite lots and the Hannah Dustin Building occupies 2 of the 41ots; presently there was a parking area on the other 21ots; adjacent to the parking area is the Benedict Commons Building. Clauson said there is a sidewalk that goes along Spring Street but no sidewalk on Hyman Avenue until you reach the Benedict Commons Building at present time. 7 ~~ r _, Aspen Planning & Zonine Commission -Minutes - Anri118 2006 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/28/06): 802 WEST. MAIN STREET -LONG FAMILY REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Allgaier recapped the property location utilizing a map. Allgaier said the subject property was currently zoned R-15 and proposed Mixed Use (MU) for the rezoning without a development application; it was strictly a rezoning to evaluate on the potential land uses in a MU Zone District with the review criteria in the packet. Allgaier said the subject property was 3 Aspen townsite lots-totally 9,000 square feet with currently a single family dwelling at about 1750 square feet. The potential of the Mixed Use (staff memo page 2) was a 2 to 1 ratio; free market could be up to a .75 to 1 of the development or 6,750 square feet; the commercial or office component at not more than the total floor area of the free market; there could be as much affordable housing as desired. Allgaier said that no one free market unit could be more than 2,000 square feet in size. The MU Zone District height could go up to 32 feet in contrast to 25 feet in the residential zone. Allgaier said when there was an application for the mixed use building they would have to go back to P&Z for the Growth Management Quota System requirements and Commercial Design Guidelines making sure there was compatibility, off street parking and ensuring that any dimensional requirements meet the code. Staff finds this property could serve as a transition between the more highly developed Main Street and the residential neighborhood behind; it could anchor the existing Main Street. This property was compromised for residential purposes because of traffic. Allgaier said that the new development had to be highly sensitive to the traffic issues and where access comes from and how newly generated traffic associated with a mixed use development would work and while this doesn't seem to be an issue now but will need to be addressed and carefully looked at when they come back for the development. Staff found the project favorable to rezoning. Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long who grew up in this house and remember a dentist office in the house and this house was in the Office Zone, a pre-cursor to the Mixed Use Zone. Clauson said that any development plan would come back to P&Z. Clauson said that the redevelopment under MU would allow for a structure that would enhance the development; it was rezoned to R-15 in the l 970s, which included increased traffic counts at the intersection of 7`h and Main; a CDOT record of decision through the NEPA process that extended Main Street and future light rail past the subject property and onto a new bridge at Castle Creek; rezoning of the Office O Zone along Main Street into the Mixed Use Zone MU, which was a changed circumstance; the multi-family affordable housing at 7`" and Main; adoption of the AACP 2004, which promotes infill and increased densities to buildup areas of Aspen. ~... .-~ Aspen Plannine & Zoning Commission -Minutes - Aaril 18 2006 Dylan Johns asked if the Main Street Overlay was purely an option or was there other framework. Allgaier said that the Historic Preservation Officer did not think that this property or building was contributing to the Main Street District. Jasmine Tygre asked staff s position on this property becoming Mixed Use while the other properties on the part of 7'h Street were all residential, why should this property become commercial. Allgaier replied the site was quite compromised for what can be developed as a single family house. Tygre asked for an explanation for the term anchor. Allgaier answered visually anchor was a substantial building that can handle what that intersection is like and not a smaller residential development but something that defines that intersection and becomes the entrance to Main Street. Allgaier submitted a letter dated March 13`h from Herb Klein. Public Comments: 1. Nancy Henricks, owner at Villas of Aspen, noted that in February the president of their association sent a letter. Henricks wanted to see the Longs pleased with this but she can not see why this should be mixed use; there were a ]ot of kids and traffic. Henricks said that she would like to see the City purchase the property and make a park out this property. 2. Marc Friedberg asked if the corner were rezoned could the property next door be rezoned having a cascading effect all the way to the bridge, if there is a bridge there. Allgaier responded the likely hood of that was minimal because this was a brand new deed restricted affordable housing; the rezoning could be applied for in the future. 3. Fredrick Uhlr lives in the Aspen Villas and said that there was a store put in the new housing and was taken out and is now used as a living quarters; there was the Christian Science; the Hickory House; years ago there was a gas station on the side of 7~' Street. Uhtr asked why anyone would go through the trouble of rezoning and have no other idea about the property. 4. Rowine St. Andre said that her Aspen has been gone a long time ago; she spoke of slowing things down and keep the comer the way it is. 5. Ron Long said that somebody missed the comer on Main Street and hit one of the boulders in front of the garage; that was one reason this corner was not suitable for a single family residence. 6. Roger Long said the subject property was under contract so they were not hiding anything. Allgaier said the permitted uses under the MU Zone were not retail or restaurant uses but service, office lodging, arts, cultural, public, recreational, academic uses and child care were allowed. 4 ~~ e.. ~.. Ashen PlanninE & Zonine Commission -Minutes Anril 18 2006 John Rowland said that he struggled with the zoning maps but this was a terrible intersection that needs a sense of place and another residence would not apply. Rowland supported staff's decision and looked forward to this rezoning. Dylan Johns said that he shared the same concerns as John with the relationship; he did not think that R-15 was a good zone, maybe RMF to make it all whole. Johns said that this was a challenging site to develop under any circumstance and that any proposal that comes though will be seen by P&Z. Brian Speck agreed with John and Dylan because of the area he could see a mixed use development. Speck said he did not like not knowing what kind of development was going to go there and would like more restrictions like the Bavarian had for height. Speck Iiked the idea of anchoring that corner and would support this project. Jasmine Tygre stated that she was in direct opposition to the other members of the commission; she said this was not an appropriate spot for mixed use zoning and looking at the map she can not see how this cannot be considered spot zoning. Tygre said 7`h Street divides part of town that is more developed than the other side, which is primarily residential in character and doesn't follow the staff recommendation. Tygre asked why you would want to intensify uses on a corner that already has circulation and traffic problems; she thought that this was a terrible solution. Tygre said that she'll vote against it because it was inconsistent with items (page 6 & 7 staffmemo) "C, D & G". MOTION.• John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #007, Series 2006, recommending City Council rezone the "Long Family Property" located at 802 West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District.. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote.' Johns, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 3-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3/7/6: 17 SHADY LANE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on 17 Shady Lane. James Lindt stated at the previous hearing the commission approved a Stream Margin Review and Design Standards Variances for a new single family house at 17 Shady Lane. Lindt explained that the commission requested more detail on the fence request. The applicants have redesigned the fence and the slight relocation of Shady Lane to the north. Lindt said the resolution approves both the fence and relocation; if P&Z chooses only the fence to be approved then Section 3 can be stricken. 5 . Page 1 of 2 ,, . ,,,~„ Chris Bendon From: Helen Klanderud Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 11:06 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: FW: 802 W Main Chris, I'm not certain it is appropriate for individual P&Z members to submit an a-mail such as this only to council. I am going to check with John, but I believe you should have this. Helen From: Jasmine Tygre [mailto:jtygre@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2006 1:56 PM To: J.E. DeVilbiss; jacktarquinl@yahoo.com; Helen Klanderud; Rachel Richards; Torre Subject: 802 W Main The Long Property (802 W. Main) Although a majority of the P&Z approved the rezoning of this property to Mixed Use, I dissented and would like to explain my vote: My finding is that this project does not meet the following rezoning criteria: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.. Staff sees this parcel as an extension of Main Street. However, the subject property is on the west (downvalley) side of Seventh Street, which is entirely residential and is zoned either R-15 or R/MF PUD. Staff s memo acknowledges this existing pattern of development. The rezoning seeks to change the nature of the neighborhood, without any indication that the people who live in the azea desire such a change (in fact, public comments and letters indicate the opposite). B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff believes that creating a "locally-serving commercial zone" on the site is consistent with the AACP; however, it's not clear why an area already impacted by traffic and circulation problems would be appropriate for this kind of upzoning. Moreover, restaurant and retail uses, and neighborhood commercial uses aze allowed only for Historic Landmazk Properties, which this is not. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The property does not abut MU - it is across heavily-traveled Seventh Street from the Main Street MU properties. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff acknowledges the possible exacerbation of existing traffic and circulation problems, but believes these could be solved in the context of a specific development application. There is little question that increased intensity of use will impact not only this property but the neighboring parcels as well. What is the justification for imposing such negative impacts on a traditionally residential neighborhood? 5/16/2006 ,~, Page 2 of 2 ..,. ~_„~ G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff admits that the MU zoning would be a change to this corner, and yet concludes that this criterion has been met. Huh? H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Again, Staff finds that "residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern on this side of 7~'" - a changed condition -but recommend commercial upzoning nonetheless! I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. There is no evidence that upzoning this location is in the public interest. It is clear that the driving force behind this application is the vastly increased square footage allowed under MU zoning. R-15 Mixed Use llowable hei t 25' 32"* aximum s uare foots e 3600/4500 18 000 *Note -The immediately adjacent Bavarian Inn units (RMF/PUD) were limited to 25' flat roofs to ensure neighborhood compatibility! Such development is totally out of scale with the existing neighborhood, and is one of the most egregious examples of "spot zoning" I have ever seen on my many thousands of years on P&Z. Community Development Staff seems determined to turn this section of town into Neighborhood Commercial -without any overall plan to handle the impacts. Another example of "infill" run amok? Thanks for your attention. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.. 5/16/2006 W. Chris Bendon From: Helen Klanderud Sent: Monday, May O8, 2006 2:22 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: FW: 802 West Main Chris, Here's another e-mail from P&Z. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Kruger [mailtotruth@krugerandcompany.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:12 PM To: Helen Klanderud; Rachel Richards; Jack Johnson; Torre; J.E. DeVilbiss Subject: 802 West Main May 6, 2006 City Council 130 S Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Madam Mayor and Council, I respectfully submit to you that changing the zoning at 802 West Main would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood. Should there be any parking on the corner of that lot the hazards of crossing that intersection will be exacerbated. Due to the current detour, it is impossible to go straight into the neighborhood across 7th Street and in normal times it is difficult. You must hover in the far left lane in front of the Christian Science building and wait for a break. Once given the break you must rush across through the occasional break in traffic. The other alternative is to drive down Hopkins through the "pedestrian walkway" and turn left at the corner of 7th and Main. An unfriendly choice and one that is not currently an option either. How is one that lives in that neighborhood supposed to enter if all access coming from town is blocked? I would ask that you attempt the negotiation of the intersection at morning rush hour and see if you would not agree that any increase in zoning at this sensitive location would be unwise. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Ruth Kruger Ruth Kruger, CCIM, CIPS Kruger and Company 900 East Hyman Avenue Mall Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-9001 970-920-4007 fax 888-920-9001 970-409-4000 cell ruth@krugerandcompany.com 1 ,~. `~ ~,lt 1 b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: 802 West Main Street Rezoning, Long Family Investments LLLP- 1g~ Reading of Ordinance No. ~ ,Series of 2006 (Second Reading to beheld on May, 22, 2006.) DATE: May 8, 2006 APPLICANT /OWNER: Long Family Investments, LLLP represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 802 West Main Street CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District PROPOSED ZONING: MU (Mixed Use) Zone District SUMMARY: 1'he Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone District to the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. No specific development plan is proposed at this time. A future mixed use development is anticipated and would need to be in conformance with the Land Use Code. The site is comprised of three (3) Aspen Townsite lots, totaling 9,000 square feet in size. CURRENT LAND USE: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling of approximately 1,747 sq. ft. STAFF & P&Z RECOMMENDATION: Approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal by a three (3) to one (1) vote. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 7~' Street and West Main Street. The property is located within the Aspen Townsite, is currently zoned R-15, and is being proposed for designation as MU, Mixed Use. The Applicant is not proposing any development at this time but would be subject to the provisions of the underlying zoning that would set the standards for development on this 9,000 square foot lot. The existing single family residence would remain until such time as a development scenario was proposed. ~* REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the recommending body to City Council on a rezoning request. A public hearing must be conducted and the criteria by which the Commission evaluate the application aze attached in Exhibit A. A public hearing will also be conducted by the City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning Implications: See Exhibit B (Zoning Map) and Exhibit C (R-15 and MU Code Sections) Several of the properties to the south of the subject property (across Main Street toward the mountain) are zoned R-15; the same zone district in which the subject property is located. Properties to the north and west of the subject site are zoned R/MF PUD and include such multi-family complexes as the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing and The Villas. Diagonally across the 7~' and Main Street intersection is the 7`~ & Main Affordable Housing. To the east, starting with the Christian Science Building and Hickory House, the MU Zone District begins and continues on both sides of Main Street into the commercial core to the Jerome Hotel. This same area is overlaid with the Main Street Historic District designation. There are a variety of land uses at the greater intersection of 7th and Main, in the vicinity of the subject property. There are numerous multi-family residences, some duplexes and single family residences and then the mixture of office/commercial/restaurant uses along Main Street. The purpose of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District is, "to provide for a variety of lodging, multi family, single family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. " ...As compared to... The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) Zone District is, "to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate-Density (R-1 S) zone distrtict typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate Density Residential (R-IS) zone district. " The following options are available fora 9,000 square foot lot in the Mixed Use Zone District. • The existing single-family house may be redeveloped as a single family or duplex dwelling unit with 100% of the allowable floor areas for the R-6 zone district. The allowable floor area for a single family unit would be 3,660 sq. ft. and for a duplex it would be 4,080 sq. ft. 2 • A mixed use building could be built with an allowable cumulative floor area of up to 18,000 sq. ft. (2:1) In a mixed use scenario, the maximum allowable floor area for the free market component would be 6,750 sq. ft. (.75:1), as would the commercial component (.75:1). Both of these uses could be increased to 1:1 floor area ratio with special review. The affordable housing component to a mixed use project is unlimited as long as the cumulative development on the site does not exceed 2:1. Very recent code amendments have clarified that the total amount of free-market residential floor area on the parcel shall be no greater than the total floor area attributed to the commercially-oriented uses on the parcel. This would not allow fora lop- sided development, heavily weighted toward afree-market component. • Mixed use development on the property would be allowed to go up to 32 feet in height and residential structures may rise to 25 feet. The Bavarian Inn residential units immediately adjacent to and west of the Long property were limited to only 20 feet with flat roofs to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood. The Bavarian Inn structure, itself, located to the north across the alley from the property is limited to between 25 and 32 feet in height, depending on density. • New mixed use development would be subject to the Growth Management Quota System requirements. For a new mixed use development the review authority falls with the P&Z and requires positive findings regarding the existence of growth management allotments, consistency with AACP, 60% employee generation mitigation and minimal impact on infrastructure. • Any new mixed use development would need to meet the Commercial Design Guidelines, Off-street parking, and dimensional requirements and be subject to driveway access approvals and other infrastructure (sidewalk, curb, street tree, etc.) requirements. • If the property were rezoned to MU with the Main Street Historic District Overlay then the floor area ratio would drop from 2:1 for mixed use to 1:1 (or 1:1.25 by special review). District designation would also give the HPC purview over the design elements of any future development to ensure compatibility with the Main Street corridor. Historic District designation is not being applied for. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would not create a spot zoning situation, which is discouraged in fundamental planning practice in that the subject property is across the street from MU zoning. It could serve to "anchor" the MU zoning at the very end of Main Street and add visual vitality to the public realm in this area. The AACP speaks to increasing the areas of Mixed Use zoning in areas that are already built up or where mixed use type of development can support existing neighborhoods. Access: Access to the property is currently from Main Street but is not known for any future development. This is not a concern at this time along with a rezoning proposal; however, Staff would like to acknowledge that the property is limited in some ways to easy access considering its location along the S-Curves. Should the "Straight Shot° concept be 3 ,,~, _~, .w. ~.. implemented at some time in the future, the access issues may be easier to resolve. The property does have access to an alleyway - the preferred access point for commercial development. Full evaluation of this matter would need to occur at the time of development review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the ofFicial zone district map. There are both physical changes that have occurred and policy directive that support this rezoning. The Community Development Director does feel that the extension of the MU District is appropriate for this site and significantly preferred over asingle-family or duplex residence at this site. PLEASE SEE STAFF'S EXHIBIT A WHICH LAYS OUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. a~ ,Series of 2006, upon first reading." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Zoning Map with Properties in Vicinity Exhibit C -- MU & R-15 Zone District Code Section Exhibit D -Application Exhibit E -- P&Z Resolution No. 07, Series of 2006 & Minutes (second reading) 4 r -~ ..~. EXIIIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in direct conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning could allow for a pattem of residential and mixed use development that is consistent with the residential development pattern that exists in the neighborhood especially that pattern and mixture of uses found along Main Street. Staff also finds that if the full build-out of the site were to occur, that the building size could be significantly lazger than what is around it. The Bavarian Inn structure is azound 5,915 sq. feet and what could occur on the Long property would be 18,000. The maximum allowable FAR in the R/MF Zone District is 1.5 to 1, MU is potentially 2:1. Another consideration under this criterion is the purpose statements of the MU and the R-15 districts. The R-15 district is more favorable to higher density residential development (would be in keeping with the current pattem on this side of 7`s Street). But, the MU district could also bring about this result with multi-family residential along with a mix of uses that potentially could serve this part of the town and be more appropriate with the traffic impacts to residential use. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP. The AACP advocates for mixed-use development that brings about vitality and diversity in this area. The AACP specifically calls for the revision of the locally-serving commercial zone districts (done), stemming the loss of locally -serving commercial space (ongoing), and the creation of additional locally-serving commercial zone land. The application presents this opportunity and presents a clear decision for the community - an additional single-family/duplex or a mixed-use building. The application also directly addresses a stated policy of the AACP Economic Sustainability section -Encourage local ownership of businesses. Recommendation #3 of the Economic Sustainability Report was "Develop abroader-based economy by supporting commercial and affordable housing opportunities... Study ways to encourage locally owned and operated businesses. Explore ways to develop locally owned and local serving retail space." Staff believes this application is consistent with these policy directives. Staff also believes this application to implement action items of the Economic Sustainability Report -Retain and expand through infill SCI opportunities wherever possible to help counter Downvalley economic leakage and provide 5 needed goods and services to Aspen residents. Study mechanisms for affordable retail development. Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned MU, R-15, and R/MF PUD so the proposed rezoning application would create neither spot zoning nor a zone incompatible with the environs. The development of this site as mixed use would provide a buffer between the residential development to the west and the increasing traffic impacts of Main Street and continue the pattern of use along Main Street (which is definitely mixed use). The subject property is also in a place that would be subject to street noise and lights so it does not present itself as the best location for a single family dwelling or multi-family. The bottom floor dwellers of the 7a' and Main Affordable Housing have had problems with noise and headlights onto their property. The Long property could have the same problem if developed with multi-family on the bottom floor. The mixed use approach to the property could allow for the siting of the commercial/office use to be closer to the street, than the residential component and extend a pedestrian orientation of the built environment. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding The possibility exists under MU zoning for the property to develop with a much higher intensity of use than under R-15 zoning. Considering the location of this proposal at the "S- Curves", certain access points could exacerbate the traffic situation. These would need to be discussed upon submission of a development application, but staff believes that the access issue can be resolved with possible limitations to turning movements onto 7a' Street, and alley usage. (Presently, the traffic flow is regulated on the alley @ 7`s Street. This was put in place at the time of the Bavarian Inn redevelopment-traffic is limited by signs that allow only right-in only onto the alley from 7`" and right-out only from the alley. Access to the development from the 8`h St./alley intersection is discouraged by a "Service and Emergency Vehicle Access Only" sign). For the purposes of analysis, we can look at the maximum build-out of the site of 18,000 squaze feet of mixed use which would have to be residential and mixed commercial/office. We do not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning because the street infrastructure and access to transit exists. Any future site design would need to be closely scrutinized for specific driveway locations onto the adjoining streets. Staff believes this criterion is met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. 6 ,.-, , ,~ ~Y/ ..A Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a continuation of the MU zoning. It most definitely would be a change to this comer of the Main Street "S Curves" but if looked at within the entire Main Street context, this zoning is consistent. Staff finds that this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The R-15 zoning of this property accommodated the existing single-family structure and is the only R-15 property north of Main Street (in the immediate area). The neighborhood includes significant multi-family development to the west and mixed-use development to the east. One could find that with the fairly recent development of the Bavarian and duplex housing, residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern on this side of 7th. Traffic in this vicinity has increased since the latest rezoning of this property. CDOT's Record of Decision supports the "Straight Shot" (which would go right by this property), and the recent implementation of MU rezoning along Main Street are recent changes. The AACP desire for mixed-use development, mixed-use neighborhoods, and a desire for local serving commercial development also demonstrate recent changes. This rezoning could both implement the desired policy of mixed-use development and provide a buffer to the residential area to the west from the impacts of traffic. Staff believes that asingle- family/duplex residence has significantly less opportunity to address these goals. This criterion does not require a "change in conditions" to support a rezoning, only that any changes be recognized in the rezoning discussion. Staff believes there are both physical and policy changes that have occurred that support this rezoning. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. ~.i_ :~~ .. ,. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ,~.. ~ ., ~. ORDINANCE NO.o2-t (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG FAMILY PARCEL" LOCATED AT 802 WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU (MIXED-USE) ZONE DISTRICT FROM R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT) FOR THE LAND DESCRIIiED AS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 5123 080 0 5 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting to rezone the Long Family Pazcel located at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District to MU (Mixed Use) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code at a duly noticed public heazings on, January 3, 2006, February 7, 2006, February 21, 2006, March 21, 2006 and Mazch 28, 2006, and approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, at a final hearing on April 18, 2006, by a three to one (3-1) vote, recommending that City Council rezone the subject property to the MU Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development or review standards and that the approval of the rezoning is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone the subject property containing Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District to the MU (Mixed Use) Zone District. Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 802 W. Main Street Page 1 r^ ,,, Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in this approval and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22"d day of May 2006, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty days (30) following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8s' day of May, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor day of ,2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K-anderud, Mayor Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 802 W. Main Street Page 2 .