Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.536 W North St.0029.2007.ASLU THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0029.2007.ASLU 2735-12-1-11-808 536 W. North Street Sara Adams Conditional Use, Special Review, Variartee Gilbert Sanchez - Studio B Architect 3/7/2008 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey 2-7 35 - l2 - I - 1 1 ~O St ob?~ Z~7• .A3 L l,1 w ~- ..,.r We Eat gecord Navigate. PQm, Reports. Forgiat I~ fkhr .. _ g~ i Main CustomFjelds jFees~Qctiora Petals RoydrrySlalu~eaSummary I~Routingfjistay AUachmeMs Pemit Type aslu -Aspen Land Use Permil# 029.2At77,AXU y ` Adders 535 N; NORiH S7 ;c? ApVSule $- ( Cry ASPEN Stale CO ~ Zp Bffiii _. Permit lntormaUan mil Mask Pdmil~~ Rwtn9 Queue aslu07 Appied 05r IOr2007 PropG ~ Status Pending Apgoved ~_,~ A II R I - 0esd'p6on CONDITIONAL USE, SPECIAL REVIEW,VARIANCE Iswed ~~ Firel ~- Ssi6mitied GILBERT SANCHEZ 920.3278 Cbck Running Days r ~ Expires OSj04J2008 ~ '~. ___.. ~ Onnar Last Name CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCI~ Fret Name- ASPENNC081611 Phone ^~~ '. r Ovma is IAPdicanl? _. ..J Applicant Last Name CHRIST EPISCOPAL CMURCIJ FustName ~~~~~~~ENNCO BH611 Phore ~ Cuat # 27596 ~ ''.. 'Lender-~ Last Name ~~ ~ Frst Name ~~~ Phone ~- e«,..,r;,u,atht ~" ~ Recad:5ol5_ .-~ ~ . ..,- DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Christ Episcopal Church 536 West North Street Aspen CO 81611 970/925-3278. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 536 West North Street Lots 11 12 13 14 and 15 Block 99 Hallam's Addition, Citv of Aspen Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approved per Ordinance 49 Series of 2007 sassed on January 14, 2008. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Febuarv 17,2008 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) February 17,2011 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) is 17th day of~ebruary 2008, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Bendon, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~/ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~~ , 200 g STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. Couuty of Pitkiu ) n ~ ~ I, fi~ \°~k= G` ~~~~ ~'-~ (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: L/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 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 _ 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 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) 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 appeazed 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 area 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~~ ~~ Signa re The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was aclcnowle ed before me this I `I day bf , 200 by ~/» ~ ~~ ~c - i PUBLIC NOTICE a DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My com fission expires: ~~p ~a~) p Notary Pub is LAURA lNEYER ATTACHMENTS: COPYOFTHEPUBL/CATION MyCGAmiSSiOn PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) DB~tOR010 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL y City of Aspen Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on February 19, 2008. (Hfi1555) ~,... Studio B Architects Gilbert Sanchez 501 Rio Grande Place, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 970(920-9428 x7 February 22, 2008 Re: Christ Episcopal Church square footage clarification Dear Gilbert: , W THE CITY OF ASPEN The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #23 Series of 2007 on August 28, 2007 approving a Conditional Use amendment to increase the floor area for the property located at 536 West North Street. The approved proposal includes the .demolition of the 1970s annex addition, the construction of a new annex addition and the enlargement of the existing main Church building. As indicated in Table 1 of Resolution #23 Series of 2007, the proposal was represented to require approximately 9,000 square feet. The exact amount of the development was calculated to be 9,158 square feet before the first City Couricil meeting on December 9, 2007. The massing, volume and overall project did not change from that approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; however, the exact FAR for the project was calculated at 9,158 squae feet. The minutes of the Planning and Zoning-Commission dated August 28, 2007 state the adopted motion as "approving with conditions; an increase' in floor area from 7,118 squazd feet to approximately 9,000 squaze feet though Conditional Use process." It was the intent of the Commission to approve the proposal presented on August 28,-2007; furthermore the motion to approve the project acknowledges that the floor azea was an approximate number at the time of the hearing. This letter is to clarify that the Christ Episcopal Church, located at 536 West North .Street, received approval via a Conditional Use Amendment for an increase to 9,158 square feet for the aforementioned project. Since ly, Chris Bendon Community Development Director cc: Father Bruce McNabb Building Permit File 130 Sourb GALENA Sraeer ~ Asrsn, GOLOMDO 81611-1975 ~ PxoNe 970.920x000 ~ Fax 970.920.5197 www. aspengov.com rdmed o~ a~yd~d rape, .., ~-• ~.. v ORDINANCE N0. 49 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12, 13,14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-121-11-808. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,158 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street; Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007, on First Reading by a three to zero (3 - 0) vote, approving with conditions Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility for the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO ;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the RECEPTION#: 546658, 02121!2008 at 03:36:35 PM, t OF 5, R $26.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill Pitkin County, CO Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Page 1 of 5 1."._ ~~ M \ly' Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility in order to demolish and replace an existing addition and extend the existing main Church building on the property located at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Section 2: Building Permit Application The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, imgation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Page 2 of 5 .~ .r Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the Conditional Use amendment and Dimensional Variances granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. However, with regard to the proposed building referred to as the annex, which is directly to the east of the original church, all redevelopment and construction shall comply with the underlying setback requirements of the zone district. Section 4: Future Phvsical Expansion The Church is prohibited from physically expanding any buildings at 536 West North Street for a period of 20 years from the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 5: Parking Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the pazking requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. Section 6: Affordable HOllsIIIE The presented redevelopment is not intended to increase Church services or programs and; therefore does not require employee mitigation. Section 7: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof regulations pertaining to size and security. and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness Section 8: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Page 3 of 5 ,., ~-- ~..- ... e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitazy sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. f. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 11: Exterior Liehtin¢ All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 12: Landscapine a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 13: Stormwater Development Fee Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.18.020, Stormwater System Development Fee, the Applicant shall be assessed a Stormwater Fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated as outlined in Section 25.18 of the Municipal Code. Section 14: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 23, Series of 2007 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Page 4 of 5 ~..~ ... City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.49 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Section 15: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if firlly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 16: 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 17• 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 18• A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the l0a' day of December, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. The public hearing on the ordinance was continued on the l0a' of December 2007 to the 14~' of January 2008. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided y law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November 2007. ~ 2 zi/B 8 ,u ~~ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ~~ ~ Kathryn Koc ,City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~~ _ Kathryn Koc ,City Clerk APPROVE AS TO_ F_ OEM--. 14`h of January, 200 . lG~ z z, lvg Michael C. Ireland, Mayor /James R True, Special Counsel Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Page 5 of 5 ~^ `., .,.,. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11,12,13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. RESOLUTION N0.23, SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish new off street parking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Vaziances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street pazking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Vaziances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots ] 1, 12, ]3, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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, RECEPTION#: 546637, 02/20/2008 at EXHIBIT D 04:00:37 PM, 7 OF 5, R $26.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, the establishment of new off street parking requirements through Special Review, certain dimensional Vaziances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standazds, floor azea, and off-street pazking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the proposed redevelopment. Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: The subject property is approved for a total of 9,000 square feet of floor area for the design presented at the August 28, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the approved design, site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Sectiou 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. EXHIBIT D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 2 of 5 ,..., .,.., d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Special Review: Parking Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) pazking spaces and one (1) stacked parking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of approved parking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. The applicant shall provide onsite bicycle storage. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Water Deaartment Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. EXHIBIT D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 r-- ,. ~. ~~ b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building pennit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved containment facilities. f. Soi] Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 9: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: Landscaping a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Pazks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12• 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 13: 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 EXHIBIT D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 4 of 5 .. "\ .../ 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 28ei day of August, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, Special Counsel i ATTEST: ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: John Rowland, Ch irman / ~~ J~ti,~ 2~ w ~~ N v EXHIBIT D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 .•, .., ~, ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~,~ DATE OF MEMO MEETING llA1'E January 4, 2008 January 14,2008 RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Second Reading of Ordinance # 49, Series of 2007 (Parcel 2735-121-11-808), continued from December 10, 2007. On December 10`h, City Council continued second reading of Ordinance #49, the Christ Episcopal Church request for Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Council continued the application to allow more time to reflect on the request. There have been no changes to the application or staff recommendation since December 10th. ATTACHMENTS: A -Recent letters from neighbors B -Staff memo dated December 10, 2007. C -Growth Management Review Criteria for an Essential Public Facility . D -Planning and 7.oning C'ommisslon Resolution #23, Series of 2007. E -Planning and "Zoning Commission Minutes, August 7, 2007 and August 28, 2007 F-Planning and `Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes G -Application ORDINANCE N0.49 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12, 13,14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,158 square feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street pazking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007, on First Reading by a three to zero (3 - 0) vote, approving with conditions Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility for the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO ;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 1 of 5 6.y 4.~ Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, 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 welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility in order to demolish and replace an existing addition and extend the existing main Church building on the property located at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Section 2: Buildine Permit Application The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. £ A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 2 of 5 M~, Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the Conditional Use amendment and Dimensional Variances granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. Section 4: Parking Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the pazking requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. Section 5: Affordable Housin¢ The presented redevelopment is not intended to increase Church services or programs and; therefore does not require employee mitigation. Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 7: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 8: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. f. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\ciry\Saraa\Christepiscopalchurch\churchOrdinance.doc Page 3 of 5 /'*. ~x-! g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 10: Exterior LiEhtin¢ All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 11: LandscapinE a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Pazks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 12: Stormwater Development Fee Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.18.020, Stormwater System Development Fee, the Applicant shall be assessed a Stormwater Fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated as outlined in Section 25.18 of the Municipal Code. Section 13: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 23, Series of 2007 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundazies of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 536 VJ. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.49 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised U4/2008 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 4 of 5 .~. .. Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 15• 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 16• 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 17• A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the l0ei day of December, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 5 of 5 .,m, .,. . Sara Adams From: Falenders [falender@comcast.netj Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:59 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Christ Episcopal Church Dear Sara, Page 1 of 1 lai~'FA- We continue to seek common ground between the Church, the neighbors, and the City. At the City Council hearing, the Church again noted their view that the large deciduous tree in the front yard prevents them from moving the building forward, out of the rear yard setback. Mayor Ireland even stated something to the effect, not necessarily an exact quote, "I guess we are stuck with the tree". While we believe the Church can function quite well with a smaller building, those comments at the Council meeting led me to read, on line, the Municipal Code section regarding tree removal. I assume the Church filed a permit request to remove the tree, and the request was denied by the Parks Department? Did the Church file an appeal of the denial with the city manager as allowed in the code? If that was filed and denied, did they appeal to Council as also allowed by code? If the Council can authorize removal of the tree, and the Church can pull the buildings out of the rear setback, perhaps that would represent an impertect but acceptable compromise to all parties. We are more concerned than ever about setbacks when the Church attorney answered the Mayor's question about a willingness to agree to no further expansion with a clear statement: no we cannot agree not to expand further. While none of us like to see trees removed, I point out two important considerations: 1)the view of the tree is significantly blocked by the two very large and beautiful evergreens in the front yard, and 2) if you refer to the "Old Photograph" on the cover of your Nov. 2, 2007 Staff memorandum to Council, you will note that all trees on the Church property, at some time after its construction in 1963, are newly planted. It is clear from the photo that the tree in question was planted no earlier than 1963, does not predate the Church, and is certainly not a tree from the mining era. Construction of the Church as proposed requires significant variances, and has resulted in dissension between the neighbors and the Church, and a legal appeal to Court. We believe in the overall scheme of this application, perhaps staff and Council should reevaluate the tree. Without City cooperation this compromise is impossible. Sara, I ask that you please forward a copy of this letter, and your response to me regarding the tree removal permit process, to Council. I hope maybe all parties can leave the Jan. 14, 2008 Council hearing reasonably satisfied. As always, thank you for your consideration. Steve Steve Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Aspen 970-920-1816 1 /4/2008 Page 1 of 2 ..-. ~• Sara Adams From: Chris Forman Sent: `Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: Sara Adams Cc: Stephen Ellsperman; Brian Flynn Subject: RE: Christ Episcopal Church Sara, They have not submitted a tree removal permit application yet, therefore there has been no denial or approval of ANY trees at this time. They met with me to get a better' understanding of which trees could possibly be removed. I have met with their team on site several times, and have verbally indicated that the large silver maple should remain, while others on the site would be candidates for removal. That was stated at our first meeting. Shortly after that initial contact, their team had several ideas of designs that would allow construction, while saving the tree. Here's how it works: They submit the tree removal application to the Parks Dept. I review it and prepare a permit that approves and/or denies removal of requested trees. The permit itself shows all reasoning behind the decisions made. The permit is then submitted to the Director of Parks for sign off. When we both sign the permit to allow trees to be removed, that's that. If we both sign the permit, denying a tree to be removed, they can appeal at that point if they are not able to redesign around the tree. The appeal goes to the City Manager's office. He will then overturn the Parks decision, agree with us, or send it to council. That decision is given in writing to the applicant via the City Manager's office. Chris Forman, City Forester 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-5120 p 970-920-5128f chrisfrrD ci. asoen. co. us From: Sara Adams Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:08 AM To: Chris Forman Subject: FW: Christ Episcopal Church Good morning Chris: Could you read this email below about the Christ Episcopal Church and give me a little overview of the tree removal permit process? Thanks! Sara From: Falenders [mailto:falender@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:59 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Christ Episcopal Church • • 1 /4/200R To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 ' Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 Signature As a neighbor of Christ Episcopal Church, I wish to state my opposition to the GMQS Application for the Christ Episcopal Church proposed expansion. Steve and Debbie Falender's letter to the Aspen City Council dated December 7, 2007 expresses my feelings regazding this excessive expansion. I concur and support the Falender's analysis and conclusions. Thank you for reviewing this application. Print Name Address G'qq',~,giz~c- s ~vL C/~c 5 S~ ! C.v, GILC~sir'<j,--, /d// iG C S, G'O /~'r/S ~GDIGP-cfi.~.' G~ w ~ • .• . , ., ~~crr o /' ~?il us ' ra v ~ - %~'7~ ~~~~tr,~ ~a~Gl~ /~l~/~i ~ i/ n~A ~Y~ o ~ /i j ~ ~A R /~/-} L Gi N R s ~ ~r~c-Pt~c cL ~ `,' ~dtit'~s~~c~~'~- ~, Sys ~ ~ /1 ~~~-~-~ r /'. / ~~~~~ ~+L~a~IC'~ 2eACa~' -, ~;~ Y~I~r~/r~~~~s ~~~ _~ ~~i%7 ~~y cal, ti~~~st ~ 7o w : ~o ~tGr fit, ~5 ~ ~ k~ ~~ ~{ . C hrisiie,~~r,r~~~iencast-`to(o ~~: ~vn~a~7glP-vS1; ~.~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~'~~ ~r~ s~ i ~ ~~ i c~ 1 ~~-~ C~<<~atiti~rti. ~11ttt~.-~ G ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ C9r~IF~~~-e S~. N ~ i~ ~''~ ' j~irX%f~ C ~ ~. To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 We are writing in regard to the Christ Episcopal Church (Church) Application for GMQS review. We are neighbors of the Church. We ask Council to grant the Church's GMQS application on the condition that the proposed expansion be reduced to the minimum size necessary to accomplish the Church's stated purposes of energy efficiency, building code compliance, and accessibility. As you well know, this a growth management (GMQS) review application, and the purpose of GMQS review is to ensure that new growth occurs in an orderly and efficient manner, is designed to maintain the character and ambiance of the City of Aspen, and implements the AACP's goals and policies. GMQS feview asks the Council to determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the AACP, and the AACP says in the section on design standards that a building should be built in context with its surroundings. We have no doubt that the Church provides benefits to the community, and that its programs are therefore consistent with the AACP. However, GMQS review, being about impacts on growth and development, as well as community benefits, is the place where Council can evaluate the context and compatibility of a proposed expansion. The Church provides beneficial programs today in its current size, and can continue to do so with a more modest expansion. _ Staff concludes that the proposed expansion is compatible with and sensitive to the context of the residential neighborhood. We do not agree. The expansion is too extensive, too large, and way out of context with the R-6 neighborhood in which it is located. In its November 2 memo to Council, staff describes the extent of the Church's proposed expansion with only one set of numbers (noting a proposed floor area increase from 7118 sf to 9000 sf). We think that other numbers better describe the extent of this very significant expansion proposal. Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from the Nov. 2 staff memo Increase in FAR of both buildings from 7118 sf to 9000 sf 26% on the site -the church building and the rectory (although no modification or expansion of the recto is ro osed Church GMQS Letter, page 1 ~~~~ December 7, 2007 .. ~~ Consider the following: Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from other documents and approximate approximate plans in the file. (Numbers are approximate because they seem to be changing as the architect verifies dimensions. Increase in FAR of the church from 4322 sf to 6176 sf 42% building alone, without the rectory (because the rectory is not being modified or ex anded Increase in actual square footage from 5792 sf to 9000 sf 55% of the church building, not includin the recto Increase in percentage of lot from 28% to 40% 43% covera e Proposed lot coverage compared allowed 27% proposed 40% 50% greater to lot coverage allowed in the coverage than neighborhood on a lot the size of allowed in the the Church's lot. nei hborhood Proposed FAR compared to the allowed 4470 sf proposed 9000 101 % The FAR allowed in the neighborhood sf buildings as on a lot the size of the Church's proposed are lot. 2x as large as allowed in the nei hborhood. Proposed rear setback compared to rear setback required in the 10' required. 5' proposed nei hborhood It is hard to imagine that an expansion of the magnitude indicated in the table above could be considered "in context" and "compatible" in a neighborhood where no other property would be allowed to come anywhere close to the FAR, floor area, lot coverage, or setback exception as proposed by the Church. The Church states, and the staff confirms in the staff memo, that the Church has no intent to increase its programs or its membership. The Church states that it needs to expand its building in order to increase energy efficiency, comply with the building codes, and improve accessibility. We believe that all of these purposes are laudable. However, the Church has presented absolutely no verifiable information relating the additional space to codes, energy efficiency, or accessibility. Common sense suggests that these goals can be accomplished with a much smaller impact on the neighborhood. Church GMQS Letter, page 2 December 7, 2007 ~~~ C :, ~ . No one in the neighborhood would receive approval for an addition so in excess of neighborhood zoning rules. We do not see why the fact that the Church is a Church would give it greater rights in this case. There is a federal statute, the RLUIPA, that limits the government's power to impose or implement land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise. However, rules and regulations imposing a burden on religion that is less than a substantial burden may and should be applied to churches and other religious entities the same as to anyone else. We certainly don't see how a slightly less expanded community room and a slightly less expanded sanctuary could in any way be deemed a substantial burden on the Church's religious undertakings. We bring up RLUIPA because it was discussed at P&Z. If Council has concerns about the effect of RLUIPA, we hope you will consider carefully the precedent-setting implications of approving a development proposal that effectively and substantially waives all applicable neighborhood zoning rules. We think that precedent-setting is a concern because RLUIPA also prohibits unequal treatment and discrimination on the basis of religion or religious denomination. In short, we ask that you evaluate this proposal in the same careful process that you would use to consider a request from any neighbor to expand a building in excess of the codes. We believe you would require any of us to protect the "scale, massing, and character" of our neighborhood (a goal stated in the AACP) and to build structures of a size appropriate to the specific land they occupy. Furthermore, to the extent that the original church building has historic significance (a consideration consistently mentioned in staff memos), a more modest expansion would better preserve the historic look of the building. In conclusion, we ask that you approve only the expansion that can be proven necessary for accessibility, energy efficiency, and code compliance, and that you give very little weight to expansion that is simply a preference or a dream for a bigger building. This is consistent with the GMQS goals of efficient and orderly growth and the context and compatibility goals of the AACP. Thank you for your consideration. ~~~- `~"~ Steve and Debbi Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Church GMQS Letter, page 3 December 7, 2007 ~~~ . ~~ppN ._, 1'1.X L11 `~ ~~ Condominium Hotel in Downtown Aspen January g, 2~~g Sarah Adams City Council Office CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, Colorado Dear Sarah, ..: I have prepared a letter to be copied and prommd~~g th~srty Council Members for th ro ~ P ocess fo Christ Church in Aspen. relates to the GMQS app Thanks for providing this to the council members. Let me know if you need anything further' from me. Thank you! ~/`'- l~ Warren E. Klug General Manager CITy,1TTgq~y~r~ 'JAN 0 91pOd The place to stay in Downtown Aspen! 