~ -~. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 802 W. Main Street Page 3 r MEMORANDUM ~~ TO: Aspen Planm'ng~and Zoning Commission FROM: Joyce Allgaie~r~, Community Development Deputy Director RE: 802 West Main Street Rezoning, Long Family Investments LLLP- Public Hearing Re. Resolution No. O~Series of 2006 DATE: April 18, 2006 APPLICANT /OWNER: Long Family Investments, LLLP represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 802 West Main Street CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District PROPOSED ZONING: MU (Mixed Use) Zone District SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone District to the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. No specific development plan is proposed at this time. A future mixed use development is anticipated and would need to be in conformance with the Land Use Code. The site is comprised of three (3) Aspen Townsite lots, totaling 9,000 square feet in size. CURRENT LAND USE: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling of approximately 1,747 sq. ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Staff has also put forth a question regarding the extension of the Historic District to accommodate this site. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property located on the northeast comer of the intersection of 7a' Street and West Main Street. The property is located within the Aspen Townsite, is currently zoned R-15, and is being proposed for designation as MU, Mixed Use. The Applicant is not proposing any development at this time but would be subject to the provisions of the underlying zoning that would set the standards for development on this 9,000 square foot lot. The existing single family residence would remain until such fime as a development scenario was proposed. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the recommending body to City Council on a rezoning request. A public hearing must be conducted and the criteria by which h k\i/ / the Commission evaluate the application are attached in Exhibit A. A public hearing will also be conducted by the City Council. ' STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning Implications: See Exhibit B (Zoning Map) and Exhibit C (R-15 and MU Code Sections) Several of the properties to the south of the subject property (across Main Street toward the mountain) are zoned R-15; the same zone district in which the subject property is located. Properties to the north and west of the subject site are zoned R/MF PUD and include such multi-family complexes as the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing and The Villas. Diagonally across the 7`" and Main Street intersection is the 7'" & Main Affordable Housing. To the east, starting with the Christian Science Building and Hickory House, the MU Zone District begins and continues on both sides of Main Street into the commercial core to the Jerome Hotel. This same area is overlaid with the Main Street Historic District designation. There are a variety of land uses at the greater intersection of 7th and Main, in the vicinity of the subject property. There aze numerous multi-family residences, some duplexes and single family residences and then the mixture of office/commercial/restaurant uses along Main Street. The purpose of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District is, "to provide for a variety of lodging, multi family, single family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. " ...As compared to... The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) Zone District is, "to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate-Density (R-IS) zone distrtict typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate Density Residential (R-IS) zone district. " The following options aze available fora 9,000 square foot lot in the Mixed Use Zone District. • The existing single-family house may be redeveloped as a single family or duplex dwelling unit with 100% of the allowable floor areas for the R-6 zone district. The allowable floor area for a single family unit would be 3,660 sq. ft. and for a duplex it would be 4,080 sq. ft. • A mixed use building could be built with an allowable cumulative floor area of up to 18,000 sq. fl. (2:1) In a mixed use scenario, the maximum allowable floor area for the free market component would be 6,750 sq. fl. (.75:1), as would the commercial component (.75:1). Both of these uses could be 2 ~. thr' .y ,> increased to 1:1 floor area ratio with Special Review approval by the P&Z. The affordable housing component to a mixed use project is unlimited as long as the cumulative development on the site does not exceed 2:1. Very recent code amendments have clarified that the total amount of free-market residential floor area on the parcel shall be no greater than the total floor area attributed to the commercially-oriented uses on the parcel. This would not allow for alop-sided development, heavily weighted toward afree-market component. • .Mixed use development on the property would be allowed to go up to 32 feet in height and residential structures may rise to 25 feet. The Bavarian Inn residential units immediately adjacent to and west of the Long property were limited to only 20 feet with flat roofs to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood. The Bavarian Inn structure, itself, located to the north across the alley from the property is limited to between 25 and 32 feet in height, depending on density. • New mixed use development would be subject to the Growth Management Quota System requirements. For a new mixed use development the review authority falls with the P&Z and requires positive findings regarding the existence of growth management allotments, consistency with AACP, 60% employee generation mitigation and minimal impact on infrastructure. • Any new mixed use development would need to meet the Commercial Design Guidelines, Off-street parking, and dimensional requirements and be subject to driveway access approvals and other infrastructure (sidewalk, curb, street tree, etc.) requirements. • If the property were rezoned to MU with the Main Street Historic District Overlay then the floor area ratio would drop from 2:1 for mixed use to 1:1 (or 1:1.25 by special review). District designation would also give the HPC purview over the design elements of any future development to ensure compatibility with the Main Street corridor. Historic District designation is not being applied for. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would not create a spot zoning situation, which is discouraged in fundamental planning practice in that the subject property is across the street from MU zoning. It could serve to "anchor" the MU zoning at the very end of Main Street. The AACP speaks to increasing the areas of Mixed Use zoning in areas that are already built up or where mixed use type of development can support existing neighborhoods. Access: Access to the property is currently from Main Street but access is not known for any future development. This is not a concern at this time along with a rezoning proposal; however, Staff would like to acknowledge that the property is limited in some ways to easy access considering its location along the S-Curves. Should the "Straight Shot" concept be implemented at some time in the future, the access issues may be easier to resolve. The property does have access to an alleyway -the preferred access point for commercial 3 development. Full evaluation of this matter would need to occur at the time of development review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff fmds that the proposed rezoning application meets the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. There are both physical changes that have occurred and policy directive that support this rezoning. The Community Development Director does feel that the extension of the MU District is appropriate for this site and significantly preferred over asingle-family or duplex residence at this site. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission discuss the extension of the Historic District to accommodate this site and approve the attached resolution, recommending that City Council approve the requested rezoning. PLEASE SEE STAFF'S EXHIBIT A WHICH STRIVES TO LAY OUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATNE): "I move to approve Resolution No. ,Series of 2006, recommending that City Council rezone the "Long Family Property~ocated at 802 West Main Street to the MU, Mixed Use Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -Zoning Map with Properties Exhibit C - MU & R-15 Zone District Code Section Exhibit D -Letter from Herb Klein, dated March 13, 2006 4 ,-~ ., ~~ EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in direct conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning could allow for a pattern of residential and mixed use development that is consistent with the residential development pattern that exists in the neighborhood especially that pattern and mixture of uses found along Main Street. Staff also finds that if the full build-out of the site were to occur, that the building size could be significantly larger than what is around it. The Bavarian Inn structure is around 5,915 sq. feet and what could occur on the Long property would be 18,000. The maximum allowable FAR in the It/MF Zone District is 1.5 to 1; MU is potentially 2:1. Another consideration under this criterion is the purpose statements of the MU and the R-15 districts. The R-15 district is more favorable to higher density residential development (would be in keeping with the current pattern on this side of 7a' Street). But, the MU district could also bring about this result with multi-family residential along with a mix of uses that potentially could serve this part of the town and be more appropriate with the traffic impacts to residential use. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. StaffFindinzr Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP. The AACP advocates for mixed-use development 'that brings about vitality and diversity in this area. The AACP specifically calls for the revision of the locally-serving commercial zone districts (done), stemming the loss of locally -serving commercial space (ongoing), and the creation of additional locally-serving commercial zone land. The application presents this opportunity and presents a clear decision for the community - an additional single-family/duplex or a mixed-use building. The application also directly addresses a stated policy of the AACP Economic Sustainability section -Encourage local ownership of businesses. Recommendation #3 of the Economic Sustainability Report was "Develop abroader-based economy by supporting commercial and affordable housing opportunities... Study ways to encourage locally owned and operated businesses. Explore ways to develop locally owned and local serving retail space." Staffbelieves this application is consistent with these policy directives. Staff also believes this application to implement action items of the Economic Sustainability Report -Retain and expand through infill SCI opportunities wherever possible to help counter Downvalley economic leakage and provide 5 t needed goods and services to Aspen residents. Study mechanisms for affordable retail development. Staffbelieves this rezoning is consistent with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned MU, R-15, and IUMF PUD so the proposed rezoning application would create neither spot zoning nor a zone incompatible with the environs. The development of this site as mixed use would provide a buffer between the residential development to the west and the increasing traffic impacts of Main Street and continue the pattern of use along Main Street (which is definitely mixed use). The subject property is also in a place that would be subject to street noise and lights so it does not present itself as the best location for a single family dwelling or multi-family. The bottom floor dwellers of the 7s' and Main Affordable Housing have had problems with noise and headlights onto their property. The Long property could have the same problem if developed with multi-family on the bottom floor. The mixed use approach to the property could allow for the sifing of the commercial/office use to be closer to the street, than the residential component and extend a pedestrian orientation of the built environment. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding The possibility exists under MU zoning for the property to develop with a much higher intensity of use than under R-15 zoning. Considering the location of this proposal at the "S- Curves", certain access points could exacerbate the traffic situation. These would need to be discussed upon submission of a development application, but staff believes that the access issue can be resolved with possible limitations to turning movements onto 7~ Street,•and alley usage. (Presently, the traffic flow is regulated on the alley @ 7a' Street. This was put in place at the time of the Bavarian Inn redevelopment-traffic is limited by signs that allow only right-in only onto the alley from 7~' and right-out only from the alley. Access to the development from the 8~' St./alley intersection is discouraged by a "Service and Emergency Vehicle Access Only" sign). For the purposes of analysis, we can look at the maximum build-out of the site of 18,000 square feet of mixed use which would have to be residenfial and mixed commercial/office. We do not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning because the street infrastructure and access to transit exists. Any future site design would need to be closely scrutinized for specific driveway locations onto the adjoining streets. Staffbelieves this criterion is met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. 6 r"` -,~ Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findine Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the azea in that the new zoning would allow for a continuation of the MU zoning. It most definitely would be a change to this corner of the Main Street "S Curves" but if looked at within the entire Main Street context, this zoning is consistent. Staff finds that this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The R-15 zoning of this property accommodated the existing single-family structure and is the only R-15 property north of Main Street (in the immediate azea). The neighborhood includes significant multi-family development to the west and mixed-use development to the east. One could find that with the fairly recent development of the Bavarian and duplex housing, residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern on this side of 7th. Traffic in this vicinity has increased since the latest rezoning of this property. CDOT's Record of Decision supports the "Straight Shot" (which would go right by this property), and the recent implementation of MU rezoning along Main Street aze recent changes. The AACP desire for mixed-use development, mixed-use neighborhoods, and a desire for local serving commercial development also demonstrate recent changes. This rezoning could both implement the desired policy of mixed-use development and provide a buffer to the residential azea to the west from the impacts of traffic Staff believes that asingle- family/duplex residence has significantly less opportunity to address these goals. This criterion does not require a "change in conditions" to support a rezoning, only that any changes be recognized in the rezoning discussion. Staff believes there aze both physical and policy changes that have occurred that support this rezoning. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. 7 r~ Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8 !.r RESOLUTION N0. ~ ~" (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG FAMILY PARCEL" LOCATED AT 802 WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU (MIXED-USE) ZONE DISTRICT FROM R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY RESH)ENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT) FOR THE LAND DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512308005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from .Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting b rezone the Long Family Pazcel located at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District to MU (Mixed Use) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Mazch 21, 2006, after being continued from January 3, 2006, February 7, 2006, February 21, 2006, and March 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, at a final hearing on April 18, 2006, by a to ~-~ vote, recommending that City Council rezone the subject property to the MU Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development or review standards and that the approval of the rezoning is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion. of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone the subject property containing Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District to the MU (Mixed Use) Zone District. ~~ ~. SeCtIOn Z' All material representations and commitments made by the applicant, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in this approval and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18th day of April, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk r* ~a 802 W. Main Vicin-ity Map with Zoning t 5 Zone 7th and Main AH N Hickory House Science Church 9 zon ui '' ;- i ~: 0 87.5175 ~ 350. 525 700 Feet _. __ _ - _ _ ~~tit~ 1`}` .._. ~ rt ~~ l.n ~.y 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a variety of lodging, multi-family, single-family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or fre- quent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. t ;- i B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (ML7) zone district: 1. 'On Historic Landmark Properties: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commercial Uses; and Bed and breakfast. _ 2. Service Uses. 3. Office Uses. 4. Lodging, Timeshaze Lodge, Exempt Timesharing. 5. Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. 6. Public Uses. 7. Recreational Uses. 8. Academic Uses. 4. Child care center. 10. Affordable Multi-Family Housing. 11.Free-Market Multi-Fanuly Housing. 12. Single Family Residence. 13. Duplex Residence. ~ 14. Two Detached Single-Family Residences. ~- 15. Home occupations. 16. Accessory uses and structures. 17. Storage accessory to a permitted use. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in theMixed-Use (MU) zone district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Commercial Pazking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to allpemutted and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: ' 1. Minimum lot size (sguaze feet): 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelline unit (square feet)- a. 'Detached residential dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties: b. Duplex dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties. c. A11 other uses: Not applicable. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30. 4. Minimum front vaazd setback (feetl: 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430. s. ~ `un/ ~~;~ < :rr *c , > ~; _ -y Ciry of fspen Land Use Code. JuiP, 20GS- ` ~ "~"~' ~+^r ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~ Part700,Pa,e39 ~Tr aM, - 26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-1 S) zone district is to provide azeas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery ofthe City. Lands withinthe Townsite whichborder AspenMountain aze also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses aze permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; _ 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carnage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-I S) zone district, subject [o the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic. Uses. 3. Agricultural Uses. 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child care center. 7. For historic landmazk properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For Historic Landmark Properties: three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum lot area per dwelline unit (square feet: a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmazk Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. Historic Landmazk Properties: 30. 4. Minimum front Yazd setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum side Yard setback (feet): Ten (10). 6. Minimum rear Yard setback (feet): City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 10 ,.~,, 4. s V Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of oven space required for buildin¢ site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conformine and nonconformine lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (S uare Feet) Sin -e-Famil Residence* lathed Dwellin s or one Du lex* 0--3,000 80 square feet of floor azea for 90 squaze feet of floor azea for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000--9,000 2,400 squaze feetoffloorazea, 2,700 squaze feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 squaze feet of floor squaze feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 squaze feet of floor maximum of 4,080 squaze feet area. of floor azea. 9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor azea, 4,500 square feet of floor azea, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor azea for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a square feet in lot azea, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of 4,500 squaze feet area. of floor area. 15,000-- 4,500 squaze feet of floor azea, 4,920 square feet of floor azea, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 squaze feet of floor azea squaze feet of floor area for• each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor maximum of 6,600 squaze feet area. of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor azea, 7,020 squaze feet of floor azea, plus 3 plus 2 squaze feet of floor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi- foreach additional 100 squaze tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea. feet in lot area. ~---. 1- ~,,mTTM *Total extemal floor azea for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor azea allowed for one duplex. Total external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwell- ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) squaze feet listed on the Inventory of Historic City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 700, Page 11 ~, ~ - Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferab]e Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7) City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 12 ,~ e.r HERBERT S. KLEiN LANCE R COTE, PC' JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III, PC MADHD B. KRISHNAMURTI Eben Clark • atw admiaM in California KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW hsk!~kcelaw.net 20] NORTH MILL. STREET, STE. 203 Irc(nikcelaw net ASPEN, COLORADO SIGI I jee®Iccelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700 mbk t(~i kcelaw.vet FACSAIILE: (970) 925-3977 epcQkcelaw.net Mazch 13, 2006 Via Hand Delivery to Joyice Allgaier City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: 802 West Main Street Rezoning Dear Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am a neighbor of the above described property proposed for rezoning to mixed use and have some concerns about the proposal. This block has recently undergone significant residential development which was accomplished through a cooperative collaboration among the neighbors and the developer of the Bavarian Affordable housing project. Countless hours were spent working towazds densities and heights that would minimize the impacts of the development and the result has been to create homes for many local workers and their families which do not adversely affect the neighborhood. We have had no such dialogue with the proponents of the rezoning application. Although Stan Clausen has been prompt and diligent in returning phone calls and speaking with me and some others about the project, his clients do not have a development plan that can be evaluated when considering the significant density increase that the mixed use zone district allows. Heights are increased, several new uses are introduced into a residential azea and the squaze footage density rises by about 250%. The site may, or may not, be able to handle this density without impacting its neighbors. We just don't know without a plan and without one, we can only assume the worst. Some of the concerns are: Traffic impacts -ingress and egress to the site is compromised by its proximity to 7`h Street/Hwy 82 traffic and turning restrictions. The alley that serves the Bavarian Housing is restricted one way with only emergency access allowed at its westerly end. The Bavarian housing project is home to many families with young children. These kids play in the alley and the streets and dart in and out on their bikes. Pazking is also scarce in the neighborhood, and has recently been assisted by the paving of the shoulder area along West Main Street. However, this additional parking has simply absorbed existing parking needs and should not be viewed as spaces for new development to use. trl~:l~.'~ D ,.,, _,,, Joyce Allgaier Marcy 13, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Noise -this is a residential neighborhood. With young kids around, it's lights out around 8pm. No kidding -I've lived in this neighborhood for 18 yeazs and it is quieter now (with the Bavazian Housing) than before it was built. A new mixed use project raises significant concerns about noise. We have no control over the mix of potential new uses, their hours of operation and the noise that they will generate. Although we are in the townsite grid, we did not choose to live in the core and thus, we did not expect to be confronted with mixed use development impacts. Heights -the new buildings constructed as part of the Bavazian Housing project were limited to 20 and 25 foot heights. The mixed use zone district allows up to 32 feet in height. The height limitations on the Bavarian Housing were imposed, primarily to avoid adverse impacts on my views of Shadow Mountain and Bell Mountain. A 32 foot mixed use building will block my views of Bell Mountain. It would be unfair to me and to the Bavarian Housing if this site was allowed to be rezoned without some restriction on its height so that it is consistent with the Bavarian Housing limitations. There may well be a variety of compatible non-residential uses for this site. However, the type of uses and their operational plan, massing, density, parking and circulation chazacteristics should be fully understood before rezoning the property. Otherwise, the potential "by right" development could be a disaster for this neighborhood. Although the code does not require a development plan for a rezoning, since approval of this rezoning request is a totally discretionazy act, there is no reason why the Commission cannot request a development plan if it believes it would be of assistance in considering the rezoning request. The Commission is under no obligation to approve the application and can reject it without fear of challenge. I respectfully request that the rezoning application be denied, or tabled to allow the applicant to provide a development plan that can be evaluated in light of the request for rezoning. I regret that I will not be in town to personally present my thoughts on this application and I appreciate your consideration of this letter in my absence. Very truly yours, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC By: S. ~,~, CaK . Herbert S. Klein ' ~~ 4.~ 802 W. Main Vicinity Map with Zoning ., ~ F,~~ ~ e :; ~ ~ , ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~•4~~.~: ~~, ~ "~ . z a ;..._. W.NA((AMS y ~, T ' ~n ., ,. _.:, y „ E .u~.3 -, j ~~ . ` Bavarian AH ~=:.:~ ., ~3 ~~ i ':. .~-.-~~. t ( { ._ 2S. ..:.. ,.:.. .. t t .v:" i i f ..' .. _ t v c r !~ Subject Property 5 Zone District 7th and Main AH N 0 87.5175 350 525 700 Feet :~ ...~ 5. Minimum side vard setback (feet)• 5. 6. Minimum rear vard setback (feet) 5. 7. Maximum heieht: a. Commercial, Lodge, Timeshaze Lodge, Exempt Timesharing, Multi-Family, and . Mixed-Use Buildings: 32 feet. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings: 25 feet. 8. Minimum distance between buildinQS on the lot (feet)• 10. 9. Pedestrian Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) A. The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2:1. For properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum cumulative FAR shall be 1:1, which maybe increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 1. Commercial; Lodge; Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing; Arts, Cultural and Civic uses; Public Uses; RecreationaLUses; Academic Uses:.75a, which . maybe increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 2. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation,- other than the cumulative FAR limit stated above. 3. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing:.75:1, which maybe increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. B. The following FAR schedule applies to single-family and duplex uses when devel- oped as the only use of the parcel: 1. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 7, Series of 2005: 100% of the allowable floor azea of anequivalent- sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established. Replace- mentafter Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor azea. 2. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Or- dinance 7, Series of 2005: 80% of the allowable floor azea of an equivalent- sizedlot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area. (Ord. No. 56-2000, § 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001, § 5 (part); Ord. 1-2002 § 20; Ord. No. 7-2005 §1 (part), 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 40 ~.. Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum heieht (feet): Twenty-five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet)• Ten (10). 9. Percent of oven space reouired for building site• No requirement. 10. External floor azea ratio (anolies to conforming and nonconformine lots of recordl• Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (S uare Feet) Sin le-Famil Residence* tacked Dwellin s or one Du lex* 0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 squaze feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 squaze feet of 2,700 squaze feet of floor azea. of floor area. 3,000--9,000 2,400 squaze feet of floor azea, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor azea for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot area, up to a squaze feet in lot azea, up to a maximum of 4,500 squaze feet of floor maximum of4,080 squaze feet area. of floor azea. 9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor azea, 4,500 square feet of floor azea, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot area, up to a squaze feet in lot azea, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of 4,500 squaze feet azea. of floor azea. 15,000-- 4,500 square feet of floor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a squaze feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 squaze feet of floor maximum of 6,600 squaze feet area. of floor azea. 50,000+ 6,600 squaze feet offloor area, 7,020 squaze feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- foreach additional 100 squaze tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. r~. i *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor azea allowed for one duplex. Total external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwell- ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic ._ City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 700, Page 1i s 3 ~~~az I Z Y ~K b Q E ~ LL~ ~I i3u o rcfF C ~p _ ~~ ~ ¢ .~~ p a~~ U ~~2~~~ Q W ~~FFFFFF~W~W Y203 p~KY i~sw~ i y J ~`- Z n wrn (<u F N F ~i~,31 Y W W J m 1S H1XIS N z 0 ~a z ~TT ~~1 p ~; g~<~ Y~ /p/ ` I ~_ x ~ < ~ o rc 6 p O Z ~ ~ N Fri O J N K ~ a t 6 .n ¢ rc ~W °~' i°a p ~ L~~.$ n-z_a.. x rc' a z a I g z 3 ~ ~ i ~ ~ i N LL O ri S m K I 3 I 1 ti r- Z 3 Y 2 O rc r z_ U~ '~ Attachment 4 l~ 1S H1XIS S 2 Y ~-~ $ rs~, x I 3 } W O w ~ _ m d N 0 N LN m W fJ m ' (n ~ 3 ~ ' ° `~ w E `o 's L '- ~j`'c d i°n wm ~y m W m m m Q H U ~ ~ L m O ~ V F L Ems'" N i n ° o m c~ J .W . . LL .3 N ~ 0 m C T O N r y ~ ~ m U $ a a o v a E o m P r-~ ,~, 0 ...~ ... 802 W. Main Vicinity Map Bavarian AH \ Subject Property P 1_ Chnstian Saence Church ~k,.B~EEKeR ST --_, _--- Hickory House Rest. 4.,.,m..~~.,~.-,....~........ h I 0 k y z 2 f ~ __ t h _.,. S i~ 4 ~.:: 1 4 Frames and Fi~nds~Fr°ame Shop / f ` i i ~ r :° i N 0 95 190 380 570 76~eet •~ ,_, ~., ..s Jackie Lothian From: Dawn Ryan (dryan@aspenkl2.net] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:54 PM To: Jackie Lothian Subject: 814 w main p8z rezoning Dear Jackie and respective P&Z board members; My family and I live at 814 W Main St in Aspen. We are very concerned with the rezoning of the residential lot adjacent to us being turned in to a mixed use property. The Bavarian complex, immediately behind the lot in question, alone has more than 20 young children under the age of 12 years old. The motor traffic that would come with a residential/ commercial lot is more than our street can tolerate with small children. Parking is limited as it is and if a business were to go into that space cars would need to park in front of our homes and contribute the traffic in our immediate and surround areas. We are also concerned with the people traffic that would come into our neighborhood. At present the children are able to play outside in a relatively safe play yard, with neighbors and residents we all know. We are concerned that with a commercial business that it would be much more difficult to monitor the safety of the children with unknown persons coming and going through out the day and night. I would also like to remind you of the employee housing just across our street that was built with the intention of a deli/ convenience store being put in to the bottom of the housing units. This space had to be sold later for residential because no business would go into that space. I am strongly suggesting that you keep the lot in question a residential zone. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Dawn Ryan ASD Preschool director/ CPP Coordinator 925-3760 x 5003 1 Page 1 of 2 ~ -, .,,, ...r Joyce Allgaier From: Chris Bendon Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:55 PM To: Joyce Allgaier Subject: FW: 802 W. Main St rezone Cheers, Chris Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 970.429.2765 chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us From: Eric Cohen [mailto:echomes@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:52 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: 802 W. Main St rezone Chris, As you may know I have the subject property co-listed for sale. It is currently Under Contract and I represent the Buyer. With regards to the question of placing the Historic District overlay on the property, I think everyone feels that this would be a mistake, and hinder the ability of the property to be developed in a way that would maximize the ideals of the AACP, and more suitably fit the neighborhood. As you know it is surrounded by a mix of uses, Commercial, AH housing, free market condominiums and residences. This property has the ability to tie them all together. The MU Zoning was recently changed to encourage such uses, and is designed to maximize AH housing on site. Further, ground floor commercial uses could provide real pedestrian accessible services; that otherwise would necessitate trips into downtown from local, West End residents. There is substantial overview on any mixed use development with regards to Commercial Design Guidelines, parking and dimensional requirements. Let the developer build something the city can get behind; don't tie his hands with a Historic District designation. 2/6/2006 ~, w ~.~ ,_ ,~ ..~ m THE CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC NOTICE REZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR I 802 WEST MAIN STREET, LONG FAMILY INVESTMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting a change to the zoning of the property from the R-15 Residential Zone District to the MU Mixed Use Zone District. The subject property is located at 802 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81615 and is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 1 Z in the Townsite and City of Aspen. The address of the applicant's representative is Stan Clauson Associates, INC. 200 East Main Street, Aspen, CO, 81611.. For further information, contact Joyce Allgaier at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2754, (or by email joycea@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Jasmine Tygre Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission k .~.. ._. ; .. , _:s,,. _ Hon. Helen K Klanderud Mayor City of Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen CO 81611 Dear Mayor Klanderud: May-16< 2006 -. ... t ~ .._:,,;, Re' [.or.irg ~'•hange Request for 802 West Main Street. Long i-a^iily Investments I wri*.e as a resident of the Vilhis of Aspen concemmg a potential change in zoning from R 15 to a mixed use (MU) foi the Long property. I testif;ed twice before the Planning and Zoning Commission on tl ~e~ issue. At the first meeting it was clear that the applicant could not muster a majority and askei, far a continuance of the application. At the second meeting the proposal was ai:tualiy voted down but again the applicant requested a continuance and the opportunity to submit a revised application far consideration (one that included a baseline PUD) The approval process before the Planning and Zoning Commission eras thus at best circuitous and more properly one of wai#ing out the P & Z until a favorable panel could be mustered. -there is a fundamental issue of due process where the administrative panel shifts in membership from meeting tc meeting and no decision is "f'na~" ~ mti! the 3pp!i4arrt achieves its fins, final In shnrt. the existing prcred! ire is b_ dly flawed. This application is an overt example of patchwoi k spot z.:ning since it wau!d represent a first MU property in what wG±s always a residential zone. There is ne reaso,7 for this zoning change other than maximizing the value of the property. The applicant has more than adequate opportunity tc develap the property consistent with the existing R-1F zoning as fhe contiguous property ov.ners F?=eve done. - History also supports retaining the existing zoning. Specifiaaliy. when the _ cornmunity (I wc,rked an that plan for the Villas;, the cty and the developer agreed on the plan for deveioprnent of the l3avara~~ Ir,n oraferty there was an underlying assumption that ".he entire area would rem,3in rs~idential. For example, issues of density. more children. were considered in the rontext of Traffic ntithin they stn.rc,ture of a reside ~tiai zcu~e. The proposed change u~derc its thrt agreement and will destroy the baianre that was achieved. - ' A ~"'~ ~, The P & Z also ignored the adverse traffic impacts to the community of such a zoning change and the development that wifi folloev. i .need not detail the difficulties that currently exist to negotiate the 7"' and Mair, portion of the "S curve" for those wishing to tum into the curve from either Main or T" street or.go straight West on Main. Commercial development on the Long property will only exacerbate a difficult traffic problem.. The Applicant has no acceptable answer. it erroneously relies on the alley as providing a conduit for traffic but that passageway was set up specifically not to a throughway. In sum, there is no sound reason to change the zoning on the property. Doing so would only enccurage other developers to turn residential properties into mixed use spaces thus gerrymandering the zoning map of the pity to the determent of established nei.~hbruhoodm Very truly yours; ~~~~~ Neil B 5iegei 100 N. 8'h Street #8 Aspen, CO 81811 ~~^^,, ~ ~.~ V~ltlas of Aspen Townhouse As~ciatlon 100 North 8th Street #2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 9T0-925-7614 FAX 970-925-9403 May 17, 2006 Hon. Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor And Council Members City of Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Zoning Change Request for 802 West Main Street, Long Family Investments Dear Mayor Klanderud and Members of the City Council: I write on behalf of the Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association to provide comments regarding the requested change in zoning from R-15 to a mixed use (M[J) for the subject property. Our properties are neighbors in this area and we are concerned with a number of issues relating to the pending application. The Villas comprises thirty six units which will be duectly impacted by the zoning change, if approved. Residents and members of our Board will be present at the public hearing scheduled for May 22, 2006 to present additional comments, if deemed necessary. We ask that as you review the requested zoning change, you consider the following points: [1] Administrative Due Process The approval for this change by the Planning and Zoning Commission followed a contorted path that the Chair publicly lamented. Indeed during the process of multiple continuances, for the transparent reason of delay until a favorable panel would be present, a vote was taken in which the application was actually rejected, only to resurrected but a resubmission in slightly altered form. The lack of continuity of members of the Commission to consider the issues coupled with shifting of position left both the public and Commission chair Tygre justifiably frustrated in the lack of administrative due process. Nevertheless, approval was eventually given for a precedent setting zoning change that clearly is not in the best interests of the either the city or the citizens. It is however in the best interests of Long Family Investments as providing the maximum zoning value to the property for sale and development. [2 Consideration of the zoning change in the absence of any plan Given that the applicant has not provided any plan or application for the use of the property as a Mixed Use, the Council must consider the change from the perspective of the "worst case" of development. We believe that there was agreement the P & Z that this is the appropriate criteria. City Council: page 2""' "' May 17, 2006 Our view is that unless tied to a specific plan, the Commission should have been extremely conservative in its approach to such a re-zoning. It was not, in the end allowing unfettered development in the face of clear errors in the staff report. Once effectuated, the re-zoned property simply bewmes open for all manner of unforeseen development that may be consistent with a MU zoning but inconsistent with the overall zoning map for the city. Potential worst cases include commercial uses such as convenience stores, cleaners, pizza deliveries and the like all of which require trucks to deliver supplies and stock and have frequent egress and departure by private vehicles. This is in addition to any residential development on the property. We understand that as much as 18,000 ft~ may be accomplished under a MU. This is in stark contrast to the existing building, ~ 1747 ft2, approximately aten-fold increase in land use in the worst case. [3] The overall zoning map - "spot zoning" The property in question sits in an R-15 district. Route 82 acts as a buffer to commercial development from 7s' street along the "S-curve". There is no commercial development west of 7s' street at all with the exception of Poppie's which again is on the North side of Hallam, i.e. on the other side of 82. Thus, the entirety of the properties to the West of 7`s street and South of Hallam are residential. Thus, if MU zoning is appropriate at all in this area, to provide a transition, such should occur on the opposite side of Route 82 where mixed use already exists. To allow this zoning change inside the R-15 zone is not a transition but more properly an encroachment into a completely residential zone and the immediately contiguous area. States differently, MU may be appropriate to the East and North of the "S curves" but not on the other side. The applicant has said that the property is not suitable for residential development. This is incorrect. The immediate comer to the south was redeveloped as exclusively residential. Three of the opposite comers on the "S" curve at Hallam and 7a' are residential, the remaining one being the Forest service property. The fact that the property sits at a corner of the "S" curve is not a detriment to residential use and is no reason why the property in question cannot be rebuilt consistent with the existing R-15 zone into a substantially larger dwelling or group of residences. When the community, the city and the developer reached agreement on the plan for development of the Bavarian Inn property, issues of density were considered in the context of traffic, more children in the area and height limitations on buildings. A successful development plan resulted that in practice has been true to the planning. That process never considered that a zoning change would occur within the R-15 district which could materially change the make-up of the area. The residents relied on the city to uphold the zoning map and worked within its constraints. The proposed change violates that trust and materially upsets the careful balance that was achieved. ~•-~ City Council: page 3 ~' May 17, 2006 [4] Adverse Traffic Impacts As emphasized by the public comment, but ignored by the P &c Z, this is a critical issue. The Staff Findings in Sections D and H of the Memorandum are at odds with the facts concerning traffic flow and congestion as already exists. Turning left from Bleeker onto 7s' is now very difficult. This is an existing problem for all the residents living to the West and South of Route 82, i.e., getting out into traffic from Bleeker. The intersection