617 Easf Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 .970-925-1000 e-mail: info@1s 800 TO ASPEN (1-800-862-7736)arehotel.com Warren E. Klug 100 North 8th Street #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-309-6786 January 7, 2008 TO: Members of the Aspen City Council RE: Christ Church GMQS Approval SAN ~~ '~ IUUu Dear Council Members, In towns large and small, all across America, churches and congregations occupy a special place in local communities -including right here in Aspen. Churches are centers of spiritual growth and spiritual support, and they provide a place for important local groups and services. Groups that are inappropriate for hotel meeting rooms or conference centers fmd a home in local churches. Aspen's Christ Church is such a place, a local "essential public facility" in legal terms. Space and services provided at Christ Church go way beyond just church members. Members of the Aspen City Council have seen this for themselves. The renovation and expansion plans of Christ Church in Aspen deserve the support and approval of the Aspen City Council, and such approval is appropriate when we consider the property, history of other local congregations, and the functions of the church building. I am writing to urge your approval of our renovation plans. Part of the value and attraction of a local church is its location in a neighborhood area providing services to residents all around and beyond. Churches function as the spiritual home for neighbors, and they provide valuable services to the greater community. That is certainly why even the Federal Government put local churches in a favored place, stating that a church cannot be treated "less equally" than others in land use and approval considerations. We can leave that to the lawyers, but the intent is clear. ©City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 2 Christ Church is doing an important job providing a spiritual home for its members, azea residents and visitors (important in our visitor-oriented azea) as well as valuable services to the community. It needs to be allowed to do an even better job with improved public spaces. Christ Church has been part of the West End community and an important local facility since the middle 60's, probably longer than almost all neighbors have been in residence. The building was expanded once since then, and the adjacent rectory built on the same parcel of land. Now, we come before the City Council seeking GMQS approval to follow on the approvals already given by Aspen P & Z. It is approval that is appropriate and beneficial to the local community. The Christ Church renovation plan calls for making the building fully accessible, not the case now. This means space for an elevator, proper ADA bathrooms, and it allows for the main hospitality gathering space to be on the ground level with good natural light and good kitchen access. Presently, the only lazge gathering room is in the basement, and there is no ADA- approved way to access it. Better fire exits are also included in the renovation plan -important in an azea that is used frequently by children. There will be a modest increase in fixed seating in the worship space (taking the place of the movable chairs that have been in the aisles for years). But the goal of the renovation project is NOT to provide more seats for lots of additional people or large spaces for new programs. Rather, the goal is to provide better, more appropriate, safer and more accessible spaces for the worship, educational, outreach, and community service activities that the church is akeady offering. Some factors to consider: Total building "footprint" on the pazcel, including both the rectory and the present church building, is 4,388 squaee feet. This is the total main level squaee footage presently. 2. The "foot print" of the present church building is 2863 square feet. We are asking for an additional 1762 square feet total. The total main level of the church will be 4,625 square feet when expanded. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 ~ Page 3 3. The added above ground square footage increase as proposed is all on one level, with no second story requested. 4. In the west end neighborhood, there are houses with more square footage covering their lots, and many are taller than the church is now or will be after renovation! There is additional below-grade level renovation and added space planned, which adds to the FAR numbers as required; but the visible building is not so much bigger than the present building. The basic "foot print" will be 4,625 when complete. In terms of total FAR, totaling both the church and the rectory on the site, the addition is 2.040 square feet, a 28% increase in FAR. 6. Roof height of 25 feet is allowed. We are maintaining the present barrel roof height of 19 feet, asking for no more, well under the 25 feet maximum. The buildings are only one story, with a basement. 7. While Christ Church has private residences around it, within a half a block to a block north are the expansive public facilities of the Aspen Music Festival, the Aspen Center for Physics, and the Aspen Institute. The big MAA parking lot serving the Benedict Music Tent and Harris Hall is just a half block away from Christ Church. In fact, some MAA events take place here in the summer, and we host music classes for Music Festival students. 8. Some neighbors have expressed concerns about parking. I submit that their real argument is with the huge number of cars during the summer due to the Aspen Music Festival events. Frankly, Christ Church does not create big numbers of cars on the public streets. Parking is not a reason to deny the church's GMQS application. I truly understand that neighbors do not want construction around them for a season -who does? And, I understand that residents are not happy with all the cars that the Music Festival brings to the neighborhood for two months in the summer. I do understand-but these are not proper reasons to deny Christ Church the GMQS approval requested, the legalities aside. Construction will be completed in 12-15 months, and no changes to the Christ Church plan will mitigate the Music Festival parking problems. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 4 At the last meeting when the church's GMQS application was presented, a letter from a dozen or so neighbors was presented. Members of the council will receive in prior to the Jan. 14 meeting a petition including nearly ten times as many names. As a church, we view our "neighbors" as extending beyond the people who live next door. Our "neighbors" are those who need what we can give them. How do we count the people who are touched by the work of Christ Church, or the other faith communities in our town? The numbers are huge, I am sure. The value that Christ Church brings to the neighborhood as an essential public facility and the truly insignificant impact the renovations in the building will have on the neighborhood enforce the arguments for City Council approval. I ask that you make that determination, and decide to allow the church to be improved and renovated as proposed. We will continue to be "good neighbors" to the surrounding residents, the Aspen Community and beyond. That is our goal. Thank you. Very/truly yows, W ''" Warren E. Klug Aspen Resident Christ Church Member 0 ~, COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11 % of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. 8. 1 fGr\ Qr l~OnneC 9. c ~~,a er con~~Y 10. ~yN,~l ~r,~~Pss-el ~ 11. ~I/t ~~ Iv (uuQ~ Name (please print) ~dG ~"Zv~\K U L~7' /.r9~1 ~~'/ a vt o~ IZ_a ~k(~7'~ `~!~ c~~ti 3~ fop -~ ~~ ~C~d-RI~W~ai.vy ~' 3!7 /~ ~ `I r~ Sri ~sP~-~- 8~ Jl fiver ~(~r.., ~r ~s~h ~a3 ~~~., ttd_ s~ ~~;~ C,~z~s . ~ y kD S Serra ~ is~ ~s pen V is~ open (r ~ ~ u ,,..,_ ~ o2.s5 . eG~~h~a~F. ~I N~ ~lfC.w ,~ c a 16. m ~ . ~~ N~. ~~ti 1~.M \ .~~ i~4 F.-~~~.-~,q-~~cc~L ~P«. /~9 ~na~-,~~~.~-~h-wmRSs rfG ~S" 3 2 ~ S . krn~r,~1~- ~ IP~~., . ~ e >r~ , '~, , 19. 20. 21. ~.¢~ ~~.cs~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~xx~s~~,~l 29 ~yC,~/I~V~ISNflID~ ~~ 31.~~~ 'V\ ~-C~f~N ~~t J ~ M 1.~,~-"~ D I ZO Ca 1~ ~ ~-+~ ~ Y I b N ,. ti"~i r ~/ ~ ~ ~'asYc 4~~~-1~' 1 ^-A-sG'~^I l85~1r~Jc~~~~~ AS(~ ~n/~ ~~/~~~~ (eNl Sl~Q~ K~ A.Q.Q. ~ ~~ ~. V lA~('(~ ~~' I 13 3 ~ x /~,~ t+~ur~ ~i/~`1~ f G'D ~ ~-f'2S iK.e.~ P~uk~, ~ S,~~n ~ I ~~: ~- ~ 1a. ~r7 c~~~we~~f ,t,,.. 15.C'2+'t.~.e l~la~l{well ~'c~~~~~~ 32.-1-nn~ VLQ_~~YY~-I 33. N.~ ~~ /~~ ®,~ 37.j11f}JE;IGM~C~T $HkNUO~J 40.~Dfj~[/ C~aU~+S' 41. GE UQ loC: ~ . ~~ {~ k~-i 42. MeaavM~A-rNi<1s ~ ~~ a3. ~r<~1, e ~ ~ 1xJ i'''I~is~ ,G~„~~h• yL-, -/~-'li~~-~ 44. I d ~A S ~ ~. ~"~ LJ.Q ~'~'U~~- 45.~~j~~~lAIY! l le)W1 46. ~ W A.~A-~ ~ ONE' a7.,~AN~`l ~. SM t-f4-) 48. ~ ~ 56. ~ ~~e 0 ~ sz Y~,~ sa~.+, .~ ~.,~, ~d . RsP" ~ 0 S9 2 Mc 5~6. ~«.~.,,,.,~ ;s ~ l4sprn 'j00 /J~oo,/rte ~ ~2 s1~1 ,day ~~ ~r~, ~N`"Y`- ?o a+x ~ 7 ~S ~swoL7"-- n~~.g~ llSl-gl6~i 3~ ~. `~ ~~ b0 ~ b ~ T tom. W l.~ ~ ,ds ~..e~. ~. /' ~ G~/y Lai J~..S ~~-c~ 57. ~/~d ~ f ~ .S~U s SPr ~ 0 bb N ~I~II. kt U re ~ ~r. ern C~ ~~61/ 58.(Vl~C~s.Z~//~Chl1~ 1~~42Er~~.Gt/BSE1~ 17.27 7"Ill~[(=k~, ~D~ 59. U.1~-- ~• ~~ IUl7 1..1 8k~~..~~~ ~5~~ 201 S. '(i'` 5+ •, AsPGn c 0 g I b t) 55.~~~ M~RR.'(IIJ~~1 . r ~- ~ ~. ,~ 61 62. '~ys,~/ ~ /~j~~ivse/ J'N d w bua.s5 lJ~ o ~g~/ 71. 4~ . 72.' ~~ %ryER/NE /~f skzv ~`~1r^s~~~ ~~o• bax 6GGy S.V• Co 816cS" ~ , Sa ~ e ~ ~~ ~X~ ~ g~~1r o~~ ~ s~ ~ ~y,~r 2 ~- cn ..-, n. Qi6~/ -~ ~ I~~~ ~-~~ ~~~~~7 ~ ~~~z Po.f3ox , CD. gi6iz r ~ ~..5 v - vc `r~c~'c~ lloZ3 s z.o Vey .rte ~; 6~.-e ~D ~,' „K ~...e-~S1# . ~~~ ~1 n-~ RsP~~~ Z~~.v so. ~!i za~c ~l~i~~ s1. Me ~6., P~-,~s.~ a2.l~j(1~ ~, M4.Erl.AN ,~ '{~,~ 4 l~~'O Sivr,/Yf~~~,~ /~.~ toZ, we:~- ~~rti S~-. /-~Sre.,1 (}~p~~•1.,CU ~~ $1611 Nom. 83. PcN ~~ 84. 85. ~'~.wlt°5 ss. 87. ~- o ~ a8. $s. 90.c. Y~cc~A n ~, 91. ~ ~ Ti~RN 92. ~ 93. ~ , ~~ ~a~ a ~'. ~ X161( ~~ ~ P~_ g~~~~ i /pd ' L ~3 ~/,G// ~c r i ~, !~ G~i~e. 6'L .Pl~li 94. 95. t,.. Ni~ 96 97 ~1 u~ ~~~ S~~rtl ~ ~~ ~7~y Ijheu~ YY~255 C® . p weo0 Sx~vw w~M ss J) w~G ~ C2, /l'2.''t: '~':i 5 ,~~, ~~. /0~ rl~ rz~ 13!-((~ 1µ9~ l5'9+ ~~~ /1~1. / g berE /yam 2°~ , i~ ~,vr ~/R-•~tt ~e~ a I~a~ ~ ~,u_.brr~ ~, ~'I e~ o~ 6 ~'TT~f W E /~ ~~ vs And M. G~U~ ~D~I~S 5 Iq-2q C~,~~~t~. cam' R~. ~r~ rl~ yam` ~T ~~ Zo w . ~,e~N~ l are ~, /~y,,y.~.v ~~~'~~~~ ~d ~5~5 ~~ ~b 5161 Z .J o2 O ~s~ ~rca.r~ c S 1~ s~O t .-~ ~G ~ ~ l ~~~~~~~ lba ~. ~- "~3 /~s pew ~~ ~~ a~ ~ ~!~ l02< kV~~~~S 5~ l~r~u~' ~(. L~~ra S /~ ~an~l~o 17~~r~~~-~ -~ ~-~-~~- ~L~ ~ i ~~,~ ,~~,~~/s Cdr ~ ~~~'~.~ COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worsh~ and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11°~ of the site and 49°h of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on ~~nunrv ~a 9008 ~~~ January 8, 2008 Members of the Aspen City Council Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ~,. e/ W RE' Christ Eoiscooal Church of Asoen AoDlication for Growth Management Aooroval Dear Members of the Council: Enclosed with this letter is a petition (in two formats, one single-paged and one multi-paged) which was signed by a total of 116 people. Of the 116, approximately 66 reside in the West End. The text of the petition is as follows: COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance wkh the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 77°k of the ske and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially bebw grade, thus Iimking the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. If we took several more weeks to collect additional names, I have no doubt that we could increase significantly the number of signatures on this petition. But what we are presenting to the Council at this time is indicative of the broad community support for our project that exists in Aspen and in the wider community served by Christ Episcopal Church. We hope that you will approve our request for Growth Management Approval. faithfully, Bruce McNab Petition, Community Support for the Christ Episcopal Church Renovation THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN ASPEN 536 W. North Street Aspen, CO 81611-1253 The Rev. Bruce McNab, Rector Parish CMBce (970) 925-3278 • Rector (970) 309-0403 ,~" `m .~•s W COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11 % of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. Name (please prinfl ~C9C ~.2-~n.;.~, ~ h iN O E~2~ x.+41 Gl~ ~~~ 5~~, ~ D a „~ ~ JZa .k1~7( 9. ~~~.ae, con~~Y 10. ~v~v~ ~~~1 i `Y(e..,e G~a~~ Sob r1= S\Z:..~.,,,..:.. ~'(~ 3n~ V4tc ', ~• 3!7 /v ~ yr+ 5~ j ~s,~- Ce7.3 ~nro...~., ~- S~. u~:y oud s~,~s~,~.c~~. ~ ~i kD Sierra (J is~ ~tsper, I `{ ~ Si terra V is'~ As~~-n ~o y -~~~ ~ /~i ~~~1 S r ~ w u yr--- ~ s~--- n o25s . CG.nl~oln~a~l~ 14. IJryc~ /'ewe.!( i /~9 ~no~-, ~~rr~+wm~ss !l4 ~..~ J 22. ~ ~ ~ / 16. Ill ri ~D N , tC,~ ,~. Mt~h\~hh f.~ 1 1 2 ~~.,~ Ti..~~o~j- 3w-~..er~ Vier;., D 11.v C~ ~~ s~.e.~ ~ ~. Y ~ b y ,. y a ~ ~~k 4~~~-~-1 ~ II ~s~1 ~ 4~,.~ ~. la ~s~ 2a.I~+~ISTIN Vd1AcIL?~n 29 h0 v~i IS~Ao~D~ p_ 30.-~0Y~1T~i,T DY~ (SIt61 -- o~ 3 ~6cr~ ~~°y ~'~ '~3 fr~wr~ooo ~i/~~ z 37. ~14#F~GA~C~7 SNANUO~ 38. ~~=~ ~nk v,~w0-ti. 3~// 'Lt/ti-a~ lam/ t q~/./~i 41. GE n2 Ca6 ~ . ~~ ~ k~~. 44. 1Q~ S~ItiJ`- ~~-~-P 45. ~[ m~~ ~ 1~ ~I..IJ~ 46. ~ W ~/l.~ ~0~-!tom 47.~AN~~/~~. SM rr1~ 48. G ~G:Y~~ 54. 55. ~l~N M~(z'(ItJt~l 56. 57. 58. m ~ s2 ~ ski ~ ~„„~, ~Rd . A=P"~ D S9 z M~ S'<<,•~,,,,..,,,,,~ s p,,.~,~ Asp~a 700 alt ~~ ~rL . ~,~-- 700 ~OD,CF ~ fZ ~~-- ?o ~sx ~ ~ /9 ~a.al~- n~c~. g~ (~S~ - g161~ b0 3 v ~ r -~.~.. W t~ , A..s ~.~. . l_ ~ . /' _ ~ G~~ f ~ ~ ~ Stbl~ w ~~b~l 3 .~ ~ ~, ~. ,~ 60 ~ ~~lfyy'~/,~;~ ~ ~ ccr~e 61 L~~ v'V1' ~ ~~ 62 63 ~o~~~~ ~. ~~~z ~i~~~Q~~~~~~ 0 0.-~. 12-I ~ ~~~ s5. a 66. +~~d ~-- • iy4ey /~ ~C . ,~~ }~Q.~ox ~'[SA~y Cd. $/6/2 67 I ,p q : 68. ~ cJ 69. 2~~ ~2~ C 70. vw~ ~J WP.!'//v 77 7s %,~lEr4/NE /~1fCL,E~¢ ~D. 657-. Sa.~-~.~u 1~11~, g ~~ Li (~ 5 / [~~yS~l y GD f8~/(a~vS~/ ~b ~~ j J r.1 d w y~.ia.ss lJ~ 6 ~bL Skty k~1+~s~~~ /? a. bau 6~`y S.V. ~~ I SA ~e r '~O, ~X7~~gF~1ro~~ ~isu ~o.b~¢T / • .~iA~/>/ lr >sD f /a~YIY1 A.. ~/yi~, /~o„J ~o~CrX Co BtGcS ~' sy,~i 2 ~ ~ ~~ S'~6/l ~~ Z~ ve ..en~' . dJ ~ ~~. U rCi lit .r~7•~ ~ Z.d'~+ E CS U )sir /'''~-,pip ~.~,` ~~~ a~~ . yV~¢~w /4~4a ~/CUR 1~v~f?sP~~' 80. ~~Itdyt~~~~~ ~ «$osvrJff~, ~ ~.~„~ s~. Me ~~.. P~-,rse~, rP toZ, were v~~rn S~. /-~sPe.,,~ az. l~il.U ~ M S ~ ~}SpEN,,CD $lbll 4 72:x' ~`~"' ~~ ~~ _ ~~~ 83. Oc10'O~f ~~SL'~.t1S ' P. 0 ~ioX (. (ode `~ 5 • ~ • ~ b ~ ~ 84. ~ ~ b ~. ~~~ ~~t'Ol 87. ~- o ~c.Fr c 7r~ ~'. Nane ~y ~/!ol/ 88. ~ ~avr~C~ynNK 13~~ ~v'WS~a~~~. ~ ((iII 89. ~ ~~M'K~ I so ~! n~ l7 Grl~. 6~L .~l(// . ~ ~r~cl . ~u ~ r ~3 St.Qx~ G - Sr~-~na-~~I ~ ~z,~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 7g 94. 95. ~ ~ 97 98 jr,,~ua Y~ss cm . d w eo0 S'~aw.n~s JIw+~G C 5 r-, ~'* ~-_ no ~~ 3~ ~~ ~P ~. I~ JD 1/~ ~ ~ s-Efcl_~~ Pa/t'a~ ~cAn~,J tia~ ~ L-u~b9'~'~ a., ~,...I ~~ orN Q~rTy l,~E IBS ,~.ll y i ',5cl.-I c ~ T ~lrt~++ mil, t~r~~ ~aS i<1-2~} C~,~~~ l~ K~. 11.7 w- ;j 20 (~ , ~~_,4NC, 5 ~d r5g5 4dp~..~l .fib 8161 ~ Sao c~ ~.-~,~-,~, s Aso-~.~ ~~~,, ,~Sr~r/ ~L-~~ / Ff/6!/ JZ~t.1-$W~~-cL~l~, ~~ Coal ~K.~~ ~`~'. r3 ~_ M:~' .JVt. C~U~ lba N. ~- ~~ ~S p~,_ 15~. , 6~~.~y'~ ~~ l~2! ~tl ~~.ls 5~ /7'l~. ~~{if ~.~. a t/~,~ ~i.w.,-- ~jR-h' L~ 70?7~)3~...-, ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~5 ~e o(~ /~~vS COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worsh~ and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11 % of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. ~d%d^ 4~~.d.+o ,.-. ~ app z..- ~c~~~'l.X~/Lpplpp1 ..xatV~'1I1!® Condominium Hotel in Downtown Aspen January 8, 2008 Sarah Adams City Council Office CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, Colorado i;iJ';~ , MITT. ,>kN~,~ ~qN tl 4 lpd~'~` Dear Sarah, I have prepared a letter to be copied and provided to all the City Council Members for the Monday, January 14 meeting. This relates to the GMQS approval process for Christ Church in Aspen. Thanks for praviding this to the council members. Let me know if you need anything fizrther from me. Thank you! w"" ~- l~ arren E. Klug General Manager The place to stay in Downtown Aspen! 617 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970-925-1000 e-mail: info@aspensquarehotel.com • vdww.aspensquarehotel.com 1-800-TO ASPEN (1-800-862-7736) Warren E. Klug 100 North 8th Street #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-309-6786 January 7, 2008 TO: Members of the Aspen City Council RE: Christ Church GMQS Approval Dear Council Members, In towns lazge and small, all across America, churches and congregations occupy a special place in local communities -including right here in Aspen. Churches aze centers of spiritual growth and spiritual support, and they provide a place for important local groups and services. Groups that are inappropriate for hotel meeting rooms or conference centers fmd a home in local churches. Aspen's Christ Church is such a place, a local "essential public facility" in legal terms. Space and services provided at Christ Church go way beyond just church members. Members of the Aspen City Council have seen this for themselves. The renovation and expansion plans of Christ Church in Aspen deserve the support and approval of the Aspen City Council, and such approval is appropriate when we consider the property, history of other local congregations, and the functions of the church building. I am writing to urge your approval of our renovation plans. Part of the value and attraction of a local church is its location in a neighborhood area providing services to residents all azound and beyond. Churches function as the spiritual home for neighbors, and they provide valuable services to the greater community. That is certainly why even the Federal Government put local churches in a favored place, stating that a church cannot be treated "less equally" than others in land use and approval considerations. We can leave that to the lawyers, but the intent is clear. -- __ -. __ (,. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 2 Christ Church is doing an important job providing a spiritual home for its members, area residents and visitors (important in our visitor-oriented area) as well as valuable services to the community. It needs to be allowed to do an even better job with improved public spaces. Christ Church has been part of the West End community and an important local facility since the middle 60's, probably longer than almost all neighbors have been in residence. The building was expanded once since then, and the adjacent rectory built on the same parcel of land. Now, we come before the City Council seeking GMQS approval to follow on the approvals already given by Aspen P & Z. It is approval that is appropriate and beneficial to the local community. The Christ Church renovation plan calls for making the building fully accessible, not the case now. This means space for an elevator, proper ADA bathrooms, and it allows for the main hospitality gathering space to be on the ground level with good natural light and good kitchen access. Presently, the only large gathering room is in the basement, and there is no ADA- approved way to access it. Better fire exits are also included in the renovation plan -important in an area that is used frequently by children. There will be a modest increase in fixed seating in the worship space (taking the place of the movable chairs that have been in the aisles for years). But the goal of the renovation project is NOT to provide more seats for lots of additional people or lazge spaces for new programs. Rather, the goal is to provide better, more appropriate, safer and more accessible spaces for the worship, educational, outreach, and community service activities that the church is already offering. Some factors to consider: Total building "footprint" on the pazcel, including both the rectory and the present church building, is 4,388 square feet. This is the total main level square footage presently. 2. The "foot print" of the present church building is 2863 square feet. We are asking for an additional 1762 square feet total. The total main level of the church will be 4,625 square feet when expanded. T. __=_ ~i City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 3 3. The added above ground squaze footage increase as proposed is all on one level, with no second story requested. 4. In the west end neighborhood, there are houses with more square footage covering their lots, and many are taller than the church is now or will be after renovation! 5. There is additional below-grade level renovation and added space planned, which adds to the FAR numbers as required; but the visible building is not so much bigger than the present building. The basic "foot print" will be 4,625 when complete. In terms of total FAR, totaling both the church and the rectory on the site, the addition is 2.040 square feet, a 28% increase in FAR. 6. Roof height of 25 feet is allowed. We aze maintaining the present barrel roof height of 19 feet, asking for no more, well under the 25 feet maximum. The buildings aze only one story, with a basement. 7. While Christ Church has private residences around it, within a half a block to a block north aze the expansive public facilities of the Aspen Music Festival, the Aspen Center for Physics, and the Aspen Institute. The big MAA parking lot serving the Benedict Music Tent and Hams Hall is just a half block away from Christ Church. In fact, some MAA events take place here in the summer, and we host music classes for Music Festival students. 8. Some neighbors have expressed concerns about pazking. I submit that their real argument is with the huge number of cars during the summer due to the Aspen Music Festival events. Frankly, Christ Church does not create big numbers of cars on the public streets. Parking is not a reason to deny the church's GMQS application. I truly understand that neighbors do not want construction around them for a season -who does? And, I understand that residents are not happy with all the cars that the Music Festival brings to the neighborhood for two months in the summer. I do understand but these are not proper reasons to deny Christ Church the GMQS approval requested, the legalities aside. Construction will be completed in 12-15 months, and no changes to the Christ Church plan will mitigate the Music Festival parking problems. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 4 At the last meeting when the church's GMQS application was presented, a letter from a dozen or so neighbors was presented. Members of the council will receive in prior to the Jan. 14 meeting a petition including nearly ten times as many names. As a church, we view our "neighbors" as extending beyond the people who live next door. Our "neighbors" are those who need what we can give them. How do we count the people who are touched by the work of Christ Chwch, or the other faith communities in our town? The numbers are huge, I am sure. The value that Christ Church brings to the neighborhood as an essential public facility and the truly insignificant impact the renovations in the building will have on the neighborhood enforce the arguments for City Council approval. I ask that you make that determination, and decide to allow the church to be improved and renovated as proposed. We will continue to be "good neighbors" to the surrounding residents, the Aspen Community and beyond. That is our goal. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~,'" Warren E. Klug Aspen Resident Christ Church Member ~.~ To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 ' Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 As a neighbor of Christ Episcopal Church, I wish to stale my opposition to the GMQS Application for the Christ Episcopal Church proposed expansion. Steve and Debbie Falender's letter to the Aspen City Council dated December 7, 2007 expresses my feelings regazding this excessive expansion. I concur and support the Falender's analysis and conclusions. Thank you for reviewing this application. Print Name ~ ~~6,~ . ~,~~i~CC-- s 4o L Ci~c s s'~ ! rv. Gl«~= spe f~, ,. ,, ~/r is e S. Co J/.'r~s ~~,~.' G~ w l~c~r~oc'~ `21us~rave ~~~,~morl~ 1~~~q~/<~~~ ti'As '=a-~-,~ `~~~ l~~s ~ ~ /1,~~-~-~ Signature Address y~~~r~ ~ay~ ~~~~. s~ ji ~; ~ h9~~h'~~,~ ~ .~~'; 11y~ ^, v_euce~t' ~~L~~ppQ~ ~e~~~C~ ~~~~~" nt~ vl-c ('jam.- ~~,,..,:`~ ~~y u~, Ne,~.st ~ ~p w ~ ri]o~th St, l'_.hc-is-l~eCkt,ri~~iFnC2~1 '-F~G~ ~a~: arn~~glE.rSf' ~b ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~' jr~t S~ y~2.L~~ ~'~~~,~~b~tc~ I''Yltld~.-~ 311 ~~ ~~ ~,~~ Cr(l~sa~~e ,~'~ J~ ~~~~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~, ~, , To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 ~. ,~ Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 We are writing in regard to the Christ Episcopal Church (Church) Application for GMQS review. We are neighbors of the Church. We ask Council to grant the Church's GMQS application on the condition that the proposed expansion be reduced to the minimum size necessary to accomplish the Church's stated purposes of energy efficiency, building code compliance, and accessibility. As you well know, this a growth management (GMQS) review application, and the purpose of GMQS review is to ensure that new growth occurs in an orderly and efficient manner, is designed to maintain the character and ambiance of the City of Aspen, and implements the AACP's goals and policies. GMQS review asks the Council to determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the AACP, and the AACP says in the section on design standards that a building should be built in context with its surroundings. We have no doubt that the Church provides benefits to the community, and that its programs are therefore consistent with the AACP. However, GMQS review, being about impacts on growth and development, as well as community benefits, is the place where Council can evaluate the context and compatibility of a proposed expansion. The Church provides beneficial programs today in its current size, and can continue to do so with a more modest expansion. Staff conGudes that the proposed expansion is compatible with and sensitive to the context of the residential neighbofiood. We do not agree. The expansion is too extensive, too large, and way out of context with the R-6 neighbofiood in which it is located. In its November 2 memo to Council, staff describes the extent of the Church's proposed expansion with only one set of numbers (noting a proposed floor area increase from 7118 sf to 9000 sf). We think that other numbers better describe the extent of this very sign cant expansion proposal. Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from the Nov. 2 staff memo Increase in FAR of both buildings from 7118 sf to 9000 sf 26% on the site -the church building and the rectory (although no modification or expansion of the recto is ro osed Church GMQS Letter, page 1 December 7. 