of 7s' and Main is agreed by all as an extremely dangerous situation. The traffic flow around the "S curve" presents a challenge to merging for cars coming from the West of Main as well as the South of 7s'. The same exists for the "easy" case of simply goin~ straight, i.e., West on Main beyond 7'~ with incoming traffic on the curve turning left from 7 onto Main in the East going direction. Considered then from a "worst case" condition imagine vehicles attempting the same moves with delivery trucks in the vicinity (the same trucks wuld also be circulating in the residential area along Bleeker and 8s' Street). Consider also the traffic impacts on 7s' street with vehicles pulling into and leaving temporary parking in the rezoned property, potentially backing out into traffic. These issues are not so far fetched and alone mandate either denying the application or specifically coupling it to a definite development plan. The applicant apparently relies on the alley as providing access and easing traffic concerns. However, that alley was specifically configured to preclude through traffic. It divides the employee housing development to provide access to parking and allowing children to move freely within that property with the small park area therein. That was the plan, not to allow delivery trucks access to a commercial development on the Long property. [5] Building height and provmately to the street We also believe that potential other problems may emerge, such as building height. As noted the employee housing to the immediate west of the subject property was subject to a lowering of overall height. If built to the maximum height the building could block views to the East and South. If built to the sidewalk it could block views to the North from the residents on the South. Just as important is the unsightly visual aspect of a residential zone being fronted almost continuously on its East side by large multiple story buildings. If that sets the predicate for residential development in the future how then can future commercial use be constrained to the reasonable height limitations that presently exist. The domino effect will clearly occur. We appreciate consideration by the City Council of these points. Ve truly yours, ~ f. ~~ Warren E. Klug President, Villas Association Board of Directors Resident of the Villas Townhomes 1 November 2005 Ms. Joyce Allgaier Community Development Department City of Aspen 120 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 802 West Main Street Rezoning Dear Joyce: STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design landscape Architecture Transportation Sttuiies Project Management ZOO EAST MAIN STRE[T AseeN, Cocoanoo 81611 Tacenove: 970.925.232 3 Fnx: 970.920.1628 E-Mn~c info@scaplanning.com W ea_ wwwscaplanningsom On behalf of Long Family Investments, LLLP, we would like to submit an additional attachment for the application requesting the rezoning of their property at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 Residential Zone District to the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. The additional information is a conceptual rendition of a mixed-use building that could be located at this location. Please attach this addendum to each application submitted previously on 14 October 2005. Twenty (20) copies of the conceptual azchitectural drawings have been provided. Very truly yours, _~e~ Tanya Stevens STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Enc: Architectural drawings (20 copies) r~_ ,n c D ~~ PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUMIlES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C[TY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) Long Family Investments, LLP AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 802 W. Main Street Rezonine (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and C[TY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pemdt additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accme following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees i[ will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 2640 which is for 12 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN B9r~/~ ~~~f~' l~ Chris Beudou Community Development Director g:lsupport\torms\agrpayas.doc APPLIC By: o Date: ~ Q /~~ Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required t3o~ as g9 ~v~,C~2 ai~~a 9a5-~77/ X95/5 11/30/04 RETIYN FOR PERJlAIINENT RECORD ^o glFp. ax ~~ Q WSPS[60G6 ~%V3 . 06s0-5[60(6:3HL . [0106 OJ'9NOId6 1VO00rvO1S . Z02 3L5'O'd LtOYJ 3NN I06! L556-9Z60L6 ~%tli 0655-SZ50L6 ~3n1 U9L8 OJ'NidSY . 3Atl NYW,{N 15tl3 OL9 wo~•agluunrmmm S1J31/HJ?/b' 3.~3INNl7~ S37?Ib'H~ Oatl21O1O~'N3dSV 133N1S H1N3A3S ld NIVW'M ~Nla7l!)8 3Sn a3XIW I~"Y ~ ~ ` o d z z ~ a ~ ~ o ~ o i • IMD5L00L6lVi . O65PSL80L6:31ll . L%W OJ'YJNIIdS 1Y09WY3L . 2112 315'"Utl LbNJ EJtl1061 LSSb9Z60L6 YVi 06555'i60L6313L U9lB W'N3d5V . 3AY NYW,W 1SYi Ot9 woa•ay~luun~•.timv\ S17311H~?!b~ 3.~lINNn~ S37?It~H~ OOV210lOJ 'N3dSH 1332115 H1N3ti3S ltl NIVW'M ~Nla7ll78 3S~] 03X/W ,~ W 1Ll LLB '' l~ j ~..) 1 } t._,., `'~ ~;' '~~ ~i d 7 ~ ~ ~ i 3 ° i a o ~ 3 s IN IO6P6[BOL6 T'1.065P6(gp(6361.<BIOB OJ'flWW51tlJWN3U.i023t6 `Ob 3WiD 3~tl1106{ LSSPOZ50L61VJ 0655iZ60L5 ~3AL . U918 OJ'N3dSY . 3Atl AM1W,UI 15Yd Ol9 ww•a~}iuuna•mmm S1J31/H~?1V 3~1/NNnJ S37alb'HJ I OOVNOIOJ'N3dSV 133N1S H1N3A3S 1V NIVW'M ~N/~7h78 3Sl7 03X1W i, ~- d ~ ~ o - ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ a e g o A . , ' ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ . i + , .~ ~ t iE"'•~f ~`t»~ f ~ f r-.-.~ ;---~--- ks • d _,__~ ` {~ \4 ~!~~ ~3 1 , .~. Sy f fy w'`I ~ ' 3 ~..~ ' a °`~;".'~ ~_,,.~ ~~ _ ~_ r x 1 ~ ~ "" _, ~-- i ~..-., "° ~ _, ~ ~~ ~ ~. ,~ s - ~^~aaa^^ a . ~+ ~ ~_ _. +"~-~~~ ~~ " , 1 :, ~~„__~,_ ~.,__ .~ ~ ~ ~_.~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ?, ~~ k 1 y ' { -' ~ ` € 7`~` is I ,: f t ~- ~ f T ; ~ t ~~~• 3 l i IOSPS[WL6 T'1 . 065PSf80[6'314 • <Bro0 OJ'flNtldi 1W91Wi15. IDi 3L5"W NWJ 3Ntl IO6l LSSb9Z60L6 ~tl3 . 05555Z50L6 3UL . U918 W WDdSV . 3AV ~MW{N lA9 Dl9 W07~I000J'MMM SL7311HJalV 333/NN!)J S37?Jt~H~ I OQtl210lOJ'N3dSV 1332115 H1N3A3S 1V NIVW'M ~N/U/ll79 3S~] 03X/W a o d ~ o O Z o ~ s o _-~.~.~ ..._._w_ ___,__.e_____ ~__.~_ _~,__~_1~ ~ ~ It ~ .. _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i, ~~ F~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ ~. _' `~ ~ ~ r ----- .~; - --'r =~~ ,e.,.~«.,......,,~ ~ ,..,. ,.~,..,,..~......., 5 ~ P 3 ~,, ~ ....e...~A ~~ ~~ r .~.e - f k _ _ ., . __ ,: a , „~ x, y. -- .~ Syr ~ ~ k P f ~ ~ ? ~~ _ J~ ~.~~ ~. ~~~~~ ~. ~' ,y t t 1: t S+'~ii ~ .,y,,3 ~d •,~ ~ ~ ate, ~ ~ ~ _~ , ~ {, P a _~. 7}(/rte'`-`y~'g~ ~__)., ~,~ ~ -i ~+ + - ' -.,,.21 i ,i ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ o .._ - i t ' ` ~ ----- '~ ` F----+ p~' ova,.. r't-+s r ~.r•: ~. ,~. ,~y ~+~;.w4~ '1~%~..,... `~'~ /" -~.- t"' 10AT5[90L6 kV1 . 065M(gp36 3131. [HOB DO'6D10SK 16U61W316 . ZOZ 3l5 (d 36WJ 3NY 1064 LSSb9Z$OL6 ~MY3 0655-S15pL6 3131 . tl9W (YJ'N3d5V '3AV NYW,U3 JSY3 Ot9 wo~•a}~uuru~,v\m,v, S1J31/HJ?/b' 333/NNn~ S37?lb'H~ OOtl210lOJ 'N3dSV 1332115 H1N3A3S 1V NIbW'M ~N/~7/n9 3S~1 ~3X/lN g V APPLICATION 802 West Main Street Rezoning 14 October 2005 Applicant: Long Family Investments, LLLP Location: 802 West Main- Street Rezoning Aspen, CO 81611 An application for rezoning from the R-1 S Residential Zone District to the MU Mixed-Use Zone District Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 14 October 2005 Ms. James Lindt, AICP Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 120 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture transportation Studies Project Management 200 Easr MniN STaeer Asr¢n, Coy-oenno 81611 T¢~eaeoNe 970 925.2323 Fnx: 970.920.1628 E-MSU: info@scaplanningcom Wen: www scaplanning.com Re: 802 West Main Street Rezoning Deaz James: On behalf of Long Family Investments, LLLP, we aze writing to request review of this application for the rezoning of their property at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 Residential Zone District to the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. The rezoning will meet all requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code and will not create any non- conformities. Located at the western end of Main Street, this 9,000 s. f. pazcel currently consists of an one-story single family residence. Due to noise and safety issues, the site is no longer suitable for asingle-family residence. Also, it is our understanding that this property was at one time included in the Office Zone District and contained a dentist's office as part of the structure on the site. Therefore, the property would make a logical extension of the MU zone district and a suitable site for a mixed use development, due to its proximity to a busy thoroughfare. Approval of this request would benefit the community since it would receive a lazger choice of housing and commercial spaces serving the surrounding neighborhoods while allowing for appropriate development of the property to its highest and best use. Please let me know if you require any additional information as part of this application. truly yours, ~~ Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments: 1. Application packet, maps, and photographs (20 copies) 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Planning fee deposit in the amount of $2,640 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Attachment 1 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: Name: Long Family Investments, LLLP Location: 802 West Main Street; Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) ParcelID # (REQUIRED) 273512308005 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clawson Associates, INC. Address: 200 East Main Street Phone #: 925-2323 PROJECT: Name: 802 West Main Street Rezoning Address: 802 West Main Street, Aspen Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATTON: (please check all that apply): ^ Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Developmertt ^ Design Review Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic Devt. ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition ^ GMQS Exemption ^ Subdivision ^ Historic Designation ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small lodge Conversion/ Mazgin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ® Other: Rezoning ^ Lot Line Ad'ustment ^ TexdMa Amendment A single family residence of approximately 1,747 s. f. currently occupies the 9,000 s. f. lot No new buildings are proposed. It is requested that the property be rezoned to the MU Zone District. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $2.640 ® Pre-Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ^ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8S" a 11" must be folded and a fbppy disk with an electronic copy of all written teat (Microso8 Word Format) must be submitted as part otthe application. Attachment 2 iect Overview Consisting of three (3) City of Aspen Historic Townsite lots, this 9,000 s.f. property located in the R-15 Zone at 802 West Main Street currently contains a single family residence. The location is at the intersection of 7a' Street and Main Street. This location carries State Highway 82 through what aze know as the S-Curves. It is therefore a high volume thoroughfaze, with braking and turning movements adding to noise from all vehicles entering and leaving the City. This location is therefore not a very good one for a single family residence. For this reason, and because of the adjacency of the existing Mixed-Use zone, the applicant requests to rezone the property to the Mixed Use (Mi7) Zone District for the purpose of a future mixed use development. The subject property is currently located in the R-15 Zone District along Main Street and at the end of the MU (former Office) Zone District. It would benefit both the applicant and the community for the property to be rezoned to MU since it is adjacent to the zone and a logical extension of the MU zone district. Moreover, due to the heavy traffic along the S-Curve, the property is not suitable for a single family residence for both safety and noise concerns. Considerable changes have occurred since the R-15 zoning was applied to this parcel. These aze detailed under the section on changed circumstances within this application. Also, it is our understanding that this property was at one time included in the Office Zone District and contained a dentist's office as part of the structure on the site. By rezoning the property to MU zone designafion, the property could be redeveloped into a mixed-use building housing commercial space such as neighborhood services, affordable housing, and free-mazket units. Such a project would be more appropriate for this location as the proximity to a main thoroughfare would allow easy access to the offices and multi-family units. Approval of this request would benefit the community since it would receive a larger choice of housing and commercial spaces. 802 West Main Street Rezoning Application 14 October 2005 Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP 26.310.030 Application. The development application for amendment to the text of this Title or amendment to the official zone district map shall include: A. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. B. If the application requests an amendment to the text of this Title, the precise wording of any proposed amendment. C. If the application requests an amendment to the official zone district map: 1. The present zone district classification and existing land uses of the real property proposed to be amended. 2. The azea of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet or acres, or a major fraction thereof. 3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment. 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Response: This request to rezone 802 W. Main Street from R-15 to Mixed Use (MU) Zone District is not in conflict with this Title. In fact, the property at 802 W. Main Street is an appropriate site to be rezoned as MUzone district since it is a logical extension of the MUzone district, and it is located on a heavily-used thoroughfare which makes a single family residence at the subject site undesirable. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The proposed amendment to the off cial zone district map is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan since the rezoning to the MU Zone District would allow more housing availability, including affordable housing units, and pursues the goal of inf:ll and redevelopment along Main Street, with a possibility of o,~ice or neighborhood commercial with affordable housing above. 802 West Main Street Rezoning Application 14 October 2005 Page 2 C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The proposed rezoning would allow a greater compatibility of the zone districts for the subject properties and surrounding neighborhoods. This request would allow the property at 802 W. Main Street to be rezoned to the MU Zone District and to be developed into amixed--use project The property is currently zoned as R-1 S which only allows single family or duplex residences. The heavy traffic along Main Street, which borders the eastern side of the property, makes development of a single family residence or a duplex unsuitable. This property is more suitable to become a transitional area allowing a multiple use project providing a variety of housing types and commercial spaces, such as neighborhood commercial shops which might serve the surrounding neighborhoods. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The proposed amendment and arty associated development would entail a negligible change, if arty, itt traffic generation and road safety since the property is located on the S-curves of Main Street. In fact, this location is a logical choice for injill development, such as commercial and multi family uses, since it is easily accessible from a busy thoroughfare. 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, pazks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: This request to rezone the subject property will result only in a minimal increase in demand for public facilities with a mixed used development on the site. Public facilities already exist in the well-established urban fabric surrounding the subject parcel. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: This request and any associated development would not result in a significant increase in adverse impacts since it is already adjacent to a busy thoroughfare, which would allow easy access for a mixed used development. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The rezoning is consistent and compatible with the character of Aspen since it is a logical extension of the MU Zone District at the S-curves on Main Street The subject property would not be suitable for a single family or duplex residence, but it 802 West Main Street Rezoning Application 14 October 2005 Page 3 would make an appropriate location for a mixed use development housing commercial space serving the surrounding neighborhoods and a housing mix for the community. The subject property was at one time included in the Office "O"Zone and contained a dentist's office as part of the existing structure. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pacel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: There are significantly changed conditions affecting the subject parcel since its rezoning to R-IS in the 1970s. These include: 1. Substantially increased franc counts at the intersection of Main and 7`'` Streets; 2. A CDOT Record of Decision through the NEPA process extending Main Street and future light rail past the subject property onto a new bridge crossing Castle Creek and connecting with existing Highway 82 near the Roundabout; 3. Rezoning of the adjacent O,~ce "O"Zone along all of Main Sfreet (except for the block containing the subject parcel) to a newly created zone disfrict--the Mixed- Use (MU) Zone; 4. Construction of a new of j'ordable housing multi family residence diagonally across the intersection from the subject property, substantially increasing densities in the immediate area; and 5. Adoption of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2004, which promotes in-fill and increased densities in the built-up areas of Aspen. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Response: This proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest or this Title. In fact, the request to rezone the subject parcel would enhance the community commitment to pursue infill and increase housing options. Since the lot is currently located adjacent and at the end of the MU Zone Disfrict along Main Street, the parcel is a logical extension of the MU Zone District. Moreover, the site is so impacted by the fraffic along its eastern border that the property is well suited for commercial space and multi- familyhousing. A mixed use development at this location is in the public interest since it already receives heavy franc. This site makes an appropriate business and multi family housing location which serves as a fransitional area to the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods. 802 West Main Street Rezoning Application 14 October 2005 Page 4 Attachment 3 FAR Calculations for 202 West Main Street R-15 Zone District Proposed New Zoning of Mixed Use (Min District The current single family residence contains approximately 1,747 s. f. on a 9,000 s. f. lot. This is well below both the maximum allowable floor azea of 4080 s. f. in the R-15 Zone District and of 3,660 s. f. in the Mixed Zone (MLJ) District for single family residences on a 9,000 s. f. lot. Thus, the floor azea of the current single faznily residence meets the floor azea requirement, and the proposed rezoning of 802 West Main Street will not create anon-conformity with regazds to FAR. m ~ 3 _~ att. w ~chment 4 • 1S H1XIS N ~ 1S H1XIS S ~ z z 3 c - ~ ~ - ~ _ 3 •o ~ ~ s~~~ 's ~ ~ _~~- ; i „ ~C~ ~~_ I ~ ~ ~~~ 1 w ~ ~ z ~ W~~ 'm>CCi~q~x S~ I __ _ _ _< wLLs~< rw' s ( ; ~ ~~' I ~~-- Y O Z€ pZ3 W W ~ON W'=r~<~~ J _ __ _ __ W,V <W _ Z 0 .. ] _ WW ~1 ~ 6 T~ W ~d•~.WWY ~~J p J~~F~, `3 0 ~~- 1 8 h ~ w. €.a-~.w z i z o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~`~~~~J~' ~ ez T KJJ ~Y mp QS ¢U LLb ZS~u k Z[r`a rcl ~.a r ~c - iF `~ ~~~~~7 ~ -¢v~ vw~N ucs-0 ~... n. r ~~~~ a~~ €~t~~ A ~ ~ ~ ~~ w~ i K ~= 3 ;,a^C ,; ~~1 ~ ,~~ ~~~ / ~ W ~ O ~b ~j~~r ~ZK~ ~ ~~~~ • ~UK V Kq~ x l O ~r ! \ x z A w ffai•i~rc~~ rc & ~~ ~a~ l~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~t x ~~~' ~~~~~ r ~ `?a~~~V i~M ~ 2_ ~~ ~~~V~W ~ I ~ ~.-~!... _ 2. y ~. ~ u K K! 2~ A d g E ' ` ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ i '~ m ~ 8 NW Z 6 ~i I ~L~ . w e ~' ~' W h myC ry C ~ C Z O L m m rS 4 L~~ ~ 3 ~°cE `o w c Y rd a ~i m a ~ wtOS m i m ~ w y N N a ~ ~ y $ L 1(1 h y d u ~ @ ~ O C ~ '~ ~; ~ ~ w Ol n v m~~ d $ Cg a _ n n ~~a O 'tn F Y _ _ ___ ~ ~ ~ N N f i+ C E W v ~~ i ~ ~ ; z r ~ a ~o ; ~ ~~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I N ~ $ ,~ i ~s ~ ~_ I~ ~ i~ '~ ~o~r~~~s ~~ .I r m~ ~ = iW~ o $ ~~~Q~Z~~31 \sjW y ~ ¢¢ II g~,vry^ ~' ~ F ~FOb~ZID~mk~ ~.~Y WQ~ 1~~77~Z ~ 8 C ~1N~,'z;~~f~puZm i~~ w/, Y 1-!~~rco~~~Y?~aQ A ~,I W ~ }~ 07 ~ry ~~~~ ~4 u301u c~ w a~~a ~ ~~ ~ ~ h~ ~ ~ I p~ rcz ~Iw'1~ `~p214~t~ ~i- ,iJ ~ ~b~ g 06 WY~I Jay ~N2~o ~ " 4 1S~~i1S N1N3/~3S~~ Hl2lOIV J HS ~N ~gp 4- b'!~~ 35s ;J1) ~J y 3Q °WL g6n ~~3 e"~~ poorti M.H•~6.N S SF~x '-3"'kv=3,l oaM ZbEG Fl - i c. A wo sai, --___ .1.~ -_~__ .a II N I ~`, \~:\ \ ~ it ~ e ~ V ~ ~. A ~e -- n '__~ \ ~n i ~~~~~ V~~~~ ~ ~ + m ~ k seJ -~ ~n P ~ _ 5421 'A-f dA ~ ~ ` ~~.-~ ~ ~ ~ f ~av FI- T y ~\'.. \ \. N U) r q gg ~ °n .lm °I ~ ~~~mQr~~~~"~ d~ £ Z tr ~. I Q ~ SCI ~ wog ~ ~~ ~ ~--f'.NO SV' - _- 'J se b ~oo~ a~vas.ro+ rv ~ F UU p _~~ 3 K '3~ 22 ~ Qo ~ WW Q ~ ~% - N U F 0 J s~ ~~~ s. ~. e y' P ~ O '~. •b x sa <a N~ p r- o r~ - g~ ~ ;~ n ~I o `~I c d o'1~u ~ w m~`-z z 111~d3~ a ~0lV iu NY h- ~ z? ~ c, p F ~_ _r ;n ~P ~~o~ ~. ~~-~ Q~Q~( acy~j~j1 ~6Q~ JJ ~wp rl~T~ii N W ar ~ ~ ¢ wMC~ ~n ~ ~~i rn x ~- ~ t$ i' i+ C d t v b ++ ++ Q z _.. i i i~ ~ 3 ,n r ~ s 9 r ~ ~'~~~ a FJ urcLL~ ~ • } 5 ~3 ~ ~ 0 ~~ 4 ? i ~ J~ U~ irc~n~5 I $` ~ zr 9 n` '~ ~'~~<'~ F~ rF ~ ~~~ 4 =LLU r LL NV o ~~~ ~ ~ _~~ ~~ ;Ia ~~g~~~ \'~y ~m d( ~_° ~ai =rop~a i ~~ T8f S U 3^n~~~ z ~Z~~~~(~. ~ N1~o1~h ~P ~~~~~~ ~ - a 9~I~bm ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ P `p LL~ O.~ ~~~ N; <~ y w ~0~3 ~~ ~~~ W~ ~ s ~ '~~ sa=<= ~g~yy~p~ U~=S$ w~ ud"J 8; q g~~~~ >G 'w g~3 a9 ¢~ Z G r~ - g~ ~ 0 0 ~ a Y ~i~ ~ ~~~ s dIQ~~ K~U u z ~Y y d~ J U Q ma l~~?}1S H1N3/~3S Iil?JON ~~ r E'.: ~ 351 j ~~5 N W W K {{{{ Z~ Q N~a~ ~, $ i-~ ~~Q~ ?N ~~W~ jD ~~~ Id ~ ~_~ ~~~ - _, _.. ~ ,~ . ..,--;: :~~. .. ... .1 . t .. s ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~. '~ .JiT~S F.aa.4Ye.. i 2 .. SA... ., . :ais.d: .x.~.. .. .. ... - ,. M+A .. ~:..C. F d ....; '~ i .: • din ~R S„_ ~rt }3 fps _ erc~ 5 repression antibourrage et ~ sEchage rapide ~ Www.averycom Attachment 7 Itillsez le gabarit 5160® ,y.rc~a~ ~ ~-6~G0-AVERY 5 W MAIN LLC ~ ANDERSON LISA JO ' ' ANDREWS JUDY D 5 W MAIN ST #101 PO BOX 172 1043 HIGHLANDER DR SPEN, CO 61611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SEASIDE, CA 93955-6231 2ETZ REALTYINC '25 S MONACO ST #330 =NVER, CO 80237 fKINSON SUZANNE E i0 N EIGHTH ST #19 iPEN, CO 81611 =RGER BRUCE NICOLAS ~ BOX 482 iPEN, CO 81612 RINKMEYER THOMAS K J BOX 9022 SPEN, CO 81612 RUFFSHERLYNNE GUEST ?45 OLD TALE RD OULDER, CO 60303 ' ASPEN COLORADO LLC 100 N EIGHT ST # 5 'I ASPEN, CO 81611 ' BABOS TODD 1% ' PO BOX 3798 I ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 ~i II ' BODURTHA SUSAN M ' I 1719 W MAIN ST #206 I ASPEN, CO 81611 BROWN ALBERT L JR OPRT 1767 E MCMILLAN ST CINCINNATI, OH 45206 BRUNT FAMILY LP PO BOX 304937 107-98 ESTATE CONTACT ST THOMAS, VI 00803 i UTLER MARIE 14 W BLEEKER #C-4 SPEN, CO 81611 ONNOLLY MICHAEL 14 W BLEEKER #61 SPEN, CO 61611 OX BRANDON ERTIG DALE M )20 E BROWARD BLVD DRT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 AVIS DEWAYNE 35 BUGGY CIR ARBONDALE, CO 81623 CHILES DWIGHT ~ ~ 107 N 7TH ST #101 ' ! ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ l COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW ILA ATLANTA, GA 30305 CROSSETT JENNIFER A 8 MURRY 11 I SHAWN P III 345 DOWNING ST DENVER, CO 80218 DILLINGHAM SUSAN 106 N 8TH ST ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS ' ASSOC 617 E COOPER AVE i ASPEN, CO 81811 ' ~ BEAL ADAM PO BOX 11898 ' i ' ASPEN, CO 81612 BREIDENBACH WARREN C 225 ABRAHAM FLEXNER WY #700 LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 I BROWN KARRIE ~I ASPENMCO 81611 'I ~ ! BULICZ KEITH PO BOX 2826 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~(( III CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC I ~ 734 W MAIN ST ' ASPEN, CO 81611 i~ it COULTER G LYNNIE PO BOX L3 ', ASPEN, CO 81612 DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN ' 5326 20TH STREET CT E BRADENTON, FL 34203-4406 '. I. 'I DOUGHERTY JEAN S & DAMIAN P ' 107 N 7TH ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 I ®095 31V'IdW31 ~a~d esD npression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapide ~ www.averycom ~tllisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY III EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 ;AKE LENIR EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE ~ N 8TH ST UNIT 26 I'I TRUST-1 /2 PEN, CO 81611-3152 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 RRELL PATRICK G > BOX 12160 .PEN, CO St612 IANCIS MARY VIRGINIA 1 W BLEEKER SPEN, CO 81611 BSON ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 5 W MAIN ST STE #203 iPEN, CO 81611 JRDON KATHERINE .MORE JOHN 4 W BLEEKER #E6 iPEN, CO 81611 4NLE JEFFREY T !6 S 7TH ST SPEN, CO 81611 4RT SAMANTHA KELLY 99°~ ~ BOX 3798 SPEN, CO 81612 INRICHS NANCY R l0 N 8TH ST #2 SPEN, CO 81611 OPKINS STEPHEN C ?0 W MAIN ST SPEN, CO 81611 =NKINS J CHAD 1°~ D BOX 9081 SPEN, CO 81612 FATTAHI AMENEH AS TRUSTEE ' 306 WORDSWORTH CT II ROSEVILLE,CA 95747 i I I;~ I III GAMARRA ANA M & JUAN C III PO BOX 9877 I ASPEN, CO 81612 I i , I GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI GLATMAN BRUCE ROY I ! 20034 CALVERT ST , ! WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 I GRUETER PAUL ERICH ' 719 W MAIN ST #103 I ASPEN, CO 61611 I !I ' HARPER JAMES R 2 SEASIDE LN #404 ~ BELLEAIR,FL 34616 Ii> I ' HEISLEY MICHAEL E TRUSTEE C/O K J LONG 2004 DIANA DR ~. ~i, MENDOTA, IL 61342 !~ I ,_ _ __ II i HOGGATT JERRY S I 2356 AIRPORT DR DIAMONDHEAD, MS 39525 Ii HORSEY SUSAN H ~, 107 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1639 I I JENKINS JULIE N ', 719 W MAIN ST #203 ' ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 p AVERY® s16o® I ENGELMAN TOM SHEANJOHN 107 N 7TH ST #203 I ASPEN,CO 81611 I FELDMAN BARBARA S 8 CHESTER PO BOX 8193 I ASPEN, CO 81612 I I GIBANS JONATHAN i ' PO BOX 8098 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~L GOLDSMITH ELLEN 'i 719 W MAIN ST #101 I, ASPEN, CO 81611 i I HAMLIN CONNIE E 719 W MAIN ST #207 ASPEN, CO 81611 i I HARRY SALLY 50% 1601 E HOPKINS 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 I;_ __ I II II HERRICK DARBY 'I 724 W HOPKINS ST I ASPEN, CO 80611 HOOK BRADLEY K & PAMELA D 782C NORTH KALAHEO KAILUA, HI 96734 li HULL LESLIE I PO BOX 2403 I ASPEN, CO 81612 - ___. ~ JEROME OFFICE ASPEN CO LLC 715 W MAIN ST #201 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ~. npression antibourrage et ~ s6chage rapide ~ www.averycom ~ AVERY® 5160® tfllsez le gabarit 5160 1-800-GO-AVERY PLINSKI KRISTAN M KENT MARY SUE 1/2 1 KLEIN HERBERT S 8 MARSHA ~ N 7TH ST #102 728 W HOPKINS AVE 201 N MILL ST STE 201 PEN, CO ASPEN, CO 81611 I~ '~ ASPEN, CO 81611 i I IGHT GLENDA C I I I KRAHE SHARON I KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST ~ BOX 328 PO BOX 8615 j C/O ADVOCATE ASSET MANAGMENT OWMASS, CO 81654 I ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 ' SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA STE 1510 ' ! CHICAGO, IL 60606 iGER RUTH I KURTZ KAREN L TRUSTEE ;, EARNER JACQUELINE L i BOX 5098 i 3044 JEFFREY DR I 376 DAHLIA PEN, CO 81612 ! JOLIET, IL 60435 i i DENVER, CO 80220 RY LANCER I, _____ ~ LAVERMAN JENNIE S LEPPLA JOHN L tINCE ANNMARIE 104 N 8TH ST i LEPPLA JOEN F 9 W MAIN ST #301 gSPEN, CO 81611 ~ , 4040 DAHL RD ' .PEN, CO 81611 _. _ _ - 'i i I MOUND, MN 55364 .VINE MICHAEL A LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES PTNSHP I ! LONG MONA HAYLES 85 NE 208TH TER ~ ~ 1715 SOUTH BLVD i BOX 3849 iENTURA, FL 33180 i HOUSTON, TX 77095 !I ASPEN, CO 81612 )LIRAS PETER N & MARY M I I LUU INVESTMENTS LLC ~ LUU TONG KHON 3REENWOOD CT 435 E MAIN ST ~ TRAN TUYET LE LINDA, CA 94563 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ 814 VV BLEEKER ST #64 __ - ~ 1 I ~ I ASPEN, CO 81611 I 'LE ALEXANDER T I , _ - i I MAEWEST LLC ATTN: DOROTHY A SHARP I MANIE MICHAEL B 1/2 ' 9 W MAIN ST#204 706 WEST MAIN II ~ p0 BOX 11373 iPEN, CO 81611 I ASPEN, CO 81811 , ASPEN, CO 81612 ARCUS ANN H ; MARTIN JAY 8 DOROTHY R ; MARTINEAU DANIEL J & AMY N S 15 W BLEEKER ST ; 4-A OXFORD ST , 26024 N 104TH WAY >PEN, CO 81611-1133 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ' ~ it SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255-8001 ATTHEWS DEE R --- MAWICKE FREDERICK H i MCBAY WILBUR & SHARON 137 52ND ST NW ' 1719 W MAIN #205 ' 1713 CHESTERBROOK VALE CT ASHINGTON, DC 20016 ; I ASPEN, CO 81611 ' I MCLEAN, VA 22101 _ I ' ~~ EYER LAURA i MINNESOTA MATERNAL I I MITTON JOSEPH 8. PATRICIA 1/2 INT S4 S 7TH ST FETEL MEDICINE FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT iPEN, CO 81611 2115 DWIGHT LN 1015 VOLTZ RD MINNETONKA, MN 55305 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062-4722 ipression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapide ~ www.avery.com tillsez le gabark 6160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY RRISON SUSAN M REV TRST ~ NAKAGAWA MICHAEL 13 FORT CHARLES DR I i AGUILERA DENINE PLES,FL 34102-7920 821 W SLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 OYLE DEBORAH J BOX 729 EDERICKSBURG, TX 78624 RIS JOHN HERNANDO 22 SANTA MONICA BLVD STE 301 NTA MONICA, CA 90404-2307 ED BRENT H J N 8TH ST #6 PEN, CO 81611-1124 'AN RICK 8 DAWN 4 W MAIN ST .PEN, CO 81611 :RAPPER WILLIAM H 4 W BLEEKER ST #B6 .PEN, CO 81611 1EROD ALEC C 8 ELIZABETH S 0 N 8TH ST iPEN, CO 81611 AITH CHRISTOPHER H & DEBORAH J BOX 12366 >PEN, CO 81611 1THERLAND ELIZABETH 9 W MAIN ST #202 iPEN, CO 81611 tAN HONG HUONG 4 W BLEEKER ST #C1 iPEN, CO 81611 I OVERTON PATRICIA J 100 N 8TH ST #24 ASPEN, CO 81611 PERRY ALLISON K & TIMOTHY V i 822 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 i RICCIARDI RIK ! 