2007 --, ,~~, .., Consider the following: Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from other documents and approximate approximate plans in the file. (Numbers are approximate because they seem to be changing as the architect verifies dimensions. Increase in FAR of the church from 4322 sf to 6176 sf 42% building alone, without the rectory (because the rectory is not being modified or ex anded Increase in actual square footage from 5792 sf to 9000 sf 55% of the church building, not includin the recto Increase in percentage of lot from 28% to 40% 43% covers e Proposed lot coverage compared allowed 27% proposed 40% 50% greater to lot coverage allowed in the coverage than neighborhood on a lot the size of allowed in the the Church's lot. nei hborhood Proposed FAR compared to the allowed 4470 sf proposed 9000 101 % The FAR allowed in the neighborhood sf buildings as on a lot the size of the Church's proposed are lot. 2x as large as allowed in the nei hborhood. Proposed rear setback compared to rear setback required in the 10' required. 5' proposed nei hborhood It is hard to imagine that an expansion of the magnitude indicated in the table above could be considered "in context" and "compatible' in a neighborhood where no other property would be allowed to come anywhere close to the FAR, floor area, lot coverage, or setback exception as proposed by the Church. The Church states, and the staff confirms in the staff memo, that the Church has no intent to increase its programs or its membership. The Church states that it needs to expand its building in order to increase energy efficiency, comply with the building codes, and improve accessibility. We believe that all of these purposes are laudable. However, the Church has presented absolutely no verifiable information relating the additional space to codes, energy efficiency, or accessibility. Common sense suggests that these goals can be accomplished with a much smaller impact on the neighborhood. Church GMQS Letter, page 2 December 7. 2007 ,.,.~ No one in the neighborhood would receive approval for an addition so in excess of neighborhood zoning rules. We do not see why the fact that the Church is a Church would give it greater rights in this case. There is a federal statute, the RLUIPA, that limits the government's power to impose or implement land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise. However, rules and regulations imposing a burden on religion that is less than a substantial burden may and should be applied to churches and other religious entities the same as to anyone else. We certainly don't see how a slightly less expanded community room and a slightly less expanded sanctuary could in any way be deemed a substantial burden on the Church's religious undertakings. We bring up RLUIPA because it was discussed at P&Z. If Council has concerns about the effect of RLUIPA, we hope you will consider carefully the precedent-setting implications of approving a development proposal that effectively and substantially waives all applicable neighborhood zoning rules. We think that precedent-setting is a concern because RLUIPA also prohibits unequal treatment and discrimination on the basis of religion or religious denomination. In short, we ask that you evaluate this proposal in the same careful process that you would use to consider a request from any neighbor to expand a building in excess of the codes. We believe you would require any of us to protect the "scale, massing, and character' of our neighborhood (a goal stated in the AACP) and to build structures of a size appropriate to the specific land they occupy. Furthermore, to the extent that the original church building has historic significance (a consideration consistently mentioned in staff memos), a more modest expansion would better preserve the historic look of the building. In conclusion, we ask that you approve only the expansion that can be proven necessary for accessibility, energy efficiency, and code compliance, and that you give very little weight to expansion that is simply a preference or a dream for a bigger building. This is consistent with the GMQS goals of efficient and orderly growth and the context and compatibility goals of the AACP. Thank you for your consideration. ~~^~:~ Steve and Debbi Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Church GMQS Letter, page 3 December 7, 2007 ,~~. `~ To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 We are writing in regard to the Christ Episcopal Church (Church) Application for GMQS review. We are neighbors of the Church. We ask Council to grant the Church's GMQS application on the condition that the proposed expansion be reduced to the minimum size necessary to accomplish the Church's stated purposes of energy efficiency, building code compliance, and accessibility. As you well know, this a growth management (GMQS) review application, and the purpose of GMQS review is to ensure that new growth occurs in an orderly and efficient manner, is designed to maintain the character and ambiance of the City of Aspen, and implements the AACP's goals and policies. GMQS review asks the Council to determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the AACP, and the AACP says in the section on design standards that a building should be built in context with its surroundings. We have no doubt that the Church provides benefits to the community, and that its programs are therefore consistent with the AACP. However, GMQS review, being about impacts on growth and development, as well as community benefits, is the place where Council can evaluate the context and compatibility of a proposed expansion. The Church provides beneficial programs today in its current size, and can continue to do so with a more modest expansion. Staff concludes that the proposed expansion is compatible with and sensitive to the context of the residential neighborhood. We do not agree. The expansion is too extensive, too large, and way out of context with the R-6 neighborhood in which it is located. In its November 2 memo to Council, staff describes the extent of the Church's proposed expansion with only one set of numbers (noting a proposed floor area increase from 7118 sf to 9000 sf). We think that other numbers better describe the extent of this very significant expansion proposal. Expansion, using numbers from the Nov. 2 staff memo From existing To proposed % INCREASE Increase in FAR of both buildings from.7118 sf to 9000 sf 26% on the site-the church building and the rectory (although no ~ '~ modification or expansion of the recto is ro osed ~~s~~ ?001 ~'~3PEN Church GMQS Letter, page 1 COti}p,;,,,,, ~ ;,t'dELOPMENT December 7. 2007 r ~.. Consider the following: ~, .s Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from other documents and approximate approximate plans in the file. (Numbers are approximate because they seem to be changing as the architect verifies dimensions. Increase in FAR of the church from 4322 sf to 6176 sf 42% building alone, without the rectory (because the rectory is not being modified or ex anded Increase in actual square footage from 5792 sf to 9000 sf 55% of the church building, not includin the recto Increase in percentage of lot from 28% to 40% 43% covers e Proposed lot coverage compared allowed 27% proposed 40% 50% greater to lot coverage allowed in the coverage than neighborhood on a lot the size of allowed in the the Church's lot. nei hborhood Proposed FAR compared to the allowed 4470 sf proposed 9000 101 % The FAR allowed in the neighborhood sf buildings as on a lot the size of the Church's proposed are lot. 2x as large as allowed in the nei hborhood. Proposed rear setback compared to rear setback re wired in the 10' required 5' proposed nei hborhood It is hard to imagine that an expansion of the magnitude indicated in the table above could be considered "in context" and "compatible" in a neighborhood where no other property would be allowed to come anywhere close to the FAR, floor area, lot coverage, or setback exception as proposed by the Church. The Church states, and the staff confirms in the staff memo, that the Church has no intent to increase its programs or its membership. The Church states that it needs to expand its building in order to increase energy efficiency, comply with the building codes, and improve accessibility. We believe that all of these purposes are laudable. However, the Church has presented absolutely no verifiable information relating the additional space to codes, energy efficiency, or accessibility. Common sense suggests that these goals can be accomplished with a much smaller impact on the neighborhood. Church GMQS Letter, page 2 December 7, 2007 ,.~. ~~, ,, No one in the neighborhood would receive approval for an addition so in excess of neighborhood zoning rules. We do not see why the fact that the Church is a Church would give it greater rights in this case. There is a federal statute, the RLUIPA, that limits the government's power to impose or implement land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise. However, rules and regulations imposing a burden on religion that is less than a substantial burden may and should be applied to churches and other religious entities the same as to anyone else. We certainly don't see how a slightly less expanded community room and a slightly less expanded sanctuary could in any way be deemed a substantial burden on the Church's religious undertakings. We bring up RLUIPA because it was discussed at P&Z. If Council has concerns about the effect of RLUIPA, we hope you will consider carefully the precedent-setting implications of approving a development proposal that effectively and substantially waives all applicable neighborhood zoning rules. We think that precedent-setting is a concern because RLUIPA also prohibits unequal treatment and discrimination on the basis of religion or religious denomination. In short, we ask that you evaluate this proposal in the same careful process that you would use to consider a request from any neighbor to expand a building in excess of the codes. We believe you would require any of us to protect the "scale, massing, and character' of our neighborhood (a goal stated in the AACP) and to build structures of a size appropriate to the specific land they occupy. Furthermore, to the extent that the original church building has historic significance (a consideration consistently mentioned in staff memos), a more modest expansion would better preserve the historic look of the building. In conclusion, we ask that you approve only the expansion that can be proven necessary for accessibility, energy efficiency, and code compliance, and that you give very little weight to expansion that is simply a preference or a dream for a bigger building. This is consistent with the GMQS goals of efficient and orderly growth and the context and compatibility goals of the AACP. Thank you for your consideration. Steve and Debbi Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Church GMQS Letter, page 3 December 7, 2007 ~. ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner ~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director/iN-rr/ DATE OF MEMO: November 30, 2007 MEETING DATE: December 10, 2007 RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Second Reading of Ordinance # 49, Series of 2007 (Parce12735-121-11- 808) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 536 West North Street requests Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. ^ Lot history The Episcopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881 during the Mining Era. The architecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by Revised 11/30/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc Page 1 of 4 ~~~~ ~• ,.-, ,..r ~, prominent Modern azchitects and theorists Walter Paepcke, Herbert Bayer, and Fritz Benedict. 536 West North Street, the Christ Episcopal Church, is attributed to architect Francis Stanton of the Chicago firm Stanton and Rockwell. Completed in 1963, the Church's Modern form and small scale design contributes to Aspen's West End neighborhood. The lot area is 15,599 squaze feet, and was assigned an allowable floor area of 7,118 squaze feet for the modest addition to the church through the Conditional Use Review process in 1976. In 1980, a rectory was built on the site to provide an employee housing unit; concurrently, the Church was granted a reduction in required off-site pazking from 14 spaces to 12 spaces, 4 of which were required to be provided on-site with the remaining 8 spaces held in abeyance for future implementation should there be complaints.[ The Church currently has four spaces, two of which are in a tandem configuration. • Previous actions On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to the existing Conditional Use approval to allow the increase of allowable floor azea from 7,118 square feet to 9,158 square feet; re-established pazking requirements through the Special Review process; and granted rear yazd setback and site coverage variances for the proposed addition.z The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for Dimensional Variances, Special Review for parking, and Conditional Use review; however, Growth Management review is under the purview of City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which overlaps some of these issues (i.e. parking). The Planning and Zoning Commission voted four to one (4 - 1)recommending City Council approve the Growth Management request. DISCUSSION: Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility3 City Council is asked to grant Growth Management review, which focuses on the development's role as an essential public facility serving the general public and needs of the community. The Community Development Director has determined that the Christ Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility4 because it serves both members and non-members by offering religious services to AA meetings to La Leche meetings. The Church requests approval to extend the existing barrel-vaulted structure to the rear and ~ During the August 19, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a resolution was not adopted; however a motion was adopted and the minutes serve as record. See Exhibit D. Z On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #23, Series of 2007 by a vote of 4 - 1. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on August 21, 2007 and August 28, 2007 are attached as Exhibit C. 'Section 26.104.100 of the Land Use Code defines Essential Public Facility as " a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." "There is a precedent in Aspen for religious organizations to be reviewed as essential public facilities. The most recent example is the Jewish Community Center development at 435 West Main Street, which received growth Management approval in 2006 as an essential public facility. Revised 11/30/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc Page 2 of 4 ~~~ ~ .-,, ~, s demolish and replace the addition to the east. Staff finds that the proposed design is sensitive to the Modern architecture of the existing church, and despite not having local landmark status; the addition generally meets the Historic Preservation guidelines.s A key component of the development is to make the entire Church ADA accessible and Building Code compliant. The Church building has not been updated since the 1970s. Neighborhood Context: Council expressed concern regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the primazily residential West End neighborhood. The applicant has provided supplementazy imagesb that illustrate the various studies conducted to reduce an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. Staff finds that the one story mass proposed for the new addition and the connector piece between the old and new construction successfully breaks up the mass into different modules, thus reducing the impact of the development on neighboring parcels. Affordable Housing: The Land Use Code establishes this as a sepazate review process largely because Essential Public Facilities are unique. A more typical growth management review focuses on employees generated from commercial and free mazket residential component that result in a high level of services; whereas, this application seeks to improve the efficiency, safety, accessibility and function of the physical building and does not propose to increase programs. No affordable housing is proposed in this application because the development is not intended to increase the existing Church functions. Despite actually retaining 2 full time employees, the Church provides employee housing for 3.5 employees on the site in the adjacent rectory building. Staff finds that the existing affordable housing is sufficient. Parkin Among the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility is compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), which incorporates transportation and pazking goals of the community. Part of the development includes an additional parking space bringing the total onsite pazking spaces to 5 with 2 spaces in tandem, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission under the Special Review process. Staff strongly believes that increasing the amount of onsite pazking to more than that proposed would negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood. Public transportation and alternate methods will continue to be promoted by the Church. Staff finds that the proposal meets the goals of the AACP and the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the applicable review criteria for Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities. The proposal The Church application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. 536 West North Street is identified on the "list of potential historic resources", aka Exhibit A to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. e Exhibit E. Exhibit A compares the proposal with the goals in the AACP. Revised 11/30/2007 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc ~c~Page 3Qf4 8. is consistent with the goals of the AACP by preserving the form of an existing Modern building, designing an addition that is sensitive to the residential context of the neighborhood, and updating the building so that it is Code compliant, energy efficient and ADA accessible. Staff recommends approval of the Growth Management request." PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #49, Series of 2007 upon Second Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A -Growth Management Review Criteria for an Essential Public Facility . B -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #23, Series of 2007. C -Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 7, 2007 and August 28, 2007 D -Planning and Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes E-Application, supplementary illustrations Revised 11/30/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc ~j(~//J,/~'P~age 4 of 4 i /'~~lG'~Lt v ' r '` ~I e \. ~ ~ The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: A. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and /or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." Since 1881, the Christ Episcopal Church serves both members and non-members of the public from religious services to AA meetings. Staff finds that this criterion is met. B. Sufftcient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Response: The project does not expect to increase programs and capacity with the proposed addition; therefore affordable housing mitigation is not required. Based on the use of the proposal, no Growth Management allotments are required for the proposed changes to the Essential Public Facility. Staff finds that this criterion is met. C. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church serves the Aspen community through both spiritual guidance and as anon-member facility for AA meetings and Aspen Music Festival and School performances. The proposal perpetuates the Church's current role in "nurturing intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations" listed in the AACP. The design proposal retains an important Modern building in Aspen, and replaces an addition with a sensitive design that is compatible with the Modern architecture and the residential neighborhood, which meets the AACP policy on design quality and historic preservation. Transportation and housing goals of the AACP are met with the proposed development as the current congregation and number of employees will not be increased. The Church is situated in Aspen's West End neighborhood with adequate public transportation services. ~ The application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 2007 and is subject to the regulations in place at the time of submittal. Exhibit A GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc Page 1 of 3 ~XEfl~ltG C, .~ ~, Under the current Code, there is no definitive pazking requirement for a Church in the R- 6zone district. The previous pazking requirement, adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1980, required four spaces (two of which aze stacked) onsite, with eight spaces in abeyance with the condition that the City could require the implementation of these spaces based on complaints. The applicant is proposing one additional pazking space, which will bring the total onsite parking to five spaces, so that although one space of the five is obstructed due to the tandem configuration, four spaces aze unobstructed. The Planning and Zoning Commission established new pazking requirements for the Church- in essence approving the five ~arking spaces proposed in this application- through Resolution #23, Series of 2007. Staff finds that this is sufficient given the proximity to public transportation, and that the design proposal does not increase the programmatic goals of the Church. Increasing the amount of onsite parking would negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood. Staff finds that the goals of the AACP are met. D. A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposed development will not increase the Church's program and therefore is not expected to increase the number of employees. The Church currently mitigates for 3.5 employees with a four bedroom rectory located onsite, which will remain unchanged. There aze two full-time employees and two part-time employees on staff; the two full-time employees aze housed in the rectory. Staff finds that criterion d is not applicable, as no new employees are generated with this proposal. E. Free market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied with affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposal does not include a free mazket residential component. F. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements propose das part of the project. Publtc infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, z Exhibit B. Exhibit A GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc Page 2 of 3 ~XN(~T ~. '` ~ \,,,r energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Response: One of the primary reasons for this proposal is to increase energy efficiency and update the building to comply with current building code and accessibility requirements. The applicant proposes to update systems and components that will minimize, and in some cases reduce, impacts on the public infrastructure. Because the Church does not intent to increase programs, staff projects that there will be a minimal impact on parking in the West End neighborhood. The applicant intends to promote public transportation and is providing bicycle storage as part of the proposed site plan. Staff finds that criterion f is met. Exhibit A GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc Page 3 of 3 M /^""` ~/ t xl/ A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12,13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. RESOLUTION N0.23, SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish new off street parking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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, Exhibit B P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 1 of 5 .., ~. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions; is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase in floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, the establishment of new off street pazking requirements through Special Review, certain dimensional Variances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lots ] 1, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standazds, floor azea, and off-street parking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: The subject property is approved for a total of 9,000 square feet of floor area for the design presented at the August 28, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the approved design, site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. Exhibit B P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 2 of 5 proposed redevelopment. \ 6 d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Special Review: Parkins Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) parking spaces and one (1) stacked pazking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of approved parking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. The applicant shall provide onsite bicycle storage. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Exhibit B P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved containment facilities. f Soil Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 9: Exterior Li¢htine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: LandscaAin2 a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the. trees located on adjacent properties. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12• 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 13: 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 Exhibit B P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 4 of 5 ~w s 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 28~' day of August, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: James R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk John Rowland, Chairman Exhibit B P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 ~, ..... ~.,., ..~ Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - AUgUSt 7, 2007 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 MINUTES ..................................................................................................................2 LIFT ONE CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE/PUD ...Error! Bookmark not defined. CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ............................................................................................................2 Exhibit C I P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2007 r./ ~/ Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 John Rowland opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present included: LJ Erspamer, David Guthrie, Brian Speck and John Rowland. Dylan Johns was excused. Staff in attendance: Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Municipal Court Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said that Jennifer Phelan would be acting Deputy Director for Community Development since Joyce Allgaier resigned. MINUTES MOTION.• David Guthrie moved to approve the minutes from the July 17`" and July 24`" meetings; seconded by LJErspamer and LJErspamer added to the July 17`" that it was a property tax and not a sales tax district and added to the North of Nell that the pedestrian amenity was amended after Erspamer asked about the North of Nell being responsible for the pedestrian. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking requirements; and Dimensional Variances. Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with 4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the needs of the church; it was in context with the neighborhood and the addition was sensitive and brings the building into accessibility requirements by the code. Commission questions were regarding the site coverage amount requested. Adams said the maximum was 27% and the applicant was requesting 40%; the building was one story, well below the height limit and fit into the neighborhood. The rectory was 4 bedrooms and currently housed the 2 full time employees. Jim DeFrancia said that he was chairman of the building committee; the objective was to make more efficient use of the facility for the present uses. DeFrancia said that they were not planning an expansion of the congregation; they were Exhibit C 2 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2007 ~, ~. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 redesigning the spaces to be more efficient. Some other current uses for the church included AA, the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Youth Experience, La Leche, AIA, and holiday baskets; it was clearly a community facility. DeFrancia stated they wanted to bring the facility into compliance with the code. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said the intent was to provide appropriate worship fellowship support spaces for the current congregation and the community; code compliance; sustainability and accessibility were primary goals. Sanchez said to comply with the current plumbing codes they were adding additional plumbing fixtures. There would be new heating, ventilation and lighting improving energy consumption and proper building insulation. Sanchez said they were adding fire suppression systems providing a line of safety that doesn't exist now. Sanchez said they wanted to maintain the shape and form of this church and add an element similar in mass, which was a little bit smaller, and connect the two separate modules with a glass circulation space but keep the residential rhythm for this neighborhood. The new addition drops down to 18 feet 6 inches in the back. Sanchez stated they were increasing the off-street parking spaces to 5 but taking out the stacked spaces comes to 4. To accommodate the 1980 approval of parking spaces they would not be able to utilize this development plan; there would be loss of open space by providing the parking on site. Sanchez said the setback was the minimum that they could ask for and the setback only touched at 2 places. DeFrancia said that they communicated with the neighbors sending letters to about 50 neighbors twice and held a meeting on August 15` with 2 neighbors attending. The architectural harmony will be kept throughout the building even in the back. It was not their intent to expand any uses of the church. LJ Erspamer asked if the building was a designated landmark. Sara Adams replied that it was not. Erspamer asked what the single family house was; did it have one kitchen. DeFrancia replied that it was the rector's house and his wife that were employed by the church and lived there in the single family detached house, which had 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room. Erspamer asked when this was approved does this eliminate the abeyance for parking. Adams responded yes that it would establish new parking requirements. Public Comments: Exhibit C 3 P&Z Meeting Minutes Augus[ 7, 2007 ~~, 1. Claude Salter said that parking was a problem in the neighborhood with the uses in the church and the music going on in the tent. Salter said the distance between the buildings was not consistently 10 feet apart; she disagrees with the rear yard setback given the massing that they were adding. Salter said the code allowed the choir to be kept and section 1024.5 of the IBC was the accessibility issue. 2. Ann Burrows said that she lived to the south of the church and voiced concern was for traffic and increased traffic. 3. Warren Klug said that he was a member of the church and the church was a public facility that provides services for lots of community residents and a community gathering place. Klug said that the development of this building was to make it better and more usable; he noted houses in the neighborhood had master bedroom suites that were bigger than this additional square footage. The variances make the building work better; the building remains appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Klug said the basement is currently not accessible to handicapped and the renovation plan was very modest. 4. Steve Fallendar said that he lived across the street and the additional square footage was considerable; he said the basement increase in space was also significant. Fallendar asked that the resolution include that there will not be a school at this location. Fallendar said that he was nervous about metal used as the material; he questioned the landscape. 5. Colleen Collins letter was placed into the record. Collins said you could get the same number of seats without increasing the square footage. 6. Bob Blaich said that everything that is done in this community affects someone; this project has a high level of merit and it will benefit the community. Jim DeFrancia commented that the extension of the church by 12 feet was a function of design; the extension will have a construction area so the landscaping will come down but they will be sensitive to the finish design of the back side of the church as well as replacing the landscaping. DeFrancia said that they cannot convert to a school; they would have to go back through the process with a whole different set of requirements. DeFrancia said they have made a representation into the public record of their intensions of lack of expanded uses. DeFrancia said that they do not anticipate a metal roof, currently they were looking at a slate roof. Exhibit C 4 P&Z Meeting Minu[es August 7, 2007 ~~ v Erspamer asked for explanations on special events and parking issues for the next meeting. DeFrancia said that there have not been any parking problems from the church. Erspamer asked for a site visit. Phelan said that she would set up a site visit. Adams said there was a survey in the packet dated December 2006, which shows the alley is 20 feet. Rowland said that it was a great piece of architecture and was respectful to the neighborhood; he said the setbacks concerned him. Rowland asked that a shuttle or other form of transportation be considered for big special events. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the Christ Episcopal Church hearing to August 21 s`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in favor. Transcribed by: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit C 5 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2007 ~.. .. COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 MINUTES ..................................................................................................................2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................2 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ....................................................................................................................................2 Exhibit C I P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 ,~ .,,, Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 John Rowland opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Brian Speck, Dylan Johns, LJ Erspamer, David Guthrie and John Rowland. Staff: Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed copies of the final edits of the Commercial and Lodging Design Standards. Jackie Lothian said City Council was conducting interviewing for P&Z members tonight and on September l ltn MINUTES MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 7`" and clarified that the minutes from July 17`" were to include the Lift One tax district was a property tax district and the North of Nell building doesn't meet the pedestrian amenity and the building is existing and there was nothing that can be done to meet the pedestrian amenity; seconded by Brian Speck. Approved 3-0 (2 abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/07/07): CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the continued public hearing. Sara Adams said there was a growth management review; recommendation to city council for an essential public facility; a conditional use amendment for the increase in floor area (currently 7,118 square feet to 9500 square feet); special review for parking (the applicant requested new parking requirements); 2 dimensional variances (rear yard setback of 5 feet and site coverage for 40%). Adams provided resolutions with changes to the parking with the addition of onsite bicycle storage. Sara Adams introduced 3 letters into the public record from Lisa Markalunas, Anne Burrows and Janice & Charles Collins. Exhibit C Z P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 .. ,-~, ~, ..,. Aspen Planning & ZOnInE Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 Jim True commented there were legal implications involved in this application; the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, which is a federal law, may come into play in the consideration of the application however one important aspect of this law (RI,UIPA), there was no discrimination by the government. The government can not treat the religious organization on a less than equal basis than any other applicant; the staff analysis was consistent this aspect of RLUIPA in that it was treated as any other applicant. LJ Erspamer asked if this act changed the fact that approval of one project doesn't set precedent to approve another religious project. True responded that from a general context that you do what you have to do with any religious entity was to apply the terms of the act to the specifics of that case and treat any application with no less than an equal position. Erspamer asked if you set a precedent with one religious institution do you have to treat the other one the same. True replied that you can not treat any religious organization with a less than equal basis or any other religious organization or any non religious organization. Bob Blaich represented the applicant and gave an overview of the last presentation and addressed the issues with the removal and replacing of the landscape on the alley of the rear of the church; the alley right-of--way for public and emergency access was not affected by the addition to the rear of the church; the 1980 parking approval to provide 8 off-site parking, there have been no complaints to the Aspen Police Department with regard to parking against the church; the redevelopment of the facility was not predicated on expanded uses but to better serve the congregation and those organizations that utilize the church facility for public permitted use and if in the future there was a need to seek new uses it would go through the public process with P&Z and City Council and the expansion of the worship space was to more efficiently utilize this space and the new hospitability space replaces that in the basement; both spaces are being brought up to code. Blaich said the existing basement space (undercroft) will be utilized for meetings, church school and church offices. The addition of the elevator will provide handicap access to both levels. Blaich said that the main church roof will be slate colored metal. Sanchez utilized the program space in original arched volume chart for the existing and proposed square footages for the foyer (existing & proposed 298.00 SF), nave (existing 988.22 SF and proposed 1,202.12 SF), chancel (462.26 SF and proposed 604.75 SF) and balcony (existing 228 SF and no balcony proposed). Gilbert Sanchez noted the property line was at an angle so the setback variance needed only occur at 2 points; the mass of the building was peaking up with the barrel shape. Exhibit C 3 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 i®'~ ~ '~ Plannine & Zoning Meeting Minutes - Au Sanchez distributed and spoke about the new site plans, which included the alley, view analysis, solar analysis, West End map, parking analysis, site history and a color computer generated drawing from the alley. Sanchez said the cross town shuttle goes right by the church and bike racks would be provided. Blaich said the Collins' letter requested the church activities be limited that were non-religious programs and noted the parking problems were from the Music festival, Physics and Aspen Institute. Blaich listed the current activities as AA meets 3-5 times a week with 20-25 people; the Aspen Music Festival meets 5-6 weeks per summer Monday thru Saturday with 10-20 students; Aspen Youth Experience meets 2 weeks in the winter with about 40 kids and their leaders; La Leche Le meets 1 day a week year round with 7 moms and their kids; Youth with a Mission meets one long weekend during the X-Games with about 25 students and teachers spending the night; Music Together meets 1 day a week year round with about 40 moms, infants and toddlers for music appreciation; AIA Holiday Baskets for 3 weeks daily in November/December with a few people in the church that put the baskets together and someone picks them up; Music in the West End with 3 performances in January, February and March. Dylan Johns inquired if there was a daycare. Blaich replied there was no daycare. LJ Erspamer asked the lot size. Adams replied 15,599 square feet. Erspamer asked the average setback in the back. Sanchez replied that it averaged between 5 and 7 feet. Erspamer asked how far back the new extension was going. Sanchez responded 12 feet. Erspamer said if some corners were eliminated it might help with the setback issues. Sanchez said the only new addition in terms of permanent space was the undercroft, which would be used as a hospitality hall. Sanchez said the toilets were being brought up to code and enlarged for ADA accessible. Sanchez said that the uniqueness of this building was that there were windows in the basement 4 feet below the first floor so the square footage was counted into the FAR. Public Comments: 1. Janice Collins said their complaint was the size and the variance; she said that they lived directly across the alley from the church. Collins said they were most impacted by this proposed variance (as stated in her letter); she stated that she did not want an expansion of the programs. Collins asked for the proposed seating. Sanchez replied that it was flexible seating, a modular pew chair. Blaich said that there have not been any final decisions made by the sub-committee. Collins asked Exhibit C 4 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 if this additional space was necessary and did not feel the same with the addition on the back. Collins voiced concern for the lack of landscaping in the alley. 2. Diana Rumsey said that she has been a member of this church for almost 40 years and stated that there were also funerals, weddings and other church functions. Rumsey said there were now 2 dishwashers; the added space of the church was necessary because the plumbing, roof and insulation all needed replacement. Rumsey said that the inside and the outside of this project would be attractive. 3. Father Bruce McNab, the pastor of Christ Church, said he records the attendance for every church event; the average number of people in the 1980's and 1990's was 50 or more people attending than this last decade. The current average was 112 attending on Sundays. Father McNab said the reason for the improvements was to allow for wider isles and not to allow for more seating; it was a safety issue. 4. Lisa Markalunas said that a seating plan was required to the neighbors. The parking was a huge impact from Sunday services, large weddings and funerals as well as the Music Festival and Harris Hall. Markalunas suggested approaching the City to request the cross-town shuttle service be increased. 5. Ann Burrows ran numbers regarding the attendance for the Music tent and Harris Hall that was 83,700 people. 6. Mary Janz suggested moving the organ so that the organ player can see what was going on. 7. Colleen Burrows asked for a re-configuration and a current site plan. Burrows attended a concert last winter and it was stated that they wanted to have more concerts in the future. Burrows said that there was a double standard because this was a church and it was being treated differently; she requested the church follow the same rules. Burrows said the West End was not second homeowners the people that live in this neighborhood were raising their families. 8. Claude Salter stated that they were held to the same changes if there was a remodel or this massive addition; the building still has to be brought up to fire code and accessibility. Salter said that this was about the massing. Salter requested a seating plan. Salter said that alleys were a treasure. Exhibit C P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 ,^a. ~.- ~/ Ashen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 9. Steve Falender stated that he lived across the street at 603 West Gillespie and since the last meeting the church has not contacted him. Falender said that the 7 closest people to the church were all raising families here and they were part of the community. Falender said if the church agreed not to have an increased concert schedule that would go a tremendous way and they have neglected to put anything in writing. Falender said that by putting the number of concerts in writing would go a long way to satisfy the neighbors. Falender said P&Z must decide whether it was consistent with the policies to enforce setback requirements in the West End. Falender said that in the documents there was a way to appropriately evaluate what was an appropriate variance; he requested P&Z reread those sections to determine why the church can't add significantly without going into the rear yard setback. Falender said they have not opposed the increase in FAR or the extensive increase in lot coverage. Falender asked P&Z to request the church meet the rear yard setback and agree to the number of concerts but grant the increased FAR. Falender requested that Community Development review the metal roof for design standards review. 10. Susan Horsey said that she liked having the church in the neighborhood. Horsey said the Christ Church mission was to share the love; playing music from the great composers. Horsey said the church has open doors. 11. Warren Klug said that he was a member of Christ Church and lived just a few blocks away; all over the country churches were located in residential areas and it works. Klug said the business of Christ Church was to take care of people in the community in respectful and positive ways because it was a place of worship, ministry and renewal. The concerts were small and intimate. The goals were to make the building and the work of the church function better, safer for everybody and a better fellowship area on the main level Klug said the increase was not that big, it was 128 square feet. 12. Keith Gardner said that the term concert was of major concern for some people; the concerts taking place at the church were maybe a piano or an organ plus a violin; he doubted that they were audible outside the church. 13. David Wiedinmyer from Grassroots Aspen Youth Experience who made their home in the basement of this church in this beautiful neighborhood as a guest; they were moving their program because there was not enough space in the church. 14. Lisa Markalunas asked for clarification on the addition of square footage. Sanchez replied that they were going from the existing 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez said the reason that they were not moving the church forward Exhibit C 6 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 was because there was an existing tree that they were not allowed to move so they adjusted the plan and took away 500 square feet. 15. Joan Macney said that she was a deacon at this church and said that there should be an element of trust for the good of the community. Sanchez said the church sent out letters and packets to all of the neighbors. David Guthrie asked if the metal was slate colored. Sanchez replied that it was zinc, which was a velvety textured metal with almost no reflectivity and absorbs light. Blaich stated that this roof replaces asbestos shingles. LJ Erspamer read the definition of essential public facility (page 10 of the memo) and asked staff to elaborate on that. Sara Adams replied that essential public facility was what they have used in the past to review churches. Erspamer asked if a change in use occurred they would have to come back before P&Z. Jennifer Phelan responded that this was a conditional use so if there was a major amendment to their plan they would have to come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. The commissioners were all good with the GMQS, Conditional Use, Special Review criteria. Erspamer asked what the percentage of site coverage was with the lowered FAR to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez replied that it was probably 36 or 37%. The alley variance discussion included Guthrie commented that they alley that he lived on had setbacks everywhere; all of the alleys had encroachments whether it was a garbage dumpster enclosure or a building, which was part of the messy vitality that used to be desirable here. Brian Speck and Dylan Johns said that there was not a hardship for the setback variance. Johns said that a garage was one nature for an alley variance but a building that was 18 feet tall was another; he said that it was partly a scale matter. Erspamer said dropping the square footage made a difference for him. Adams said that to grant a variance was generally consistent with the purposes goals, objectives and policies of the AACP. Adams said that she demonstrated in other exhibits that they do find that expanding the church for the reasons in the application that meet the AACP, in terms of providing community services. Adams stated to grant a variance there was the minimum variance possible for the Exhibit C 7 P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 ~~ Aspen PlanninE & Zoning Meeting Minutes - Eust 28, 2007 reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; based upon the application it was the minimum variance. Adams noted that the 3`d criteria was hardship and because the applicant was not doing a scrape and replace but working with the existing and difficult form; they were trying to keep the scale down and the shape of the parcel was unique, which was another constraint. There were certain corners that were in the setback and not the entire structure. John Rowland said that this was a minor infraction on the alleys and there was a balancing act. Sanchez utilized the model to show the element that was low scale and the impact was minimal for the benefits that this space will produce for the church, congregation and the community. Erspamer said that listening to what Jennifer and Sara had to say there was a limit on the church activities. Jim True noted that expanded use was not a part of the application. Johns said that functionally speaking there was an argument to take the main portion of the current church and grant that the extension that they were requesting. Johns said that he was having issues with the additional part of the building sharing that same variance, which goes along with the fact that they were having to work with an atypical design space and may need a little more to make full use of the space for their purposes. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2007, approving with conditions, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to approximately 9, 000 square feet though Conditional Use process, an establishment of off-street parking requirements through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite spaces and one (1) stacked space, the required dimensional variances as indicated in Staff's memorandum and recommending City Council approve with conditions, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Seconded by David Guthrie. Roll cal vote: Erspamer, yes; Johns, no; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes. APPROVED 4-1. John Rowland supported staff in the research and code interpretation. Adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit C 8 P&Z Meeting Minu[es August 28, 2007 ___ --_ ;~ ~, Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Hunt suggested an automatic 45 day extension which would save time. Ms. Smith said the people working on revising the Code will look at this. Hedstrom said the Christ Episcopal Church public hearing would be held later. Employee Units in Lodges xaren Smith, planning director, told the Board the staff Resolution had misread the Board's wishes on this resolution. The Board had wanted to be more liberal in the single family zone district and review an unlimited amount of expansion by special review. Anderson moved to approve and adopt Resolution 80-09 and to strike the word "or" in the second line of the first para- graph; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Christ Episcopal Church Condition xaren Smith said this was discussed at a previous P & Z Use meeting; she is ready to answer nuestions and to bring to the Board a compromise worked out by staff, the Church and neighbors. Ms. Smith said there was a question whether this required conditional use; it does because it is the location of parking on the lot of a conditional use in the R-6 zone. The Church is a conditional use and any expansion or modification requires approval. P b Z is being asked to approved a reduction of parking and to approve the config- uration of that parking. Ms. Smith recommended as a compromise that the parking be reduced from 14 to 12 with 4 implemented right now and 8 spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets. Ms. Smith presented a revised site plan; the 4 spaces to be implemented now are to be behind the Rectory with an access driveway off the alley. The conditions of this approval should be with the understanding that the Rectory is not on a separate parcel; the five lots comprise one undivided parcel. Any division in interest would require subdivision or exception. Separating the Lots would dimin- ish the ability to service the Church with parking. Another condition is to reserve the right, if parking is insufficient, for any party to be able to seek review of the parking with increase to 14, or the reconfiguration of parking through a condition use hearing. The soonest this should be reconsidered 1s in one year. It has been aug- guested a landscaping plan should be given to the planning office; there has been no agreement on this. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said he is not inclined., from an engineering standpoint, to recommend a reduction to 4 spaces. Hammond had recommended there be 10 spaces. The configuration is a special consideration in view of the neighborhood; however, Hammond said he was not that comfortable with 9 spaces. Ms. Smith said two of the spaces will be used for the Rectory. The parking is accessed off the alley and people will probably tend to use the street. The neighborhood feels that the sporadic park- ing is tolerable. Hedstrom agreed the planning office and P & Z should accede to compromise dictated by the wishes of the neighbors and the need of the Church. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Nick McGrath, representing Charles Collins who resides directly across the alley from the Church. McGrath stated ~.~.. Exhibit D ~.,,. Planning and Zoning Commission MinutesrAugust 19, 1980 -. ----- --- `, <, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning fi Zoning Commission August 19, 1960 generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes no matter how much parking is behind the Church will not fulfill the needs of the Church. A problem with putting too much parking behind the Rectory is the alley itself. The alley entrance is very narrow and in the winter it is difficult to use. McGrath said his client would prefer parking, if any, to the front of the Church with a curb cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath supported asking the Church to file a landscaping plan with the planning office. Charles Shepard, the Church, said they supported the reduc- tion. They originally thought a large amount of parking was required. Shepard said they do intend to landscape; however, he would prefer not to be tied down to a specific plan. But if the P & Z directs they have a plan, they will. Hunt asked if the parking were to be increased to 12 or 19, would the parking lot be paved. Otherwise there would be a terrible dust problem. Ms. Smith said that was discussed but was not part of the reconunendation but it could be included with the review criteria. Hedstrom asked about the parking in the front and the idea that it may be preferable. Ms. Smith said it was discussed and the engineering department expressed reservation at the time. Ms. Smith said this is mainly an engineering matter. Ms. Smith said she felt the visual impact on the front would be even greater. The Church is neutral on this question. Hedstrom said the parking in the front of the Church was probably continue until the city enforces a curb and gutter in that area. Anderson said with the Codes the parking could not be done in front. Ms. Rlar agreed the impact seemed to be landscaping over parking, and that is the direction they should head. George Stark supported McGrath's view point. Pam Beck cvestioned parking in the alley and having the snow plowed. It may be impossible to park there at all. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt moved to recommend the reduction in parking from 14 to 12; approving the parking configuration of 4 spaces now as proposed with 8 held in abeyance and conditioned upon. (1) five lots constituting one undivided development and (2) right is reserved to review numbers and configuation of parking including requirement to pave spaces and alley on an annual basis in response to complaint of interested party, and (3) file a landscape plan; Hunt amended .His motion to include in condition number 1 that the five lots constituting one undivided development. and that the entire parcel is integral to the parking needs of the Church; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, mo~ion carried. / ~ f ~ ~ ~~ Kathryn Roc , Ciiy C erc Exhibit D Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 19, 1980 -~ ~. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 would generate. Vann responded there would cleazly be an increase in the level of activity that currently was being done in this area; there were proposals to transport individuals from Ruby Park and other hotels along Dean Avenue and Durant via the trolley system. Vann said the street section was designed to handle the level of traffic. Guthrie asked when the time was to ask about the large hotel vehicles driving one person two blocks and how that could be dealt with; this was like a private limo service. Phelan stated that this was a public right-of--way, which was a much broader scope than just this application. Guthrie said that he could not put the community issues on this one project. MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2007 incorporating Exhibit D, the language including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder cabins as a~j`ordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation , the volleyball courts timing, concern for the location of the Ski Museum; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, no. APPROVED 3-I. LJ Erspamer explained that the application does not promote the efficient use of land with the change of conservation zone to lodge. Erspamer said he would like to see this project become pedestrian friendly; there was too much traffic and parking was a problem. Erspamer thanked the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking requirements; and Dimensional Variances. Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with 4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the Exhibit C P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20076 VQ~~_ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~G'~i~ fj~j'L LO , 200 7 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) Aspen, CO I, G~~t~K-T 2 • 5~N cf~ z- (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: 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. y 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 ~¢day of ~ (/- , 2002, 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 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to al] 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 area 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on suc] The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this L day of ~~~t~aa~3L~ , 2007 by G~tB~'~ Pi19 ~ SNt/CNLrZ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission ~pires: ~ `77 • ZJ~~ Notary Public ~~ ATTACHMENTS: COPYOF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL •-.. _ ~_ ~.,~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 536 WEST NORTH STREET, CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURN- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on December 10, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Christ Episcopal Church, 536 W. North Street, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval to replace the 1980s addition with a new addition to the church and extend the original church building to the rear of the lot. City Council is asked to grant approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility. The subject property is described as Lots 11 thru 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2778, saraa@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on November 25, 2007 City of Aspen Account Easy Peel Labels ,J~~-__-~~,~y® TEMPLATE 5160® 533 W FRANCIS LLC ' 715 W MAIN ST #203 ! ASPEN, CO 81611 ~~- • ® Seelnstrudion Sheets ~ ~ ~yGged Paper . ~ for Easy Peel Featuref%~ AVERY®5160® s ., d AMERY SALADIN ASPEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC ': EBRAHIMI FRANCESCA ' ~ 8401 VISTA LN ~. HOUSE B21 BURNSIDE, 9 S BAY RD i i PRESCOTT, AZ 86305 ' HONG KONG CHINA, ' ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ~ ~ BONE RANDALL ,~ ' BREMER MALCOLM H & ANGELIKA S 1000 N THIRD ST 280 NEWPORT CENTER DR' #240 ' 18955 MEMORIAL N #550 i ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ' i HUMBLE, TX 77338 / I DALENSON THEODORE & ISABELLA BURROWS ANNE W ! COLLINS CHARLES R JANICE S C/O ALPINE VALLEY SERVICES 505 N 5TH ST ~ PO BOX HH 204 PARK AVE STE 1 G I ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 i BASALT, CO 81621 DURAND LOYAL III DR 8 BERNICE ELLIOTT ELYSE A FALENDER STEVEN 8 DEBRA BLACK ! 610 NORTH ST ! 603 W GILLESPIE ST 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 j 'ASPEN, CO 81611 I ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 CROSS PrAINS, WI 53528 i i , !EARNER CHARLES F, i ~ FOX SAM 8 MARILYN I ~ FRAZER W ILLiAM R & JANE Z TRST 617 FRANKLIN PL #200 17701 FORSYTH BLVD 433 W GILLESPIE PELLA, IA 50219 °• CLAYTON, MO 63105 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH JOHN 8 BARBARA L HARDER JAMES B 8 DELLA 1/2 INT QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 733 25TH ST ~ .2001 KIRBY DR STE 1220 ~ TRUST 'SANTA MONICA, CA 90402-3143 HOUSTON, TX 77019 ~ 4520 MAIN STE 1060 j ~ ~ i KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 KELLNER GEORGE A ~ KESSLER HOWARD KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST KELLNER MARTHA B ~ 1453 FLAT ROCK RD ~ C/O WELLS FARGO BANK ATTN DEBBIE 117E 78TH ST I ! NORBERTH PA 19072 BERG NEW YORK, NY 10021 , i p0 BOX 13519 )I I ARLINGTON, TX .76094 i. KOLBE EMILY E I I LEFEBER HOPE i LEWIS ADAM J TRUST I C/O HOOTENANNY LLC ' 1453 FLAT ROCK RD C/O THE LIPSON GROUP j 205 S MILL ST #226 NORBERTH PA 19072 1422 EUCLID AVE #1500 i ASPEN, CO 81611 , i CLEVELAND, OH 44115 LUETKEMEYER JOHN A JR & SUZAN jI , NE ! ' MARGERUM AMY L ! MARKALUNAS JAMES J 8 RAMONA I F 50°/, ' 622 WEST SMUGGLER j 624 W NORTH ST 1427 CLARKVIEW ROAD -STE 500 i ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 j BALTIMORE, MD 21209 I j I ,, r MCLEAN CHARLES M ~ ' ~ MG HOMES LLC ~ ! i MILLER CYNTHIA L ~, PO BOX 11687 I j 825 W NORTH ST 534 GARFIELD ST ASPEN, CO 81612 i ASPEN, CO 81611 j DENVER, CO 80206 i Etiquettes faciles a peter ! • ~ Consultez la feuille vvww:averycom Utilisez le gabarR AVERY® 5160® ~ Sens de chargement j d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY; ' ~~®aD0I5 livery TEMPLATE 5160 MUSGRAVE MARJORY M 629 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NITZE WILLIAM A 153728TH ST NW WASHINGTON. DC 20007 1 ~.F,eed Paper i _.. ® See Instruction Sheet i ~ AVERY®5160® i ' ~ for Easy Peel Feature •' ~„ A MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ~~ ~ NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD j 2418 EMERALD TR ASPEN, CO 81611-8500 ~ i MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1910 PETERSON JAMES D & HENSLEY R PO BOX 1714 ASPEN, CO 81612 I ' SALTER JAMES 60% 500 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 i j SMALL ALBERT H & SHIRLEY S 17116 GLENBROOK RD BETHESDA, MD 20814 I i UHLFELDER NAOMI PO BOX 1165 ASPEN, CO 81.612 i '; WEST SMUGGLER LLC 2318 SILVER PALM PL NAPLES,FI 34105-3043 I i( I i NORTH 4TH STREET ASSOC C/O MIKE CONVISOR PO BOX I I ASPEN, CO 81612 POPE W ILLIAM H 540 W SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611 i SCHREIBER EUGENE H & STANFORD D i 50% j I 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE TOWSON, MD 21204 i i i SOLSTICE OWNERSHIP VI LLC I j PO BOX 65 i i TIBURON, CA 94920 VANDERAA GILBERT T III j C/O HOOTENANNY LLC 205 S MILL ST #226 ASPEN, CO 81611 i j I i j ODOM JOHN A JR TRUSTEE 11490 W 38TH AVE WHEATRIDGE, CO 80033 RICHARDS ANN K 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20007 SFP 1996 PERS RES TRST 1!2 INT #2 PINE HILL LN HOUSTON, TX 77019 r STUNDA STEVEN R 602 N 4TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1212 WEISS JEFFREY L & JILL 520 W SMUGGLER ST #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes fadles a peter ~' ~ I C.onsultez la feuille www.avery.com ~ Utilisez le gabarit AVEifY® 5160® ~ Sens de chargement ~ d'instruction 7-800-GO-AVERYI ' 1 ~ ..,- 1 _~ ~ ~ „~ ~~ ?I i3l;t(( I~ ~;~ ; i ; ~;<'~I' I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: p~~.. ~ U , zoo STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) Aspen, CO I, ~~ ~~ (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: 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 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 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 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifeen (15) 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 deve-opment application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the cun•ent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed 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 area 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amend~nt~ (~ignattTre The f i going " ffidavit of Noti "was ac~ .o~wled e before me this~ay of , 200~by ~~~ „ ~,, `~ . ~~ 'S -. Q ~, v . ` . r ~ ~, Sy _ ._, ~ _ ~ I I~ ~.4j vOTi2,~:'i',t ~ti'1:~~.ic50.!2aC PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 536 WEST NORTH STREET, CHRIST EPIS COPAL CHURCH- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY T~IESS MY HAND AND-7OF~FICIAL SEAL commission expires: ~ ~ ~l ~,~~,~ . 0~~1 arv Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL PuElishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on Novem her 25, 200]. (891619) slMichael C. Irelarq, Mayor Aspen CM Council E 0 a~ m 0 r o z , o m II~ ~t ~T r,~ ~ s 1l~ •~ ~i v ~ a AC U ~ M O ~..r ~ ~ ~-- C U 3 N c C m ~ - -~ a N c~ W~ CL Q~ (7 ~-J ~'J =Q c~ a--~ 11 1 ~ ~~ .,,~ ~ Q~ "-~ ~ ice' O .., ~' -1~ ~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ;~ ppyy rLrL~~ U 1 ~ M~ `' J ~ ~ `• ~ e 1.. 1 ~ t .. ~J ~ : r, ~Q ~ ~ ~y~ 4, U ~~:, a ~~ ~ ~;. ~r~ ~ x ~ W O ~ ~' ~ J ~~ ~i ;:. ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ U ~~, L{_ L 5 3 n a t ~:~~;. . ~~~` ~! . .~~:.~ r ~. Q ~. QS c a~ a ro 0 i 7 L U N Q ~ O ~ N to ~ O ~. r U O O ~+ Q .r a~ a~ s 3 w Y 3 `Q :~J u `o ~ 3 ~ r 4Uy E~ g E _-, s a P 3 f ~ > fA a--~ N -~--~ C!) _ .~ - -+- O C ~~ ~ [~~ C'7 ~~ ~ U fl~ Q _ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ ~ ,. ~-- "~ ~ ~ ~ p ~~ ';~~ . ~ ~ .~'6 .~1. ` Y~I ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~~` ' ~ ,.. . fL~ U ;..... ~ Q Q N (n ~ O = aJ _~ W - ~° _o T CJ V • U _ O d "' _ ~ c~ a n o 0 m c S .~--~ N ,. ~ `~ O ,;; 7 ~ y%i''l.ss~ N aJn~~t'1J~s 6U1}SIXa ,~=. ... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ // 4;~ ~ ~ g~'~ `~„ V ~~1. ~ ~ U _ _ - - - - - ~or2glas A L e7 ~U6iJ /(q -r-~ Q -- ------------- -- (J1 CCS aJnlonJls pasodoJd ~€~~ ~ ~.S" - --------------- - - ~ ~~ ~{oeglas ~0 L C7 lU6u /Cq ~.. ~ .,.aa. m,;:: ~.:: ~ `fi`t J',,.~ ~:.~;. -,~ ~ ~ ------aui~ i(~JedoJd U C~ O U 3 ~ o •Q d W J .~ ~ a U 27 5' U --- --- -- ----- - . ~ ~ -----------awl iC~Jado~d ~ ® -`~ , ~ _~~ ~ ~ ,. ~. ~ O J J ~ ~ U 1 i ~ } ~C' ~ O 7t i~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I W ED s- ~ ~ C7 i ~ ,d ! `~ ~ ~ ^~~ W L -1--,+ Z +-+ ~ [L Q C7 ~ ~~ O N _~ U Q ~ ~o 0 ~~ ~` U °~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ U ~ o = U) ~ O ~ ~~ U ~ () ~~ ~ ~~ _ U~ ~ '~ U N -r h -L V 1 N _~ Q O U C O :,_ U L } h O U N ~ 1 c F ~ `~ -~- ~ ~ . ..~.- ~ - ~•~ ` - ~~ .., °' ~ ,~~ - 0 r - ~ - . o ,~ U ~~ w U ` ~. _ i .LV~I ~ ~f C Q (~ 0 L U 7 U c6 a ~ o ~ N N ~ o .. ro N a~ ~~ ~_ L f /;~ r ; ~ - - ~ r + j ~'j4 ki!- ~~ j _ b ~~~ j~ f _~,-~ --ill ~ '~,~ ~ ,?'~~a rJ f _ _I( ? r~ ~ ` i~ f ~ iii ~~rNj?i--~fif4,. _~±~ ~ ~_ ~,_. ~~, / i/? ~ ~r ~ ~= ~_'~,I L ~ 11 !~ ~, JF ~ 1 ~ ~ ; f~- ' ,; , ~ - ,~, '~ ~ '1-~ __ ~-~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~-- , ~ i•a!~.~.~' fl. s :, ,~ Ali ~ `\w ~ ~ c O c~ ' -- ~ V ~ L ~ ~ ~~ °' ~` 00 ~ ~? .J ~ ~= .°~ ~i~CJ~~ ~I~~$ dl, ~ ~ .~ w .~~3~~dr 8~q7~~$ 83~s~~~~~,~$~~4~ ~ s ~~ ,~ c~ gsl~es,n ~°-~r3a~;s ~~~~ E' ~~ -s ~ ~~ g ~ ~s g S~a~t1YY ~~~PilB~~~~~3e~~x~3 ~x~~~s :5 a:d s~ y xy3 ~~t a~ E ~p ~ ~l~ K~°si f a~~~~~y~ os Ca gybe Y ~ry ~ .p3 gg 99 ¢ 3 _yr a~yL]~E ~ ~5€'9y ~p~ljgpC ~~A S ~kli' $ @G $$ ~E ~~ ~~ r~~8~`~~T'~~l~~~~~~j ~Q $6d~k°AE BEp:gE g~Y yC~ ~ai~'_.~GiQ~61:~~'~i~~~.YL€SE~975nE7'7~~iY i~YA ~~; ~~ ~~~~ d o ~';~ F (j ---~ .., _ ~~ ~. ' e i ., ~ .~~ ~ ~; ~ _ I ; . , z ; _ e~ ~~ ~ _, .:~ ~ ~ I~ i ~~~ ~~ ~::z ~- I i I --~ ~~ j . __ _ ,. , !i i J ~- --- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ -- _~ `V /Q W ~ ~i.i ~7 yny Pw 1332i1S Hljlj ~+ Q p •W V/ •• aGi z W y 4 I I I .~~ 133N.LS H1313 i~q r u 3 I~ W ~, zN M - -L - - ?qs~ ~ _-.._ _ _ _- J .._ - __ - ~ ~ ~g° 1 ~ _ _- W s 1 ~ _ o ~ - ll~~ --~-- ° ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i ' ~ ter, : (d .0-S O 0 ~ ~ i9 O O fF // - 0 ^ ~ ~ O (V ^, eA a W J O ~ ~ J ~ / - .. ~O ® O ~ - - - - - --- --- - - - ~ _ - a '~~. F -- - - L fi zz ~ Q - ., :.. a 9 ~ ~ 'r ~ i- o a~ w m io ~ g ~°- ~ ~_ F~ Z ~uS a ZS ~ v 5 f' g r W yr ~k O 2 uvs. wboea in a..o~oea ~ ••• '"' ° ` ' O ° : :;,o~ £5ZL-L19L900VNO100 N3dSV ~~,~ •a~• •~•••~.. 1332115 H1210N 1S3M 9£5 s + a a + ! v ~ + a m ~ NddS`d ~O H'J~I(1H`J 1t1dO~JSld3 1S12iH7 9 ~ g m s $t N `` ~ Q _ ~ s s a 3s' ~ a s "aa m~ ^6 O~ ~w ~2 w~ t~ O ~~ o O O lYl9 t ..._ leg,:. ~ -~_ ___ ~p ~ 6 W +~ ~$ ~ ~ m ~. ? i ti - ~ '6u ~+~ o "`~"°`"°`""~°`"`°" 'ww-.4-_- ' O ..~.,. • ~.,,.. ..v<.>.,.,,,. ~°~ £SZl-118L800daO100 ~9~e N3dSH ° ~ ~ a S , 1 i a i a 133b1S HlaON 1S3M 9£S ~ 5 d /~' N N3dSd ~O H~2if1H~ l`ddO~Sld3 1SRiH~ 9 m ~ Q = ~ e a ~ ~ ~ YW[O[dN6 N&°6CZ60[d rv'~nW~rgpn+~ £SZl-1L91800tl2lO100'N3dStl ~~o~d°•°^~° ~a~•.,°~°°~°•~°°°° ~~s 133211$ HILTON 1S3M 9£5 s ~ o a ~ i y o i e ~ ~ /~~ d N3dSt/ ~O H~2lf1H~ ~b'dO~Sid3 1S12iH~ 9 ~ m s ~ ~ Q ~ = s s s 93 ~ ~ ~ y.e I o3 ~ a= , a~., I I o, I g I , I , E J I O - - - - - - - -~ - - -~- - ~ ~ { - - I I ~, I ~ j I I I ~i : I a ~ w ~ I ~ ~ w I - I~ I I ~. ' _i ~ S \ ~ O w f n ~ ~~ ~ ~ rs ~ g g~ - ~ ~~ I fit/ I ° ~ ~'u axoeva3snoi3n h ` n mooNlmsms e. ° - - J ~ 6 L 03NN159NI151%3 ~~ _ _ _. o ~~® ~ - - aivo~ _ - ® N e ~ e ~^ am F ~ I ~~ - ~ / I ~ O ~~ ® O I~ ~I I I m o i ~,~o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Q ~~~'"° I I I , ~, io ~ I ~' ,' ~ - i - ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~. I I ®I - - i ~ ~ '~ I IIII III 0 ; a~ p ~ 8 a~ ~ ~' . 5i 1P ~ ~ ~~ _ a ~ ® ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~I~~I ~_;~ ,, o ~~~ ow anaa mvro.vx.v ~~ ~ ~o u w oN a u - e rcom ~ ~~ Z s s ~ J oNlawesi L _I J m Y ¢ J ~ _. ~ ~_ E z ~ s:° W _ 1 _ J - ~ - -~ . ~ j ~ ~ lY e_ 8 H~ ~~~ 0 bo ~~ a Q ~ wbo ail , =3 :< L J =LL ap ~ °~- LN s -$w - -~ - I .~-.. = z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 0 ~o ~ No ® ~~ i ~ ~'~ _n - ~ O - Om O a Zo~ nj z a f l~l /~ LLL J 3N09tl MGONIM O - I I I I /~' ~~,~..,..,,. .o~.,••..,e,.•,...,.,,~e, £SZ1-11918 OOVilOlO~'N3dSV ~""`~'~`" "~" ~` ~" w..~ _. ` V 1332i1S HlaON 1S3M 9E9 s ~ ~ a ~ i a ' ' e ~ u ~ g N s ~ a N~dSb' ~O H~2lf1H~ lddO~Sld3 1SI2~H~ 9 ~ s ~ ~ ~ Q a ~ a s i s V~ ~' '_~ a4 '' I \ ': b ~ ~ ^ ' - _ ~ I I I I I I I ;~ ~;~ N 8~ S~ o Z m . ~.,° „ , "~ ° - ° ( ,`~ ~ .a, , .. ,. . : .'~o £9Zt-1191900H210100'N3dSV ~~~~~,. %, o( ~ o ~ a 4 , ' e 133211S H1JON 1S3M 9£5 s ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ N~dSb' d0 H~bf1H~ lb'dO~Sld3 1SI~IH~ 9 g 6 ? ~ : ¢¢FF ~ '" ~ Q ~ A 8 9 ,, 33 & uue<arwm nrz.aaeo<e ~•~-ro<wa---- £SZl-L69180adaOlO~'N3dSV ~~<~..,...~. .o~ ...................o~ o 133iI1S HlaON 1S3M 9£S ~ ~ = a ~ i u ~ , e ~ 9 ~ ~ < ~ M \~/ N3dS`d d0 H~bf1H~ lt/dO~Sld3 1SI~IH~ 9 s 6 a ~ s 6, gg ~ Q a d s ~ __ __ ! a s _ _ § o~~ wFa ~~ O =s~~~ jrzo~rc uj 4!>F OqO Oi ~LT ~J ' F n~ II -' n~ I 4 L ~ ~ a u a ~C o i g 3s I -: !~[~ ~y N~ OS im ~ I 111 I ~I I II I I I I II I I I I~ I I FI I n2 ~ I I i ii i I I I I I' I I I ~ {I _ j1 I I I I I~ ~I I ___ ~ I'I ~I Fo-'s I ~ -1 ~I III I I 'z I 0 I L li i Q WI§ 2 II ~ /~y- ' LL W ~~ O Q ~~ o ~ 5 0 € ~ __°s ~<F - ~~ 4 ~- n ~ ~ I ~ 9 LL _ $ y ~ rz ~ ~ £ Z F 4 n P W U N ~~ aR$ FCp~F ~ ~ i p .' g V :~m~ ~ I I i ___.___..ly I~ I I ~I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~~1 Zy ~la~o ....,. ~.~L....~..,..,..~,~a, ESLL-Ll9lBO0V2JO100'N3dSV ~~~~~«~«..K~~~o<«~ P,w,.~~W o 1332i1S HlaON 1S3M 9ES 6 1 ] e l l y o} e a M N~dSb' ~O H~~If1H~ ~`ddO~Sld~ 1S12~H~ 8 ~ ~ „ : ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Y ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~~Y ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~3 z ~ ~ ~ ~ g o ~ ~ a~ ~S~ gg~3 ~ ~ s s 1 F I ~~eg 'I'' ~~~ ~ ,._~M ~ I ~~~~~ 14 i I ~ ~. I _. I I I _...._.. _.. } .. , ~ .. ;. I ~ I; + i I 9 I I I '.y m ~ i I ~Ia I I ~~i~ II I I I s~ I p la i.... ' .. I I III ~ I ~ I 'l l I }} I I~ a ~, ._ liil~ I~ I q} I I I I III a~ -' II I I I I L .II~A } i I ~ 1 I I j l ' I I q i }~ ¢. .o~s } II f ' '. I III I I ~~ III II I ~ I a ~ IL _.. .. ( .._... .... ...I L..1 ..L..1_~ .I I; 1 9 I I I I I I I I I I I ~ tsT I I }~ I ~- I .. ... I II ~ I 1!1 I t I ~ i III II I I~ ~I i I I i 1 ~Wle r--- I 1 4 M __ VII I I I I}+ I I I ~ »_,..,wfd I' 9 I III I I I sl ~J 3' o } J ~II,I I' 'll IIII II I I ~ "' ~ 4~ tlg O '' s~ I I ~. II I ~ II I ~' I I~ I I ~ ~`- ~~~ ~~~ I ! I ~ it i ~~ ~ ~ ~ i I I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;I 1;'"` ~~:~'~ _.w..m~ I ~II III I~J I ~ ~-- + ~ " l o r r I _ ' ~ III II III IIII I~ II III ' `I } I I I ."' l a i o 1 . r :. ` . ' '' ' r I II III II ( O ! ~ ~ I I l s 1 ~. z w i i ~ ') I I ~ ! k A~ ~ I ~ 4 . I _ ~, a" F I III III III I I r a ~.., _ ~ I } 16 I I I ~, III ' i ~ * .,- I i to I I ~ II ~ I i I r 1 _. ~ I I_ I a 3 I1! IIII i l ~ °a' ~ ~ ~7gJ^ li a _J ... I ~, I + ~, -~ 1 I 13 ~ ~, I a I ' ..... I F i > z ~ ~ la Y I I I~ II II o I II ~.. ( 1I I II' ~ I ( qj IY! F~~A~ w I I 1~ ! O I 11 1 ~ I I I I I ~~ I Y !~ o s r° rc ~ ~ I _ III III I iI i I .L... 1! ~ 1 I y 9 W I I I I} i1 ~ 1 1Lt{ 1 i q J 4 i III III ~ III 11 III III _ ~ +~ I~1 ~_~ ~ ~. f I ~ I I ~} A I. , ; l}, II I I I I III I I i I I I i I I o-- \ ... ~ ~"~ ~ ~- II I I II ( I I I I III I k i 1 ,5!}!N' ~ Ijii lll!I ill l~ l ' a C p Q 3 w 11 ~w ..... ~I'~ ~ I II I i I ~I I I'I 9 ~ J Q 4 £'~ ~~ $i~~'o a$ & ° ~8 ~ ~ ~ O N „' ~' I I) I IIII I ! l a + ~ ~ ~8 ~~ 9~~ F ~ ~ W ° I I g ~ q ~ 1 I I I III ~ E ~ K III I I I I I I I i I I I I I «..,>._ 1~ ' ~< °wF ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3Nar ~ _.. ~II j 'I I i II I IIII I i I I~ 'I-b .' ~ a~ I I I III II II IIII . i I .III I III I I I I I III I I li I l l j II' I itI i'I I I ~- I I I i} 1~ I ( +le~ I I 1.1.. I I l a i I I iI III Ll ir~~ I I I i I I IIII i IIII I III III a i ~J ~ II'I 'ri Z I.i~II i ! F II ~ I -Q 3 I IL.. L.~ I I I I I I I e e Q YA J z }6 W O CE J ~\ IG / ' i i ~ 4 WQ Q~ to -~' } t d I. W .'v' G 1 a ~-f i e ~w W ~ ~ ..~.,g,~ Q .., W ~ Sys a ~ 7 s ~a ~ N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~`°`°`•"• "~°• °`• "• "°.'-•,...~ ` V ..,......... .o~ •,~.....~.....,..~, ~o. E9Zl-l L918 OOHJOl00 N3dSV ~ 1332l1S H1210N 1S3M 9£S % ~ a e ~ ~ v~ i e a M N~dSd ~O H~~If1H~ ~`ddO~Sld~ 1S12~H~ 8 s ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q W .~ W t ;~ d 1 1 4 O- n 'a b m~,~...a,..~ > ..~..oN... e~. ~,, .~.. ,~ w,. ~.. ..,. m, .,,. .a. .>,..a,., w....> «a E9ZL-L19L800V210100'N3dSV °'uM°°°°^~••~~°>w ^~••.»>M-- uvn ....... oi.u...,,~. n. ,..,vac 133i11S H1210N 1S3M 9£5 6! 0 9! l y o i e N~dSd d0 H~2if1H~ lddO~Sldd 1SRiH~ 8 4 6 ~ ~ ~ o ~ g y~ m & ~ S° ,'o p 'a e3' 6 .- U , 3 W ~~= ~~ ~ um k/ °>° ~~ Ana ~ „ x-x-x-x-x-x OF = bb qbJ zm vl °~ OO QW ~~~ b ~~ GM b.- b y~ ° r ° oo~~d' w > bb ~ e $w e wo ^. ~ ~YN W ~~~ ~ azt U ' o 0 !- - -- -------! ~ w ~ -~-x~--x x-x- 0 0 I , T !- rn p I I/ F ~ d i ~ NItlM ON00 I Y J °~' ~ go } I LV i I ~ ~ JI ~ >rJ ° J I I Q °° ° 1I N I K '! ~ W W I FN b ~Bi~MM MM b U ~ m I ~ m I I U~ °~ e° - m~ °° ry~ I I ~ ! ~y 1 I I b a __ o! tq I n _____ I ~ gg i °~ ~ M 1__ ___________! $ ~~I Atl1N3 ti DOOM U3dd0 W ... d O ... b.EE 9'EE .~T.~ ~ P e7 I Nry F ~ ;J h ry I ° o F= 2 1\ ~ I~ p~ ~ o °U Z I`_ ~ I r ! I ero ~ ~ y° I J ~ I } Z ~~ l'b J h W I N I CL ~ p f 1 ~~ I O~ 4~ O~ I 1 ~ F 0] ~~ 9'6 ~ I J ~ FF~ W yII 2 CI ... ~ Zr tl ~ O ~ W Y O oo~ I 3 ~1/ U U 3 1 I I I I I 9'6 I I I ! ~ ~ I ~ I° 0 0 1 8"09 n I OO P o] ! - ___-_-' o wi+ ~'.f+ ° ivawL/ ~. j ~~~jyy~„~. I we ~~ ~7v oo ~~' ,9 L'LOl °O °° i 47JOO~ n°' N r, ~ N 3„OO~OO,OON 00 (. ~~+ y).po ~~a `°o i``L2./t ~ y qqo~.. ~ BACK OF CURS ~ ~ ~ ~ ..0. u m ~Lroa av9 ,<z. 1332!1$ Hl~lj 'z^er'`e Qmm W K~O U Y °~O pi 4 ~w u 2~ W ~~ N ~ ~~ O 2 ~m ~O ~~ sa ~W u £SZl-1L91800Va0100'N3dSV M~~~<~e°°=.<MS°<e M~,.,o.R.,,. 5~ Q 133211S H12i0N1S3M 9£5 "~'° ~~~~"~~ °°'""""'°"""'°""°` * I o e l l 4 e i e ~6 N N~dSd d0 H~2~f1H~ ~ddO~Sid~ 1SIbH~ 8 ; ~ ~ ~ ~.y ~ m Y ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w~~ qq~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o a gS o< G6 ~~ ~~ ~~ oa~ Sd~~~ Sg~ ~~ ~ ~ T ~~ $~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 1~igYy a•- ~. ddd ~~ / ~ gg }~ 66yy / i ~ ~i~ ~ g / I ~€. I -- ¢ ~ ° ~ -- - - - - ~ ~4 ,sp I i ~ , ~°° ~ _ i` ~i ,: i ______ _ ~ \ N " \ A ~ ~ ~ ~~ q~ ~ .~..I .M„ a to \ , I I - I ~ ~ t ~~ ~~ ~~~~ i ~~ ~ I tl '~/~~7\~~ ~ i W ~ ~ ~ ~~"" 4 ~ .p„ .. b~~ -~/~~ _ b t ~ -6' - A. V A A A yy~ e~ ~~ X Z Ek tl ~ ,.I ~~ g 9ple= a ~ V W k ? I I, V ~ ~ Q 0] € s~~~E Z ~ ~~ $~~~~ ~3~~ 9 ~e ~R{0{y~yg X~ b ' ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~L@ W N I ~~ ~ ~ I ' f ° 3'vYtlOl40M181X3 .. N p. ~,a C N~c _.-_ __._ ................... .o.. ..° o ~x ~ wo uu na. .n w°° w~n xa manxeum wn vu ~a~~uuwwrwus ne < E4Zl-l 1918 OdVaOl00 'N3dSV °~°.a, °^ • a• 1332i1S HlaON 1S3M 9£5 ~~~~° •°~•.,: °°°~~~ ~"~ • ~~ ~ ~~ ~°` s 1 a e 1 1 4° ~~ e Sb' d0 H~~if1H~ ~t/dO~Sld~ 1S12~H~ B 0 ~ ~~ _~ m rv~ e Y ~N ~ ~sN ~~ ~28 ~~ N~~ g~g~ uC~`,3 a $bYL ~~ff~ ~w~ ~~ ~~~n~ s~8~~ Be8q =~ ff~~y ~~~~~ $~2 ff g0 y0 61` E Z g a till C £SZl-l l9lB OOb'NO100 'N3dSV 133a1S H12i0N 1S3M 9ES N~dSd d0 H~~If1H~ lddO~Sld~ 1SI~1H~ u~n.o~ew.. a o<. ...•~•„.,.,~„ _. o ~ ~ ~ auvu ~ .. .~.~ u••roi.n.....ri.v.....u~oe E~FW a ~ 1 W U ~~ ~ p p Io ~ S~4 CCC~ Vu~ ~ ~ ~10 m b ~ ~ m ]4 4 }~" F V Fg LL iQo~ --r------- ~- ~--- -----r~-,, I I I I I I I ii' I I I I +I-. - ~ I II ~.. ~ I 1 I I I I 1 } I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i t l..l . l 11 1 ~ . u 1 I?I..I I I ++ IiC I I ~It'I tl {.,l I F ~~~+~ - . ~ ...... I . _....... I I I I i - I I I _ I _..., ..... I~'~.~ L.. ry_== p...._ Id___. I iL--_~ J - ~ I I I I I I _ I I.- 11 _ I ~ I I 1 ELI t i I. II ~ i. I I 11 ~.. ttI i i O II . _ _ ~~ )-_J I I I I I 7 ~ ~~ ~ 9 0 ~ I~ I I I - - - - I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I i I I i I I I i I i I I I I YI ,\ I I I 1 I I 0 E a ~~E ~ 6 c~ g fiz 9 G5$G S~: E;n g~ E g€ ~y.~]J~ ~~Qa ~9jo~Qafg~ ~~~~./p~~ V~[,f4 ~~w WI] ~6 N63 nFiii~ iG~riW N~n~ sO~E ~$ n ~md~ I I __ ` .___ ..I I II 1 1 I I I I I I _ I I I I~ I I~ I I I~ I I~ I I _ ~~ I _ f I~ I II i; ~ J I~~ '~ ~ I i I I £9ZL-t L9 L8 OObaOl00 'N3dSb 1332i1S HlaON 1S3M 9E9 NddSb' d0 H~bf1H~ ~bdO~Sldd 1S12iH~ W ~' ~ i ~~ _ _ ~~~ ~I it ~I II it I ~~ I I 'I I I 'I I I ~~ I i II I I ~~ I I II I I I __I~ ~~ ~$ 4 r $m~ 1 _~ x e ~ ~ .° ~ B ~ ~ ~~~ ~9~ § ~ ~ ~~~ g~~~a ~~e~~ ~~e ~~~ ga 3: fi€ ~~ G~~~ G~~ ~~~ ~~ ~4~ ~~w ~ ~ ~ °~~ ~~ ~o ~~~ ~~~~ .~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~s 9$ i~ ~I i~ II i~ ~I ~ ~ i' ~ J _ ~ +1'~ ~ LL i ~ ~2 i I~ i O ~ ;z iF ~~ i ~ - ~ iW I/ i~~ iJ I ' I ~~ i ~~ i-+ Q~ C~ ~ U ~ ? Z ' C Q ~ ~- ~ c~ o U ~. ..c Q ~ L c m a m 0 s i 7 L >, U a ~- ~ ~ N n. o `~ m ~ m ,~ - 1-- s R ~ ~ ~. _"_~~ % ~~R~y~ •~ ~ ~l~„3 ~~'~ : . I • z ~~ r I ~~ ~ ~~~ /~ ~l~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ t i _','_ _ .t ~ i,. ~ i ~; w ~ ~ ~ e r /l ~ ~//1~~ r % -~fJ /i • 1 ~~~~I/~Mri~ ~r~_'~;,~~a",r ~~ L L L ~.;~ w~ ~ ~ 4 ~ a .~ .~ ~ ~~ ~I l~ •i_Ip _` ,~ 7 ~1l , 0 1 0 !~ ~ • _ ._ l~ ~ _/ + ~ - '-~ ~ ; /~"4, ~" .~ ,~~~ ,~ ~ i " ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~i ~ ~ =- 1 E c 0 c~ 0 u } O c ~ z w ^~^~, ^W W L '~'^~ VJ i O C c c~ _~ U cCS O U .Q U 1~ . '. `~ ryj. i~'.. `~~ l ~ N -~- N O ~L 0 N O ~ N N Q O U C O U -~ C O U N ~O U _U N -- - _- .~ I j jxr. ~~-- - ~ ~± - __ O ~~~ w U ~ . ~, ~. r - ;1 i ,. . .... .. 1,. ~-~ Y%: t t ~ ~: ~~ 1 ~S i~/~: V ° 3 e ~- o y ~ o= ~ ~ ~ . v = ~ ~ x c~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ wm ~ H ~ a Q T ~ `_ f ~~~~FL: ~Ag~i2~~ gEp;~A~i?~~~~F~°'=fry ty b s f~~e'3%e2'?s~~vee'~ Q t'~ O c~ U O <:a~9t8B$~:~Y fit: $~~~~-t~~$83FS`5's°~ ~ ~e~" a ~-c=.~@~~~ •~`~E ''ara6~ _e° ;SIB+'°" ^E g3i gEg i3 ~.~S~C 'L :~ni~r~a~9g ui ,: 3E ~~ ~p'~~Ts:B S~Y~~E u~~~5a 3%i`~:a°~~~~~Y SEA 3 ~a'~~~ 38 go ~~Y~~°?ggE °3.~~S~P. cu':E.~5~~~2~~~~~~ ^~^,~ /'W W L. +''ryry Y/ 'l~° ~~ ~, a--~ ^~ W J Q a Z ~ -~ Q U W O ~ _ _~_ U C ~~Fy 9• ~a r i, O t Q c~ N Q) Q. N U 7 L U R1 Q ~ O 7 U) N ~- ,~ N O ~ N .~ ~ U Q C O ctS O .,-.~ N L ~~ :~ :~ ~ ~-~ O i~ n~ W C~ ~~~ u'! - / ~^ 1.1 ~+- Z ~~ U ~ U W O ~ Q +~ ~L U ~e~a C } ~~ ~ 0 ~~ ~LL mT O m O t Q cd N c~ ~- ~~ ~~ , ~ ~ ^ ~~~ O U ,;~ ~~ O ;- O O Q Q C O O NI O t a L C L O Q C 3 m a Q C a R E~ ov ~~ `o m c c re d tY ffi U `o U~ a rs ~ 8 Bx > E o 4 S 8~ 3g ~~ ~ N r J a ~z Q } w ~j~ L ~i W ~[~ V „ 1~~ ~--~ ~--~ ~~ O C i Q1 L7 U_ U (LS Q O U W cn ~ ~ Cn ~~ U c ~' .c p m ~x ~ ~ °~'` -,_~ ~~ - - - - -. i}ona;s 6ui~sixa .0 L (7 ;46u ~Cq >n~~s pasodo~d ,0 L ~ 146u /~q aui~ ~adoad aui~ ~ado~d 6a~e6 ~o a6pa ~, 0 •~ ^ ~--~ N +-~ cn O Q c~ Z° U U Q O _Q J `~ O ~ U e 0 O ('~ O r s N .3 L N i C N u c ~ `N O c Q L ~ O Q C O O ~_ 1 C a--~ ~_ X N +~ dJ L ~~ +~ L O J Q z ~ Q U U c~ Q UO .~ U m .a N .~ ^ ~" ~ ~ ~~~~~ r '; r~ ~!' • m i ~~ ~~ ~ .. ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~' '~ • ~ ~ N i. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ '~ VJ o~ N ~~ a~ ~ ~; ; N ,~ . Q N QI ~ ~ , -. ~..: ~` r .~ ,~ .r~ L~,..' ~.^ r1 .^ ~ 1 r N i ~~ u ~ ~~~ 1 f~ a~ y t r O C 2W • Q O U O a a~ L Q~ Q~ _~ ~..., Q~ ^Q ` v U J ~ _~ o ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ z ~ ._ . ~~ y a ~ ~ ~ ~ o t f-~ U U.. ~ ~ ~ N -~ T A Q ~,• s `~p ~~~~~ •'~. > '~ ~~ ~\ ~~ v ~_ 0 _~ "r~"' } J a a L ~ U7 . d - C N " C ~ ~ ' yi ~ + ~ s, ~ .~, ,~' r U N ._ r R ~ ~ r ~~ T - ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , I ~~ a~ ' ~ C O ctS U O ~-~. .-.. ` `' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner ,n THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~ ~rhl DATE OF MEMO: November 2, 2007 MEETING DATE: November 12, 2007 RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, First Reading of Ordinance #~ Series of 2007 (Parcel 2735-121-11- 808) Second Reading is scheduled for December 10, 2007. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 536 West North Street requests Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc Page 1 of 4 .-, ~.. • Lot history The Episcopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881 during the Mining Era. The azchitecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by prominent Modern azchitects and theorists Walter Paepcke, Herbert Bayer, and Fritz Benedict. 536 West North Street, the Christ Episcopal Church, is attributed to architect Francis Stanton of the Chicago firm Stanton and Rockwell. Completed in 1963, the Church's Modern form and small scale design contributes to Aspen's West End neighborhood. The lot area is 15,599 square feet, and was assigned an allowable floor area of 7,118 square feet for the modest addition to the church through the Conditional Use Review process in 1976. In 1980, a rectory was built on the site to provide an employee housing unit; concurrently, the Church was granted a reduction in required off-site parking from 14 spaces to 12 spaces, 4 of which were required to be provided on-site with the remaining 8 spaces held in abeyance for future implementation should there be complaints. The Church currently has four spaces, two of which are in a tandem configuration. ^ Previous actions On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to the existing Conditional Use approval to allow the increase of allowable floor azea from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet; re-established parking requirements through the Special Review process; and granted rear yard setback and site coverage variances for the proposed addition.z The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for Dimensional Variances, Special Review for pazking, and Conditional Use review; however, Growth Management review is under the purview of City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which overlaps some of these issues (i.e. parking). The Planning and Zoning Commission voted four to one (4 - 1)recommending City Council approve the Growth Management request. DISCUSSION: Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility3 City Council is asked to grant Growth Management review, which focuses on the development's role as an essential public facility serving the general public and needs of the community. The Community Development Director has determined that the Christ ' During the August 19, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a resolution was not adopted; however a motion was adopted and the minutes serve as record. See Exhibit D. z On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #23, Series of 2007 by a vote of 4 - l. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on August 21, 2007 and Augus[ 28, 2007 are attached as Exhibit C. 'Section 26.104.100 of the Land Use Code defines Essential Public Facility as " a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community" Revised 1 ]/5/2007 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc Page 2 of 4 Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility4 because it serves both members and non-members by offering religious services to AA meetings to La Leche meetings. The Church requests approval to extend the existing barrel-vaulted structure to the reaz and demolish and replace the addition to the east. Staff finds that the proposed design is sensitive to the Modern azchitecture of the existing church, and despite not having local landmark status; the addition generally meets the Historic Preservation guidelines.s A key component of the development is to make the entire Church ADA accessible and Building Code compliant. The Church building has not been updated since the 1970s. Affordable Housing: The Land Use Code establishes this as a separate review process largely because Essential Public Facilities are unique. A more typical growth management review focuses on employees generated from commercial and free mazket residential component that result in a high level of services; whereas, this application seeks to improve the efficiency, safety, accessibility and function of the physical building and does not propose to increase programs. No affordable housing is proposed in this application because the development is not intended to increase the existing Church functions. Despite actually retaining 2 full time employees, the Church provides employee housing for 3.5 employees on the site in the adjacent rectory building. Staff finds that the existing affordable housing is sufficient. Pazkina: Among the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility is compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)6, which incorporates transportation and pazking goals of the community. Pazt of the development includes an additional pazking space bringing the total onsite pazking spaces to 5 with 2 spaces in tandem, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission under the Special Review process. Staff strongly believes that increasing the amount of onsite parking to more than that proposed would negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood. Public transportation and alternate methods will continue to be promoted by the Church. Staff finds that the proposal meets the goals of the AACP and the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the applicable review criteria for Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities. The proposal is consistent with the goals of the AACP by preserving the form of an existing Modern building, designing an addition that is sensitive to the residential context of the neighborhood, and updating the building so that it is Code compliant, energy efficient and ADA accessible. Staff recommends approval of the Growth Management request." ° There is a precedent in Aspen for religious organizations to be reviewed as essential public facilities. The most recent example is the Jewish Community Center development at 435 West Main Street, which received growth Management approval in 2006 as an essential public facility. 5 The Church application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. 536 West North Street is identified on the "list of potential historic resources", aka Exhibit A to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. b Exhibit A compares the proposal with the goals in the AACP. Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc Page 3 of 4 .... PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # ~9 Series of 2007 upon First Reading, and schedule Second Reading for December 10, 2007." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A -Growth Management Review Criteria for an Essential Public Facility . B -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #23, Series of 2007. C -Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 7, 2007 and August 28, 2007 D -Planning and Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes E -Application Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc Page 4 of 4 .~ ,~,,, ORDINANCE N0. ~7 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots I1, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. ~ Series 2007, on First Reading by a _ to ~-~ vote, approving with conditions Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility for the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO ;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Ordinance No. ,Series 2007 Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 1 of 5 IAA / "# Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility in order to demolish and replace an existing addition and extend the existing main Church building on the property located at 536 VJ. North Street, Lots ll, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Section 2: Building Permit Application The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fixgitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Ordinance No. ,Series 2007 Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 2 of 5 Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the Conditional Use amendment and Dimensional Variances granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. Section 4: Parkins Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the parking requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007. Section 5: Affordable Housins The presented redevelopment is not intended to increase Church services or programs and; therefore does not require employee mitigation. Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 7: Sidewalks. Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy Section 8: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. £ Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. Ordinance No. ,Series 2007 Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 3 of 5 g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 11: Landscaping a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 12: Stormwater Development Fee Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.18.020, Stormwater System Development Fee, the Applicant shall be assessed a Stormwater Fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated as outlined in Section 25.18 of the Municipal Code. Section 13: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number xx, Series of 2007 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No._ Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Ordinance No. ,Series 2007 Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christepiscopalchurch\churchOrdinance.doc Page 4 of 5 Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 15: 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 16: 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 17: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the l Oc' day of December, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this of , 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. ,Series 2007 Revised 11/5/2007 G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 5 of 5 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 would generate. Vann responded there would clearly be an increase in the level of activity that currently was being done in this area; there were proposals to transport individuals from Ruby Park and other hotels along Dean Avenue and Durant via the trolley system. Vann said the street section was designed to handle the level of traffic. Guthrie asked when the time was to ask about the large hotel vehicles driving one person two blocks and how that could be dealt with; this was like a private limo service. Phelan stated that this was a public right-of--way, which was a much broader scope than just this application. Guthrie said that he could not put the community issues on this one project. MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2007 incorporating Exhibit D, the language including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder cabins as a,~fordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation , the volleyball courts timing, concern for the location of the Ski Museum; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, no. APPROVED 3-I. LJ Erspamer explained that the application does not promote the efficient use of land with the change of conservation zone to lodge. Erspamer said he would like to see this project become pedestrian friendly; there was too much traffic and parking was a problem. Erspamer thanked the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking requirements; and Dimensional Variances. Adams explained that Plarming & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with 4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the Exhibit C P8Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20076 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7.2007 needs of the church; it was in context with the neighborhood and the addition was sensitive and brings the building into accessibility requirements by the code. Commission questions were regarding the site coverage amount requested. Adams said the maximum was 27°/n and the applicant was requesting 40%; the building was one story, well below the height limit and fit into the neighborhood. The rectory was 4 bedrooms and currently housed the 2 full time employees. Jim DeFrancia said that he was chairman of the building committee; the objective was to make more efficient use of the facility for the present uses. DeFrancia said that they were not planning an expansion of the congregation; they were redesigning the spaces to be more efficient. Some other current uses for the church included AA, the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Youth Experience, La Leche, AIA, and holiday baskets; it was clearly a community facility. DeFrancia stated they wanted to bring the facility into compliance with the code. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said the intent was to provide appropriate worship fellowship support spaces for the current congregation and the community; code compliance; sustainability and accessibility were primary goals. Sanchez said to comply with the current plumbing codes they were adding additional plumbing fixtures. There would be new heating, ventilation and lighting improving energy consumption and proper building insulation. Sanchez said they were adding fire suppression systems providing a line of safety that doesn't exist now. Sanchez said they wanted to maintain the shape and form of this church and add an element similar in mass, which was a little bit smaller, and connect the two separate modules with a glass circulation space but keep the residential rhythm for this neighborhood. The new addition drops down to 18 feet 6 inches in the back. Sanchez stated they were increasing the off-street parking spaces to 5 but taking out the stacked spaces comes to 4. To accommodate the 1980 approval of parking spaces they would not be able to utilize this development plan; there would be loss of open space by providing the parking on site. Sanchez said the setback was the minimum that they could ask for and the setback only touched at 2 places. DeFrancia said that they communicated with the neighbors sending letters to about 50 neighbors twice and held a meeting on August 1 ~` with 2 neighbors attending. The architectural harmony will be kept throughout the building even in the back. It was not their intent to expand any uses of the church. Exhibit C P&Z Meeting Minutes Augusl 7, 2007 7 Asueu Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7.2007 LJ Erspamer asked if the building was a designated landmark. Sara Adams replied that it was not. Erspamer asked what the single family house was; did it have one kitchen. DeFrancia replied that it was the rector's house and his wife that were employed by the church and lived there in the single family detached house, which had 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room. Erspamer asked when this was approved does this eliminate the abeyance for parking. Adams responded yes that it would establish new parking requirements. Public Comments: 1. Claude Salter said that parking was a problem in the neighborhood with the uses in the church and the music going on in the tent. Salter said the distance between the buildings was not consistently 10 feet apart; she disagrees with the rear yard setback given the massing that they were adding. Salter said the code allowed the choir to be kept and section 1024.5 of the IBC was the accessibility issue. 2. Ann Burrows said that she lived to the south of the church and voiced concern was for traffic and increased traffic. 3. Warren Klug said that he was a member of the church and the church was a public facility that provides services for lots of community residents and a community gathering place. Klug said that the development of this building was to make it better and more usable; he noted houses in the neighborhood had master bedroom suites that were bigger than this additional square footage. The variances make the building work better; the building remains appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Klug said the basement is currently not accessible to handicapped and the renovation plan was very modest. 4. Steve Fallendar said that he lived across the street and the additional square footage was considerable; he said the basement increase in space was also significant. Fallendar asked that the resolution include that there will not be a school at this location. Fallendar said that he was nervous about metal used as the material; he questioned the landscape. 5. Colleen Collins letter was placed into the record. Collins said you could get the same number of seats without increasing the square footage. 6. Bob Blaich said that everything that is done in this community affects someone; this project has a high level of merit and it will benefit the community. Jim DeFrancia commented that the extension of the church by 12 feet was a function of design; the extension will have a construction area so the landsca, ,t c P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2002 •., Aspen Planning & ZOnIIIg Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 will come down but they will be sensitive to the finish design of the back side of the church as well as replacing the landscaping. DeFrancia said that they cannot convert to a school; they would have to go back through the process with a whole different set of requirements. DeFrancia said they have made a representation into the public record of their intensions of lack of expanded uses. DeFrancia said that they do not anticipate a metal roof, currently they were looking at a slate roof. Erspamer asked for explanations on special events and parking issues for the next meeting. DeFrancia said that there have not been any parking problems from the church. Erspamer asked for a site visit. Phelan said that she would set up a site visit. Adams said there was a survey in the packet dated December 2006, which shows the alley is 20 feet. Rowland said that it was a great piece of azchitecture and was respectful to the neighborhood; he said the setbacks concerned him. Rowland asked that a shuttle or other form of transportation be considered for big special events. MOTION.• LJErspamer moved to continue the Christ Episcopal Church hearing to August 21 S`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: L,I Erspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in favor. Transcribed by: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit C P8Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20079 A_S~en Plannine & Zonin¢ Meetine Minutes Aueust 28 2007 COMMENTS ................... ............ 2 ............................................................................. MINUTES ............................................. .................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ......................... ,,,,, 2 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ................................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit C P8Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 1 Asaen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28.2007 John Rowland opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Brian Speck, Dylan Johns, LJ Erspamer, David Guthrie and John Rowland. Staff: Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed copies of the final edits of the Commercial and Lodging Design Standards. Jackie Lothian said City Council was conducting interviewing for P&Z members tonight and on September 11~'. MI.`ES MOTION: L.I Erspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 7`h and clarified that the minutes from July 17`~ were to include the Lift One tax district was a property tax district and the North of Nell building doesn't meet the pedestrian amenity and the building is existing and there was nothing that can be done to meet the pedestrian amenity; seconded by Brian Speck. Approved 3-0 (2 abstained). None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/07/07): APPROVALS John Rowland opened the continued public hearing. Sara Adams said there was a growth management review; recommendation to city council for an essential public facility; a conditional use amendment for the increase in floor area (currently 7,118 square feet to 9500 square feet); special review for parking (the applicant requested new parking requirements); 2 dimensional variances (rear yard setback of 5 feet and site coverage for 40%). Adams provided resolutions with changes to the parking with the addition of onsite bicycle storage. Sara Adams introduced 3 letters into the public record from Lisa Mazkalunas, Anne Burrows and Janice & Chazles Collins. Exhibit C P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 ^1 Aspen Plannin¢ & Zoning Meetine Minutes Aueust 28 2007 Jim True commented there were legal implications involved in this application; the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, which is a federal law, may come into play in the consideration of the application however one important aspect of this law (RLUIPA), there was no discrimination by the government. The government can not treat the religious organization on a less than equal basis than any other applicant; the staff analysis was consistent this aspect of RLUIPA in that it was treated as any other applicant. LJ Erspamer asked if this act changed the fact that approval of one project doesn't set precedent to approve another religious project. True responded that from a general context that you do what you have to do with any religious entity was to apply the terms of the act to the specifics of that case and treat any application with no less than an equal position. Erspamer asked if you set a precedent with one religious institution do you have to treat the other one the same. True replied that you can not treat any religious organization with a less than equal basis or any other religious organization or any non religious organization. Bob Blaich represented the applicant and gave an overview of the last presentation and addressed the issues with the removal and replacing of the landscape on the alley of the reaz of the church; the alleyright-of--way for public and emergency access was not affected by the addition to the rear of the chwch; the 1980 parking approval to provide 8 off-site parking, there have been no complaints to the Aspen Police Department with regard to parking against the church; the redevelopment of the facility was not predicated on expanded uses but to better serve the congregation and those organizations that utilize the church facility for public permitted use and if in the future there was a need to seek new uses it would go through the public process with P&Z and City Council and the expansion of the worship space was to more efficiently utilize this space and the new hospitability space replaces that in the basement; both spaces are being brought up to code. Blaich said the existing basement space (undercroft) will be utilized for meetings, church school and chwch offices. The addition of the elevator will provide handicap access to both levels. Blaich said that the main church roof will be slate colored metal. Sanchez utilized the program space in original arched volume chart for the existing and proposed square footages for the foyer (existing & proposed 298.00 SF), nave (existing 988.22 SF and proposed 1,202.12 SF), chancel (462.26 SF and proposed 604.75 SF) and balcony (existing 228 SF and no balcony proposed). Gilbert Sanchez noted the property line was at an angle so the setback variance needed only occw at 2 points; the mass of the building was peaking up with thrE, hib;, ~ barrel shape. P8Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 Aspen Plannine & Zonine Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 Sanchez distributed and spoke about the new site plans, which included the alley, view analysis, solaz analysis, West End map, parking analysis, site history and a color computer generated drawing from the alley. Sanchez said the cross town shuttle goes right by the church and bike racks would be provided. Blaich said the Collins' letter requested the church activities be limited that were non-religious programs and noted the parking problems were from the Music festival, Physics and Aspen Institute. Blaich listed the current activities as AA meets 3-5 times a week with 20-25 people; the Aspen Music Festival meets 5-6 weeks per summer Monday thru Saturday with 10-20 students; Aspen Youth Experience meets 2 weeks in the winter with about 40 kids and their leaders; La Leche Le meets 1 day a week year round with 7 moms and their kids; Youth with a Mission meets one long weekend during the X-Games with about 25 students and teachers spending the night; Music Together meets 1 day a week year round with about 40 moms, infants and toddlers for music appreciation; AIA Holiday Baskets for 3 weeks daily in November/December with a few people in the church that put the baskets together and someone picks them up; Music in the West End with 3 performances in January, February and March. Dylan Johns inquired if there was a daycare. Blaich replied there was no daycare. LJ Erspamer asked the lot size. Adams replied 15,599 square feet. Erspamer asked the average setback in the back. Sanchez replied that it averaged between S and 7 feet. Erspamer asked how far back the new extension was going. Sanchez responded 12 feet. Erspamer said if some corners were eliminated it might help with the setback issues. Sanchez said the only new addition in terms of permanent space was the undercroft, which would be used as a hospitality hall. Sanchez said the toilets were being brought up to code and enlarged for ADA accessible. Sanchez said that the uniqueness of this building was that there were windows in the basement 4 feet below the first floor so the square footage was counted into the FAR. Public Comments: 1. Janice Collins said their complaint was the size and the variance; she said that they lived directly across the alley from the church. Collins said they were most impacted by this proposed variance (as stated in her letter); she stated that she did not want an expansion of the programs. Collins asked for the proposed seating. Sanchez replied that it was flexible seating, a modulaz pew chair. Blaich said that there have not been any final decisions made by the sub-committeePBCMIIi 9 M~ked August 28, 2007 4 Aspen Plannin¢ & Zonine Meetine Minutes - AuQUSt 28 2007 if this additional space was necessary and did not feel the same with the addition on the back. Collins voiced concern for the lack of landscaping in the alley. 2. Diana Rumsey said that she has been a member of this church for almost 40 years and stated that there were also funerals, weddings and other church functions. Rumsey said there were now 2 dishwashers; the added space of the church was necessary because the plumbing, roof and insulation all needed replacement. Rumsey said that the inside and the outside of this project would be attractive. 3. Father Bruce McNab, the pastor of Christ Church, said he records the attendance for every church event; the average number of people in the 1980's and 1990's was SO or more people attending than this last decade. The current average was 112 attending on Sundays. Father McNab said the reason for the improvements was to allow for wider isles and not to allow for more seating; it was a safety issue. 4. Lisa Marka]unas said that a seating plan was required to the neighbors. The parking was a huge impact from Sunday services, large weddings and funerals as well as the Music Festival and Hams Hall. Markalunas suggested approaching the City to request the cross-town shuttle service be increased. S. Ann Burrows ran numbers regarding the attendance for the Music tent and Harris Hall that was 83,700 people. 6. Mary Janz suggested moving the organ so that the organ player can see what was going on. 7. Colleen Burrows asked for a re-configuration and a current site plan. Burrows attended a concert last winter and it was stated that they wanted to have more concerts in the future. Burrows said that there was a double standard because this was a church and it was being treated differently; she requested the church follow the same rules. Burrows said the West End was not second homeowners the people that live in this neighborhood were raising their families. 8. Claude Salter stated that they were held to the same changes if there was a remodel or this massive addition; the building still has to be brought up to fire code and accessibility. Salter said that this was about the massing. Salter requested a seating plan. Salter said that alleys were a treasure. Exhibit C P&Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2007 S Ashen Planning & Zonine Meetin¢ Minutes - Aueust 28, 2007 9. Steve Falender stated that he lived across the street at 603 West Gillespie and since the last meeting the chwch has not contacted him. Falender said that the 7 closest people to the church were all raising families here and they were part of the community. Falender said if the church agreed not to have an increased concert schedule that would go a tremendous way and they have neglected to put anything in writing. Falender said that by putting the number of concerts in writing would go a long way to satisfy the neighbors. Falender said P&Z must decide whether it was consistent with the policies to enforce setback requirements in the West End. Falender said that in the documents there was a way to appropriately evaluate what was an appropriate variance; he requested P&Z reread those sections to determine why the church can't add significantly without going into the reaz yard setback. Falender said they have not opposed the increase in FAR or the extensive increase in lot coverage. Falender asked P&Z to request the church meet the reaz yard setback and agree to the number of concerts but grant the increased FAR. Falender requested that Community Development review the metal roof for design standards review. 