1720 CHARLES LAM CT ' LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 ' S&G INVESTMENTS LLC 201 N MILL ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 I I_. ~~ '~i I SHERIDAN DAVID R II 1/2 PO BOX 11373 I ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ~. Ij~ i ' SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW ' WASHINGTON, DC 20016 STEINBERG EDWARD M 8 TOMI A 814 W BLEEKER ST #AI ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 TARKENTON SARAH ELLEN ' 820 W MAIN ST i ASPEN, CO 81611 I TURCHIN MARTIN & CHERYL 3060 MIRO DRIVE SOUTH PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 i v~ww_nn.nne_~ AVERY®s16o® NEVINS WENDY S 736 HOPKINS AVE ! ' ASPEN, CO 81611 j P B HOLDINGS LLC 725 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L REVOC „, 1992 TST 1452 SCENIC AVE PIEDMONT, CA 94611 ' ROTHMAN MARK S 4800 HEMPDEN LN 7TH FL BETHEDSDA, MD 20814 I ' ' SANDERS OPRT TRUST & SALLY HARRY 50% 6200 N ANN ARBOR AVE OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73122 ~ SHERMAN GARY M PO BOX 3066 ASPEN, CO 81612 .I I' SIMS DAVID ' 816 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 i STELLJES PETER V I j PO BOX 2444 ASPEN, CO 81612 I TOPELSON ALEJANDRO i 4725 S MONACO ST #330 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 II I I UHLER FRANCES M ~ 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B2 ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 Impression antibourrage et is sHchage rapids www.averycom Utilisez le gabark 5160® ~' 1-800-GO.AVERY VALLEY MIA 740 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 WEIEN J ROBERT 709 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WILLIS GERALD L PO BOX 9751 ASPEN, CO 81612 WABISZEWSKI SUSAN 1/2 C/O MARY KENT 728 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST BLEEKER INVESTMENTS LT 13787 PINE VILLA LN FT MYERS, FL 33912 WOLFER MARY ELIZABETH 99% PO BOX 9081 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ,___ I~ I ill ~~ i l i ,I jl i i _ „~ _ _ _ _ _ ~~ a /a~~® 5160® I WALTZ FAMILY TRUST 6075 LA JOLLA SCENIC DR LA JOLLA, CA 92037 i D ~ WHITFIELD DONNAMARIE C 732 W HOPKINS AVE #A3 ', ASPEN, CO 81611 YULE LEAH E 8 LEAH ~ 130 S 7TH ST #B2 i' ASPEN, CO 61611 ~I ~. i i' twww_n~_nna. ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Attachment 8 445001 00/07/2000 12:02P 0 i S DE DRVIS SILVI 3 of 1 R 0,00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Recorded at o'clock M„ Reception No. ~- Recorder. -mm=_°~°___~_______ BARGAIN AND SALE DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Richard E. Long and Lols N. Long, whose address i5 Box 1314, Aspen, Colorado, County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, for the consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sell(s) and convey(s) to Long Family Investments, L.L.L.P., whose legal address is 0190 Sage Swale, Carbondale, Colorado, the following real property situate in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: Lots O, R, and S in Block 12 in the To~vnsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. as known by street and number as: 802 West Main, Aspen, Colorado with all its appurtenances. SIGNED AND DELIVERED this 31 day of July, 2000. STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss ) My commis io a ire a, ~ieL~o was acknowledged before me this 31 day of July, 2000, by 61y Commlklon Ellpkae f-28.20W Witness my hand and official seal. tar bli Attachment 9 American Land Title Association Corrunitment - 1982 TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT BY stewart. title guaranty company Order Number: 44255 We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount and yow name as the proposed inswed in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, ow obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, ow obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then ow obligation to you will be under the Policy. Ow obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions on Page 2. This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B. IN WTl'NESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Lstewart ,... ~rt~~ r ta ~, ceaf ; ~~ ~4 :' •. v' owo,4 ..e. or xea eva,r o -~ ~~~~1908 ?o^ ~ ~ ... J ~yizAS Countersigned: ""~ Authorized C ntersignattire Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 620 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 ;970)925-3577 ~~ aL1~ Prcaf d.et Order Number: 44255 I OP 2 Gmmirm~~ _ oac vnn ..•_ CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "public Records" means title records that five constructive notice of matters affecting yow title -according to the state statutes where yow land is located. 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appeaz for the first time in the public records or aze created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to shown them. L` we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you }crew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIlVIITATION OF LIABILITY Ow only obligation is to issue to you the policy referred to in this Commitment when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incw because of an error in this Commitment, ow liability will be limited to yow actual loss caused by yow relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B -Section I. or Eliminate with ow written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B -Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and ow liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this Commitment Order Number: 44255 of 2 COmmflmrN _ w c unn ..• _ COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Effective Date: September 6, 2005 at 7:30 a.m, SCHEDULE A 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: (X) ALTA (1992) Owner's Policy ( )Standard (X) Extended Amount: Premium; posed Insured: Coleman Brothers Construction ( )ALTA 1992 Loan Policy ()Standard ()Extended ~°~t~ Premium: Order Number: 44255 $2,150,000.00 $4,110.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest in said ]and is at the effective date hereof vested in: Long Family Investments, L.L.L.P. 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows. Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12, CITY AND TOWI\tSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Statement of Charges Policy premiums shown above, and any chazges shown below aze due and payable before a policy can be issued. Standard Rate Tax Certificate $ 20.00 Form 110.1 (Owners) $ 150.00 Examiner Name: Tom Twitchel] SCHEDULE B -Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 44255 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Proof of the type of entity Coleman Brothers Construction was organized as (i.e. limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc.) and other information required by'73 CRS 7-71-101. NOTE: Depending on the type of entity, additional documentation will be required NOTE: If entity is a partnership and any general partners are themselves partnerships, trusts or corporations, additional documentation for said entities will be required. 2. The following is required with respect to Long Family Investments, L.L.L.P.: a. Satisfactory evidence famished by the Secretary of State in which Articles were filed, confirming that said Limited Liability Limited Partnership in good standing. (i.e., Certificate of Good Standing or copy of Articles of Organization bearing file stamp from the Secretary of State.) NOTE: If any general partners are themselves partnerships trusts, limited liability companies or corporations, additional requirements will be necessary. 3. Improvement Survey of the subject property, completed in the last six months approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., this survey is to be retained in the files of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. and Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. reserves the right to add further requirements and/or exceptions to this commitment upon receipt of said survey, 4. A. Certificate ofnon-foreign status, duly executed by the seller(s), pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code AND B. Satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency (or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bi1192-1270. NOTE: Section 1445 of the Intema] Revenue Code requires withholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller) is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bi1192-1270 may require withholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s) is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms aze available from Stewart Title. 5. Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts, Liens and Leases, duly executed by the seller and buyer and approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 6. Deed executed by all current partners of Long Family Investments, L.L.L.P., a Limited Liability Limited Partnership, vesting fee title in purchaser. NOTE: If the Partnership Agreement for said Long Family Investments, L.L.L.P. requires less than all of said partners to execute said Deed must be provided with a copy of said Partnership Agreement. 7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, famished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). SCHEDULE B -Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 44255 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in azea, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which aze not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter famished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement azea. 8. Reservations as contained in United States Patent recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216, providing as follows: Provided that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Pazagraph C of Article Vll requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appeaz of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Policy when issued. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 form policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request. DISCLOSURES Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A. The subject real property may be located in a Special Taxing District; B. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained form the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; C. Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of s uch d istricts m ay b e o btained from t he B oazd o f County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appeaz on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment farm the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been famished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. L`there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. Flle Number: 44255 Stewart Tide of Aspen, lnc. Disclosures Page 1 of 1 PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic persona] information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. and Stewart Title Guaranty Company We may collect nonpublic persona] information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you, such as on applications or other forms. • Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others. • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. • Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as pemvtted bylaw. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: • Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. • Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMTI`TED BYLAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. File Number: 44255 Stewart Title ofASpen, lnc. Privacy policy Notice Page I of I Attachment 10 Mr. Ron and o~~,ong Long Family Investments, LLLP PO Box 1251 Cazbondale, CO 81623 22 August 2005 City of Aspen Community Development, 3rd Floor 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 To whom it may concern: This letter is to certify that we represent Long Family Investments, LLLP, owner of 802 West Main Street, give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and its staffpermission to represent us in discussions with City of Aspen regarding the application for a re-zoning of the property at 802 West Main Street. We have retained this firm to represent us in the application for this project. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Their contact information is as follows: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Tel (970)925-2323 Fax (970)920-1628 Very Tnily Yours, G 1~-- Ron Long, Limited Partner en Roger Lo g, L' t d Partner Attachment 11 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIP'I [ON: James Lindt, 429-2763 802 W. Main Street Rezoning Stan Clawson DATE: 8/25/05 The Applicant would hke to rezoce the Property ]opted at 802 W. Main Street to the Mixed Use Zone District for the Purpose ofdoing a future mviced use developmert. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures. 26.310 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map Review by: Stafffor completeness, • Developme~ review committee (DRC) for technical considerations. • Community Developmertt Director for recommendations to Boazds • Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council (PH) • City Council for Rezoning (Requires 1" and 2°d Reading of Ordinance, 2°d Reading is a public Public H Heanng) Baring: Yes, every Board as noted above by (PI-n• APP ,cant must ro h Poet P Pert3' and mail notice at least 15 days prior to hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the property Applicant will need to provide proofofposting and mailing with an affidm~it at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: Zoning Officer Plann'°g Fes: PlanninS Deposit Major ($2,640 for 12 hours) Total Deposit: $2,640 (additional planning hours over deposit amount aze billed at a rate of $220/hour). To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Signed fee agreement, 3• Completed City of Aspen Land Use Application. 4. Proof of ownership. 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorizzd to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens easements contracts and ageements affecting the pazcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Developme~ Application. An 8 1/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the pazcel within the City of Aspen. 7. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. This must be currem (within one yeaz) and signed by a surveyor. 8• Existing floor plans with FAR calculations to verify that no non-confomnities would be created as a resuh ofthe rezoning request. 9• A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed developmem complies with the review standards relevant to the development application, Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all criteria. 10. 20 Copies of the complete application packet and maps, HPC =12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+S; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = I/ea.; Planning Stag= 1 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. Contact GIS Dept. 920.5453. 12. Copies ofprior approvals. 13. Additional application material as required for specific review. (See attached application packet and Ordinances.) Review Process: Apply. Case is then assigned to a Staff Planner. Planner checks application for completeness and notifies the Applicant if the application is complete. The application is then discussed at a Planning Staff meeting to formulate a staff recommendation. The Staff Planner will then schedule the application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission who makes a recommendation on the land use request to City Council. Finally, City Council reviews an ordinance and makes a final determination on the request. Disclaimer. The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.