10. Susan Horsey said that she liked having the church in the neighborhood. Horsey said the Christ Church mission was to share the love; playing music from the great composers. Horsey said the chwch has open doors. 11. Warren Klug said that he was a member of Christ Church and lived just a few blocks away; all over the country churches were located in residential areas and it works. Klug said the business of Christ Church was to take care of people in the community in respectful and positive ways because it was a place of worship, ministry and renewal. The concerts were small and intimate. The goals were to make the building and the work of the chwch function better, safer for everybody and a better fellowship area on the main level. Klug said the increase was not that big, it was 128 square feet. 12. Keith Gardner said that the term concert was of major concem for some people; the concerts taking place at the church were maybe a piano or an organ plus a violin; he doubted that they were audible outside the church. 13. David Wiedinmyer from Grassroots Aspen Youth Experience who made their home in the basement of this chwch in this beautiful neighborhood as a guest; they were moving their program because there was not enough space in the church. 14. Lisa Markalunas asked for clarification on the addition of square footage. Sanchez replied that they were going from the existing 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez said the reason that they were not moving the ch uMr ehg Mfrard August 28, 2007 6 .~, -., Aspen Plannine & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 was because there was an existing tree that they were not allowed to move so they adjusted the plan and took away 500 square feet. 15. Joan Macney said that she was a deacon at this church and said that there should be an element of trust for the good of the community. Sanchez said the church sent out letters and packets to all of the neighbors. David Guthrie asked if the metal was slate colored. Sanchez replied that it was zinc, which was a velvety textured metal with almost no reflectivity and absorbs light. Blaich stated that this roof replaces asbestos shingles. LJ Erspamer read the definition of essential public facility (page 10 of the memo) and asked staff to elaborate on that. Sara Adams replied that essential public facility was what they have used in the past to review churches. Erspamer asked if a change in use occurred they would have to come back before P&Z. Jennifer Phelan responded that this was a conditional use so if there was a major amendment to their plan they would have to come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. The commissioners were all good with the GMQS, Conditional Use, Special Review criteria. Erspamer asked what the percentage of site coverage was with the lowered FAR to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez replied that it was probably 36 or 37%. The alley variance discussion included Guthrie commented that they alley that he lived on had setbacks everywhere; all of the alleys had encroachments whether it was a garbage dumpster enclosure or a building, which was part of the messy vitality that used to be desirable here. Brian Speck and Dylan Johns said that there was not a hardship for the setback variance. Johns said that a garage was one nature for an alley variance but a building that was 18 feet tall was another; he said that it was partly a scale matter. Erspamer said dropping the square footage made a difference for him. Adams said that to grant a variance was generally consistent with the purposes goals, objectives and policies of the AACP. Adams said that she demonstrated in other exhibits that they do find that expanding the church for the reasons in the application that meet the AACP, in terms of providing community services. Adams stated to grant a variance there was the minimum variance pq~iladet;;; ,f~~` August 28, 2007 7 _-. -~, Asaen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28.2007 reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; based upon the application it was the minimum variance. Adams noted that the 3rd criteria was hardship and because the applicant was not doing a scrape and replace but working with the existing and difficult form; they were trying to keep the scale down and the shape of the parcel was unique, which was another constraint. There were certain corners that were in the setback and not the entire structure. John Rowland said that this was a minor infraction on the alleys and there was a balancing act. Sanchez utilized the model to show the element that was low scale and the impact was minimal for the benefits that this space will produce for the church, congregation and the community. Erspamer said that listening to what Jennifer and Sara had to say there was a limit on the church activities. Jim True noted that expanded use was not a part of the application. . Johns said that functionally speaking there was an argument to take the main portion of the current church and grant that the extension that they were requesting. Johns said that he was having issues with the additional part of the building sharing that same variance, which goes along with the fact that they were having to work with an atypical design space and may need a little more to make full use of the space for their purposes. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2007, approving with conditions, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to approximately 9,000 square feet though Conditional Use process, an establishment ofoff-street parking requirements through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite spaces and one (I) stacked space, the required dimensional variances as indicated in Staff's memorandum and recommending City Council approve with conditions, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Seconded by David Guthrie. Roll cal vote: Erspamer, yes; Johns, no; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes. APPROVED 4-1. John Rowland supported staff in the research and code interpretation. Adjourned at 7:00 p.m. -.v ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit C P8Z Meeting Minutes August 28, 2002 ,... ~,. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12,13,14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. RESOLUTION N0.23, SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish new off street pazking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department reconunended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an increase in floor azea from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street pazking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Co»ncil for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and IS Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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, P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase in floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, the establishment of new off street parking requirements through Special Review, certain dimensional Variances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standazds, floor azea, and off-street parking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the proposed redevelopment. Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: The subject property is approved for a total of 9,000 squaze feet of floor area for the design presented at the August 28, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the approved design, site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Section 3: Buildine Permit Aoolication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 2 of 5 a., d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and pazking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Special Review: Parking Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) pazking spaces and one (1) stacked pazking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of approved pazking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. The applicant shall provide onsite bicycle storage. Secfion 5: Trasb/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public RO W or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. f Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 9: Exterior Li htine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. _Section 10: Landscaaine a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 11• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: 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 13: 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 P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 4 of 5 ,,-. v 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 28~' day of August, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: a~---- r------`_ awes R True, Special Counsel PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: John Rowland, Chairman ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 Aspen Planning ZOnInE Meetine Minutes - Au~~ust 28, 2007 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 MINUTES ..................................................................................................................2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................2 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ....................................................................................................................................2 -„ ~. ~~. 1 John Rowland opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Brian Speck, Dylan Johns, LJ Erspamer, David Guthrie and John Rowland. Staff: Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed copies of the final edits of the Commercial and Lodging Design Standards. Jackie Lothian said City Council was conducting interviewing for P&Z members tonight and on September 11`t'. MINUTES MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 7`ti and clarified that the minutes from July 17` were to include the Lift One tax district was a property tax district and the North of Nell building doesn't meet the pedestrian amenity and the building is e ' ting and there was nothing that can be done to meet the pedestrian amenity; sec~jby Brian Speck. Approved 3-0 (2 abstained). ,, ~. None stated. ~ ,~ ,.~~~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/07/07): 1 /U,(ll ~~1J~ CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the continued public hearing. Sara Adams said there was a growth management review; recommendation to city council for an essential public facility; a conditional use amendment for the increase in floor area (currently 7,118 square feet to 9500 square feet); special review for parking (the applicant requested new parking requirements); 2 dimensional variances (rear yard setback of 5 feet and site coverage for 40%). Adams provided resolutions with changes to the parking with the addition of onsite bicycle storage. Sara Adams introduced 3 letters into the public record from Lisa Markalunas, Anne Burrows and Janice & Charles Collins. 2 Jim True commented there were legal implications involved in this application; the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, which is a federal law, may come into play in the consideration of the application however one important aspect of this law (RLUIPA), there was no discrimination by the government. The government can not treat the religious organization on a less than equal basis than any other applicant; the staff analysis was consistent this aspect of RLUIPA in that it was treated as any other applicant. LJ Erspamer asked if this act changed the fact that approval of one project doesn't set precedent to approve another religious project. True responded that from a general context that you do what you have to do with any religious entity was to apply the terms of the act to the specifics of that case and treat any application with no less than an equal position. Erspamer asked if you set a precedent with one religious institution do you have to treat the other one the same. True replied that you can not treat any religious organization with a less than equal basis or any other religious organization or any non religious organization. ~~~~ Bob Blaich represented the applicant and gave an overview of the last presentation and addressed the issues with the removalFand replacing of the landscape on the alle o~f t(he rear of the church; the alley right-of--way for public and emergency - ' -='\ ~~~as not affected by the addition to the rear of the church; the 1980 parking `~j ~ r to provide 8 off-site parking, there have been no complaints to the Aspen Police Department with regard to parking against the church; the redevelopment of the facility was not predicated on expanded uses but to better serve the congregation and those organizations that utilize the church facility for public permitted use and if in the future there was a need to seek new uses it would go through the public process with P&Z and City Council and the expansion of the worship space was to more efficiently utilize this space and the new hospitability space replaces that in the basement; both spaces are being brought up to code. Blaich said the existing basement space (undercroft) will be utilized for meetings, church school and church offices. The addition of the elevator will provide handicap access to both levels. Blaich said that the main church roof will be slate colored metal. Sanchez utilized the program space in original arched volume chart for the existing and proposed square footages for the foyer (existing & proposed 298.00 SF), nave (existing 988.22 SF and proposed 1,202.12 SF), chancel (462.26 SF and proposed 604.75 SF) and balcony (existing 228 SF and no balcony proposed). Gilbert Sanchez noted the property line was at an angle so the setback variance needed only occur at 2 points; the mass of the building was peaking up with the barrel shape. 3 Sanchez distributed and spoke about the new site plans, which included the alley, view analysis, solar analysis, West End map, parking analysis, site history and a color computer generated drawing from the alley. Sanchez said the cross town shuttle goes right by the church and bike racks would be provided. Blaich said the Collins' letter requested the church activities be limited that were non-religious programs and noted the parking problems were from the Music festival, Physics and Aspen Institute. Blaich listed the current activities as AA meets 3-5 times a week with 20-25 people; the Aspen Music Festival meets 5-6 weeks per summer Monday thru Saturday with 10-20 students; Aspen Youth Experience meets 2 weeks in the winter with about 40 kids and their leaders; La Le~he I,e rrleets 1 day a week year round with 7 moms and their kids; Youth with a ~'d'~Ils$ion meets one long weekend during the X-Games with about 25 students and ," te~leYs spending the night; Music Together meets I day a week year round with about 40 moms, infants and toddlers for music appreciation; AIA Holiday Baskets for 3 weeks daily in November/December with a few people in the church that put the baskets together and someone picks them up; Music in the West End with 3 performances in January, February and March. ~ D d /~ ~j Dylan Johns inquired if there was a daycare. Blaich replied there was no daycare. LJ Erspamer asked the lot size. Adams replied 15,599 square feet. Erspamer asked the average setback in the back. Sanchez replied that it averaged between 5 and 7 feet. Erspamer asked how far back the new extension was going. Sanchez responded 12 feet. Erspamer said if some corners were eliminated it might help with the setback issues. Sanchez said the only new addition in terms of permanent space was the undercroft, which would be used as a hospitality hall. Sanchez said the toilets were being brought up to code and enlarged for ADA accessible. Sanchez said that the uniqueness of this building was that there were windows in the basement 4 feet below the first floor so the square footage was counted into the FAR. Public Comments: 1. Janice Collins said their complaint was the size and the variance; she said that they lived directly across the alley from the church. Collins said they were most impacted by this proposed variance (as stated in her letter); she stated that she did not want an expansion of the programs. Collins asked for the proposed seating. Sanchez replied that it was flexible seating, a modular pew chair. Blaich said that there have not been any final decisions made by the sub-committee. Collins asked 4 if this additional space was necessary and did not feel the same with the addition on the back. Collins voiced concern for the lack of landscaping in the alley. 2. Diana Rumsey said that she has been a member of this church for almost 40 years and stated that there were also funerals, weddings and other church functions. Rumsey said there were now 2 dishwashers; the added space of the church was necessary because the plumbing, roof and insulation all needed replacement. Rumsey said that the inside and the outside of this project would be attractive. ~ D d 3. Father Bruce McNab, the pastor of Christ Church, said he records the attendance for every church event; the average number of people in the 1980's and 1990's was 50 or more people attending than this last decade. The current average was 112 attending on Sundays. Father McNab said the reason for the .irr~xovements was to allow for wider isles and not to allow for more seating; it was ~, i ~l,~,' 11 111r~~ e. 4. Lisa Markalunas said that a seating plan was required to the neighbors. The parking was a huge impact from Sunday services, large weddings and funerals as well as the Music Festival and Harris Hall. Markalunas suggested approaching the City to request the cross-town shuttle service be increased. 5. Ann Burrows ran numbers regarding the attendance for the Music tent and Harris Hall that was 83,700 people. 6. Mary Janz suggested moving the organ so that the organ player can see what was going on. 7. Colleen Burrows asked for a re-configuration and a current site plan. Burrows attended a concert last winter and it was stated that they wanted to have more concerts in the future. Burrows said that there was a double standard because this was a church and it was being treated differently; she requested the church follow the same rules. Burrows said the West End was not second homeowners the people that live in this neighborhood were raising their families. 8. Claude Salter stated that they were held to the same changes if there was a remodel or this massive addition; the building still has to be brought up to fire code and accessibility. Salter said that this was about the massing. Salter requested a seating plan. Salter said that alleys were a treasure. 5 9. Steve Falender stated that he lived across the street at 603 West Gillespie and since the last meeting the church has not contacted him. Falender said that the 7 closest people to the church were all raising families here and they were part of the community. Falender said if the church agreed not to have an increased concert schedule that would go a tremendous way and they have neglected to put anything in writing. Falender said that by putting the number of concerts in writing would go a long way to satisfy the neighbors. Falender said P&Z must decide whether it was consistent with the policies to enforce setback requirements ~~1n:T~~'West End. Falender said that in the documents there was a way to ~ppt~-ipc'r'ately evaluate what was an appropriate variance; he requested P&Z reread those sections to determine why the church can't add significantly without going into the rear yard setback. Falender said they have not opposed the increase in FAR or the extensive increase in lot coverage. Falender asked P&Z to request the church meet the rear yard setback and agree to the number of concerts but grant the increased FAR. Falender requested that Community Development review yl~ p a ~~ metal roof for design standards review. IIJ)~ 10. Susan Horsey said that she liked having the church in the neighborhood. Horsey said the Christ Church mission was to share the love; playing music from the great composers. Horsey said the church has open doors. 11. Warren Klug said that he was a member of Christ Church and lived just a few blocks away; all over the country churches were located in residential areas and it works. Klug said the business of Christ Church was to take care of people in the community in respectful and positive ways because it was a place of worship, ministry and renewal. The concerts were small and intimate. The goals were to make the building and the work of the church function better, safer for everybody and a better fellowship area on the main level. Klug said the increase was not that big, it was 128 square feet. 12. Keith Gardner said that the term concert was of major concern for some people; the concerts taking place at the church were maybe a piano or an organ plus a violin; he doubted that they were audible outside the church. 13. David Wiedinmyer from Grassroots Aspen Youth Experience who made their home in the basement of this church in this beautiful neighborhood as a guest; they were moving their program because there was not enough space in the church. 14. Lisa Markalunas asked for clarification on the addition of square footage. Sanchez replied that they were going from the existing 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez said the reason that they were not moving the church forward 6 was because there was an existing tree that they were not allowed to ~~~~~ adjusted the plan and took away 500 square feet. d (~/.5 15. Joan Macney said that she was a deacon at this church and said that there should be an element of trust for the good of the community. Sanchez said the church sent out letters and packets to all of the neighbors. David Guthrie asked if the metal was slate colored. Sanchez replied that it was zinc, which was a velvety textured metal with almost no reflectivity and absorbs `', fight. Blaich stated that this roof replaces asbestos shingles. ~`;. .. LJ Erspamer read the definition of essential public facility (page 10 of the memo) and asked staff to elaborate on that. Sara Adams replied that essential public facility was what they have used in the past to review churches. Erspamer asked if a change in use occurred they would have to come back before P&Z. Jennifer Phelan responded that this was a conditional use so if there was a major amendment to their plan they would have to come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. The commissioners were all good with the GMQS, Conditional Use, Special Review criteria. Erspamer asked what the percentage of site coverage was with the lowered FAR to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez replied that it was probably 36 or 37%. The alley variance discussion included Guthrie commented that they alley that he lived on had setbacks everywhere; all of the alleys had encroachments whether it was a garbage dumpster enclosure or a building, which was part of the messy vitality that used to be desirable here. Brian Speck and Dylan Johns said that there was not a hardship for the setback variance. Johns said that a garage was one nature for an alley variance but a building that was 18 feet tall was another; he said that it was partly a scale matter. Erspamer said dropping the square footage made a difference for him. Adams said that to grant a variance was generally consistent with the purposes goals, objectives and policies of the AACP. Adams said that she demonstrated in other exhibits that they do find that expanding the church for the reasons in the application that meet the AACP, in terms of providing community services. Adams stated to grant a variance there was the minimum variance possible for the 7 .-,, Aspen Plannine & Zonine Meetine Minutes - Aueust 28 2007 ,:~e~sor}~ble use of the parcel, building or structure; based upon the application it was-ihe`minimum variance. Adams noted that the 3`d criteria was hardship and because the applicant was not doing a scrape and replace but working with the existing and difficult form; they were trying to keep the scale down and the shape of the parcel was unique, which was another constraint. There were certain corners that were in the setback and not the entire structure. John Rowland said that this was a minor infraction on the alleys and there was a balancing act. Sanchez utilized the model to show the element that was low scale and the impact was minimal for the benefits that this space will produce t church, congregation and the community. ~~~~~ Erspamer said that listening to what Jennifer and Sara had to say there was a limit on the church activities. Jim True noted that expanded use was not a part of the application. Johns said that functionally speaking there was an argument to take the main portion of the current church and grant that the extension that they were requesting. Johns said that he was having issues with the additional part of the building sharing that same variance, which goes along with the fact that they were having to work with an atypical design space and may need a little more to make full use of the space for their purposes. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2007, approving with conditions, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to approximately 9, 000 square feet though Conditional Use process, an establishment of off-street parking requirements through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite spaces and one (1) stacked space, the required dimensional variances as indicated in Staff's memorandum and recommending City Council approve with conditions, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Seconded by David Guthrie. Roll cal vote: Erspamer, yes; Johns, no; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes. APPROVED 4-1. John Rowland supported staff in the research and code interpretation. Adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 ._ .. __ ~ ~la~~ ~3~~ I~. To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Sara Adams, Preservation Plannex Re: 536 West North Street: Conditional Use Review, Special Review, Dimensional Variances and GMQS Recommendation for an Essential Public Facility Date: August 28, 2007 Subject: Christ Episcopal Church Please limit non- religious programs or activities at the church to the current levels. Our neighborhood is already significantly impacted by Music Festival, Physics Institute and Aspen Institute activities and programs. While we appreciate the Church's willingness to accommodate other non religious programs, we would prefer to see these limited to their current levels. This request is supported by the two following sections excerpted from staff reports. a. On August 7, 2007, Sara Adams, Preservation Planner, presented the following to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, See Exhibit A, GMQS Recommendation, Page 1 of 2. "C. The Proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church serves the Aspen. Community through spiritual guidance and as a non member facility for AA meetings and Ashen Music Festival and School ,performances." b. In the August 28, 2007 Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Sara Adams, the third paragraph of Page 1-2 which you have in your packet, states the following: "After a conversation with the City Attorney, Staff finds that s~ d,~~` the Planning and Zoning Commission feel it necessar~a condition expand it~rogxam such that it is consistent with the Religious Land Use Institutionalizes Persons Act (RLUIPAZand does not burden the Church's freedom of religion." These two statements reflect that the Christ Episcopal Church is presently using their facilities for not only religious activities including but not limited to AA meetings and MAA performances. In reviewing the above statements, the City Attorney and staff find that the Planning and Zoning Commission can include a condition to the resolution to state that the Church is not permitted to expand its present non-religious programs or activities. 2. Before any dimensional variance is considered/ ganted for the rear yard setback, we ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to request the applicant to meet the criteria as defined in Code section 26.314.040, which states "the grant must be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure" and literal enforcement "would derive the applicant of r~hts commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficul ." In our review of all the application documents and staff reports there does not appear to be any demonstration of hardship or practical difficulty if the applicant is required to meet the current 10 feet rear yard setback. No variance should be granted unless there is a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty. 3. Regardless of what conclusions are reached regarding the rear yard setback, we ask that the church be required to provide landscaping that equals or exceeds what is currently in the rear yard. This includes both the number and size of trees and shrubs. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Charles and Janice Collins 531 W. Gillespie St. Aspen, CO 925-3183 August 28, 2007 ~ ~ Pag ~ f~2~J(~. Sara Adams 1 `~~ ~~~ J ~~ From: Anne Burrows (aburrows@masonmorse.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 4:49 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Christ Episcopal Church -please distribute to P&Z August 28, 2007 Dear P&Z Board Members and Sara, I am concerned about the potential impact of increased programming at Christ Episcopal Church following the proposed expansion of the facility. The West End neighborhood has become a traffic and parking nightmare because of numerous events at various West End venues. In addition, cut-through traffic during the afternoon rush hours, both summer and winter, add to the traffic challenges. As you are well aware, there is a tremendous impact on the West End during the summer because of the Aspen Music Festival. After a quick study of the MAA summer calendar, I calculated that the Sunday attendance at the Benedict Music Tent was approximately 27,000 people during the nine-week season. I arrived at that number by figuring 3,000 people each Sunday including the Sunday morning rehearsal as well as tent and lawn seating during the concert. On average, Harris Concert Hall hosted 21 concerts per week amounting to 189 concerts over the summer. Assuming each Harris Hall concert had an average attendance of 300 people, those concerts added another 56,700 people. Together the two venues attracted an astounding 83 700 people during the summer of 2007! If I had considered special MAA and Aspen Institute events at the tent, these numbers would have increased substantially. The majority of people attending events at the Tent and Harris Hall drove their cars. As many as possible parked in the MAA lot, but because parking is limited, overFlow parking spilled onto surrounding neighborhood streets. In the winter, Harris Hall hosts the Academy Screenings, a winter concert series and numerous other events. If we add in the rush hour cut-through traffic, thousands more vehicles use West End streets every day. In summary, the West End neighborhood cannot handle more events that would produce additional traffic and parking problems. Please remember that the Christ Episcopal Church is in a residential neighborhood. Additional 8/29/2007 August 28, 2007 /"s Page 2 of 2 r^4 programming at the church will only exacerbate the traffic and parking problems that already exist. The Church has represented to us that they do not wish to increase their programming and that the expansion of the facility is for the use of their congregation. I would ask P&Z to hold them accountable for this representation and am requesting that the Church present P&Z with a list of their current programs and events, detailing as much as possible the dates, times and number of people at each program or event. As I commented at a previous P&Z meeting, I believe that "If you build it, they will come." We cannot allow that to happen because increased programming equates to more people and more cars which is not appropriate nor acceptable for the West End neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Anne Burrows 505 N. Fifth Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.920.7362 (office) 970.379.0776 (cell) 8/29/2007 ~. ~~~~- ~~~ & Lisa Marlcalunas 15 Williams Ranch court P.O. Box 8253 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970)309-4598 August 27, 2007 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Stteet Aspen, CO 81611 To City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Members: I am writing to express my concern over the plans currently under your review for the significant expansion of Christ Episcopal Church located at Ss' and North Streets in the West End. I grew up just one block from the Church and continue to walk in the neighborhood often and am well awaze of the impacts of traffic and pazking that the services and events at the church have on this residential neighborhood. I specifically wish to address the request fora 2,000 squaze foot FAR bonus on a relatively small site with significant square footage akeady in existence. The granting of such a lazge bonus will only serve to overwhelm the site and will increase the impacts of the new building- on neighboring properties. I am also concerned about the request to build so close to the alley along the north property line and feel that if you grant the requested variance, the new structure will have a much more significant impact on the property owners to the north across the alley than would otherwise be the case. In addition, it will be necessary to remove and/or compromise a great deal of mature landscaping that currently screens neighbors from the existing building. Please also consider the impact of additional traffic and pazking on neighbors that are already significantly impacted by the Music Festival's lack of sufficient parking. Any increase in winter music performances at the church, the accommodation of larger weddings, lazger services and other events all will generate more traffic and parking on existing narrow streets already heavily utilized by traffic circumventing the existing S-curves and cutting through the West End. I appreciate your consideration of these concerns and am hopeful that what is approved on the site will be in keeping with the scale and chazacter of this historic neighborhood. Sincerely, ~~'1~~~ Lisa Markalunas W ~ll F~-I /~ V--1 FW~-~I F~-i U U ~ ~ O U W U Q ~i ,~ ~, ~~~ o r o, ooov O t+1 N ,-. ~ N ~-+ + + U N N U U U .~ .~ .~ 7 , w m N_ N U tG id O H www ~~~ O N ~ O ~--~ l~ 00 N 7 N N ~D ,-. U O ~ ~" wzU bbb ~~~ 0 0 0 as~a a, a, a ~~~ O N N ~ ~ N Q1 ~ ~ N 01 ~ N N U C. O ~ ~ wZc~ ao eo en a ~ ~ .y .y .Y .k .X .X ti ti 'N- W W W w 7 O r. N Y H b 0 a 0 a, w Q\ r. cd O H N .~ W I~Sfi ~ i~ .- r u.t~ u~ ~z ~z z ~~ C~~ J ~J C~ ~~ ~` u.~ ~- U? ~• ~~ r- ~_. .a.dw i33ais Ni~ii .~o_ i33ais aiiii C ~ O C ~ ~ C (6 Q L ~~ ._~ _' m ~ , ._ ~~ ~ u ...:~a~ ®:,: a~ w ~ p w ~O N 0 Sn N _ S O V.y U F u NI O w rv~ ~'.~,tp LA' i\ e~.J F ,. i1 't' j• ''~ h A+~#+. >~~ ~ L1tY~ ~. ~ • Z f ~' fi ~ ~ ~--~ ~~ r. -~ Ih\k if a~r~.c `iw~ ~ ~r4 < 3~ 3 ~,r Vv. ~ ~ ~~ K ~ ~ , p.-- { ' ~'Y ~.~5 tl '~'"f 5 M ~~.~ _ -A -,t ~ X.~~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ "y.-may- ...'~ . _ii1Fi~ ~ `' ~ f..+ }ice.. s ~ 'X 1 .~ r~aN' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ A' ~~ ~;' ,xis,` ~ . ~ r ~ .~` _~~r'~"~ ;,_. S ~l ~. tY' a t~tlu"~=~ y ~ } t _ ~ ~a . ~'~ _ ~ ~ 3 r, x, `..wva~d k ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ R ^ g" ,,s ~i~,~~r'y' ~ ~ t a- t S s a. R" - IP,dStc .y~ .. i . t,~ ~Q s j ~ ?€s, Y . j . ~ ~~ F _~' ~ 1 ~.;..~ s~ r ti.o J1~ Ae lr 3 rte' " ~l6 :' ~ e .J' 3Y 5f ~Y6 14 ~+ . s~, fi- tOt ~~rir, 6'C' . p, -~~~5 Y. N ~ ~~,,J~:~, .Il,' F ~ ae. ~' .. '~ ,df~ y 1f h ~ a'.5 yta3 ~ Y ifCS ~~ H' v~ +~4' 1 ~ L° _ + ` l AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007 DUE TO A LACK OF A QUORUM ON THE 21sT THE PUBLIC HF,ARiNG iS CONTINUED TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON 12:00 p.m. -Site Visit @ Christ Episcopal Church 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF ~i ~~ V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Christ Episcopal Church GMQS and other land use approvals - (continued from August 21S`) -Sara Adams VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN ~,, r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission <. r THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Interim Community Development Deputy Director V FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner RE: 536 West North Street: Conditional Use Review, Special Review, Dimensional Vaziances and GMQS Recommendation for an Essential Public Facility, Continued public hearing from 8/7/07 -Resolution No/Zy~Series 2007 -Public Heariu2 (Parcel 2735-121-11-808) DATE: August 28, 2007 On August 7, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued this application. The main concerns voiced at the August 7s' meeting by the commission members and the public were as follows: I. five feet (5') rear yard setback variance where ten (10') is required 2. on-site parking requirements The applicant submitted a detailed site plan that illustrates proposed landscaping and trees on the site. There is a substantial amount of landscaping proposed for the alley elevation that will help soften the new construction and mass of the building. As stated in the August 7`h Staff memo, Staff finds that a reaz yard setback variance for five feet, where ten feet is required, meets the criteria for granting a vaziance and recommends approval. In response to the parking concerns, Staff added a subsection to "Section 4: Parking Requirements" in the Resolution that states: "Applicant shall provide onsite bicycle storage." The applicant represented a small bike rack along Fifth Street, and is amenable to the conditions in subsection a. The public also expressed concerns about parking in relation to the Church increasing its program as a result of its expansion. After a conversation with the City Attorney, Staff finds that, should the Planning and Zoning Commission feel it necessary, a condition may be added to the Resolution that the Church is not permitted to expand its program such that it is consistent with Religious Land Use Institutionalizes Persons Act (RLUIPA) and does not burden the Church's freedom of religion. Staff recommends that P & Z grant Special Review, Variances, and an Amendment to the Conditional Use, and recommends GMQS approval to City Council. Staff's August 7, 2007 memo, an updated Resolution, and the applicant's new site plan aze attached. ATTACHMENTS: ExxtstT A- P & Z Resolution;~of 2007 ExxtstT B- Staff memo dated August 7, 2007 ExrttetT C- Updated Site Plan EXHIBIT D- Minutes from August 7, 2007 P & Z meeting Page - I - of 2 ,. ~.~ ~-,. ..~ ATTACHMENTS FROM AUGUST 7, 2007: EXHIBIT A - GMQS Criteria ExtnBIT B - Conditional Use Criteria EXHIBIT C - Special Review Criteria ExtttslT D - Planning and Zoning pazking review, August 19, 1980 minutes Exi-Iis[T E - Dimensional Vaziances Criteria ExH[s[T F - Aspen Modern Architecture Paper ExHIBITG- Application Page-2-of6 .:.~. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11,12, 13,14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808. RESOLUTION N0.23, SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,500 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish new off street parking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2007, continued to August 7, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (_ -~ vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 square feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Vaziances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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, P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 1 of 5 ,.. ,, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,500 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established new off street pazking requirements through Special ,Review, certain dimensional Variances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standards, floor area, and off-street pazking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the proposed redevelopment. Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: ~~ The subject property is approved for a total of 9,500 square feet of floor azea for the design presented at the August 7, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the approved design, site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 2 of 5 ,.,., , .. ... d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and pazking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. £ A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Special Review: Parkin¢ Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) pazking spaces and one (1) stacked pazking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of approved parking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. a. Applicant shall provide onsite bicycle storage. Section 5: Trash/[Jtility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 gym,. b- water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved containment facilities. £ Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 9: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: Landscaaina a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required azound all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: 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. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 4 of 5 .~. Section 13: 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 28`~ day of August, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Dylan Johns, Chairman P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 s'a, ~.! TO: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission i ./ Y7 . ...~~ -v ~ THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Interim Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner RE: 536 West North Street: Conditional Use Review, Special Review, Dimensional Vaziances and GMQS Recommendation for an Essential Public Facility, -Resolution No~Series 2007 -Public Hearing (Parce12735-121-11-808) DATE: August 7, 2007 APPLICANT /OWNER: Christ Episcopal Church, 536 West North Street, Aspen, CO. REPRESENTATIVE: Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, 501 Rio Grande Place, Suite 104, Aspen, CO. LOCATION: Lots 11 - 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 536 West North Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6, Medium Density Residential. The church qualifies as "an arts, civic and cultural use," which is permitted as a conditional use in the R-6 zone district. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to increase space for church services and update facilities by demolishing and replacing the addition to the main church building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project, with conditions. SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conditional Use Review to increase the allowable floor area on the lot from 7,1]8 square feet to 9,500 square feet. Special Review is requested to establish new off street parking spaces. Dimensional setback variances are required for the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding GMQS allotments for an Essential Public Facility. ~ Section 26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code defines arts, cultural, and civic uses as "the use of land or buildings by non-profit, arts, cultural, religious, or public organizations such as o church, fraternal club, performing arts theatre... " Page - 1 - of 5 1963 by Chicago azchitecture firm Stanton and Rockwell. ~-.. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: Conditional Use Review for the increase of allowable floor azea pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Special Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430, for the establishment of off- site pazking spaces for a religious facility. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). Dimensional Variances for a rearyard setback and site coverage pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26314. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal)? The following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council: • Growth Mana¢ement Review for an Essential Public Facility for the development of a new addition to the church, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.D.3 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). BACKGROUND' The Episcopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881 during the Mining Era. The architecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by prominent Modern architects and theorists Walter Paepke, Herbert Bayer, and Fritz Benedict. 536 West North Street, the Christ Episcopal Church, is attributed to architect Francis Stanton of the Chicago firm Stanton and Rockwell. Completed in 1962, the Church's Modern form and small scale design contributes to Aspen's West End neighborhood. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The lot area is 15, 599 square feet, and was assigned an allowable floor area of 7,118 square feet for the modest addition to the church, through the Conditional Use Review process in 1976.' In 1980, a rectory was built on the site to provide an employee housing unit; concurrently, the Church was granted a reduction in required off-site parking from 14 spaces to 12 spaces, 4 of which were required to be provided on-site with the remaining 8 spaces held in abeyance for future implementation should there be complaints.5 The Church currently has four spaces, two of which are in a tandem configuration. Z Pursuant to Section 26.304.030.D, the application is consolidated and the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for dimensional variances. ' Modern Architecture in Asuen, context paper written by the Aspen Community Development Department. The current floor area for a single family home in the R-6 zone district for a I5, 599 square foot pazcel is 4, 050 square feet. s During the August 19, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a resolution was not adopted; however a motion was adopted and the minutes serve as record. See Exhibit D. Page-2-of6 ..~ •.. > PROJECT SUMMARY: The Christ Episcopal Church proposes to demolish a 1973/76 modest addition to the Modern arched church building and replace it with a larger, more efficient addition that will serve the existing congregation. The applicant proposes to increase the floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,500 squaze feet. The Growth Management Quota System is triggered by the increase of floor azea on the site, and requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Essential Public Facilityb to City Council. Special Review is requested to newly establish the pazking requirement from the previous 1980 approval, which required four (4) spaces with eight (8) in abeyance, to the proposed five off street pazking spaces. The addition requires dimensional requirements for the rear yard setback and site coverage. Dimensional Chart: ~ ;. ~ ~ r _ ~ ~ s ~ ° is ~ r .. ~tS`~ tt + .fib[ s ~ ~: £^ ~. `° • 4~ ~ ~~C.y.sE4~'~ ~S': ~ . 'e r py ~~' (H' 3`.:~~~3` • ) ~~ Y . -i- ~~~ - Lot Size (squaze feet) 15,599 15,599 6,000 Front Yard Setback 10 10 10 (feet East Side Yard 13' 7" 13'7" -no change 15 Setback (feet) ro osed West "alternate front 9'4" 9' 4" 6' 7" azd" Setback feet Rear Yard Setback 10 5 10 (feet Combined Sideyazd n/a Not applicable as a n/a Setback (feet) corner lot Height (feet) 19' 11" 19' 11" 25 Distance between 23' 8" 10 5 Buildings on Lot (feet) Site coverage 28% 40% maximum is 27% Floor Area Ratio 7,118 9,500 4,470 (for 2 detached dwellings (squaze feet) a 1 s, 599 s ware foot lot) Off Street Pazking 3* 4* Established by Special Review *Note: Pursuant to Section 26.S15.O10.A, parking spaces in a tandem configuration only count as one space. The Church currently has two stacked parking spaces that only count as one space b Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as " a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." Christ Episcopal Church is located on the corner of North Street and Fifth Street. Pursuant to Section 26.575.040.0 Corner Lots, "the remaining yazd bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required front yazd setback distance for the zone district " Page-3-of6 ~., ~,. . ~ ~,.r according to the Aspen Land Use Code. The proposal is to maintain the stacked spaces and to add one additional parking space that meets Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS' GeowTll MANAGEMENT REVIEW: Christ Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility, which requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council. The proposal to increase floor azea of the Church triggers this review; however the Church does not intend to increase employees8, community programs, or congregation membership. A four bedroom rectory, which mitigates for 3.5 employees, houses the two full-time employees of the Church onsite. No new affordable housing is proposed with this application. The design proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and will minimally impact the public infrastructure by updating current building inefficiencies. Growth Management allotments for Essential Public Facilities are granted at the discretion of City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds that the Growth Management criteria are met9 for an Essential Public Facility and recommends approval. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: A Conditional Use review is requested to increase the floor area from 7,118 squaze Feet to 9,500 squaze feet, which involves replacing the existing addition with a larger, more efficient and Code compliant design. The current meeting space is inadequate for the congregation's needs, and the building's mechanical systems and components are failing. Staff finds that the proposal increases building efficiency and ee~ssl2ility, and the desi~n is compatible with the R-6 zone district. Staff finds that the Con ' Tonal Use riteria are mete and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission appro e 9,500 s aze feet of floor area for the site. ~ SFECIAL REVIEW Foe PAexINC: The Aspen Municipal Code does not assign a parking requirement for churches in the R-6 zone district. The previous 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission approval described previously indicates that three onsite parking spaces (with two in a tandem configuration) were approved for the Church, with the condition that this could be revisited at the discretion of the City. The applicant proposes to add one parking space equaling four spaces (two aze stacked). Staff finds that adding more parking to the site would have an adverse impact on open space, site layout, and the compatibility of the Church with the residential neighborhood. In the past 27 years, since the 1980 pazking approval, no additional spaces (those in abeyance) have been added to the site; furthermore, the Pazking Depaztment does not have any record of complaints regarding parking for the Church. Staff, based on a recommendation from the Parking Department, finds that the current offsite parking, public transportation, and other means of transportation are sufficient at this time. DIMENSIONAL cES:^~ a osal requires the following variances: a reaz yard setback variance, f e feet (5') is provided ere ten feet (10') is required; and a variance for site coverage forty percent (40%) covera e is provided, where twenty-seven percent (27%) is the a Currently the Church employs two full time employees and [wo part-time employees. Exhibit A. 10 Exhibit B. Page-4-of6 ...., maximum. Staff finds that the variances are appropriate for the site, meet the criteria and recommends approval. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Engineering Department and Parking Department have reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP, as well as, the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MIS A~WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No Series of 2007, approving with conditions, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to square feet through the Conditional Use process, an establishment of off-street pazking requi ments through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite spaces and one stacked spa e, the required dimensional vaziances as indicated in Staff's memorandum, and recommending at City Council approve with conditions, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public ility." ATTACHMENTS: ~~~ EXHIBIT A - GMQS Criteria EXHIBIT B - Conditional Use Criteria EXHIBIT C - Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT D - Planning and Zoning pazking review, August 19, 1980 minutes EXHIBIT E - Dimensional Variances Criteria EXHIBIT F - Aspen Modern Architecture Paper ExH~sITG- Application ~~Db° ~/ l fi` ~ ~ Page-5-of6 ~~ ~ 'p ..e ,~ & Zonine Commission Meeting Minutes -Aug st 7 ould generate. Vann responded there would clearly be an increa in the level of a 'vity that currently was being done in this area; there were pr osals to transport indi 'duals from Ruby Park and other hotels along Dean Ave e and Durant via the tro ey system. Vann said the street section was designe to handle the level of traffic. Guthrie asked~i~hen the time was to ask about the 1 ge hotel vehicles driving one person two block's~and how that could be dealt w' ;this was like a private limo service. Phelan staffed that this was a public ri t-of--way, which was a much broader scope than ju~this application. Gu ie said that he could not put the community issues on this one project. MOTION: David Guthrie n incorporating Exhibit D, the cabins as affordable housing the volleyball courts timing, ~ by Brian Speck. Roll call vqt no. APPROVED 3-1. ~ approve Resolution #22, series of 2007 including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder cider funding options for their rehabilitation , the location of the Ski Museum; seconded Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, LJ Erspamer explai d that the application does not~romote the efficient use of land with the cha e of conservation zone to lodge. amer said he would like to see this proje become pedestrian friendly; there was t much traffic and parking was a roblem. Erspamer thanked the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking requirements; and Dimensional Variances. Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with 4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the 6 ~~ needs of the church; it was in context with the neighborhood and the addition was sensitive and brings the building into accessibility requirements by the code. Commission questions were regarding the site coverage amount requested. Adams said the maximum was 27% and the applicant was requesting 40%; the building was one story, well below the height limit and fit into the neighborhood. The rectory was 4 bedrooms and currently housed the 2 full time employees. Jim DeFrancia said that he was chairman of the building committee; the objective was to make more efficient use of the facility for the present uses. DeFrancia said that they were not planning an expansion of the congregation; they were redesigning the spaces to be more efficient. Some other current uses for the church included AA, the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Youth Experience, La Leche, AIA, and holiday baskets; it was clearly a community facility. DeFrancia stated they wanted to bring the facility into compliance with the code. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said the intent was to provide appropriate worship fellowship support spaces for the current congregation and the community; code compliance; sustainability and accessibility were primary goals. Sanchez said to comply with the current plumbing codes they were adding additional plumbing fixtures. There would be new heating, ventilation and lighting improving energy consumption and proper building insulation. Sanchez said they were adding fire suppression systems providing a line of safety that doesn't exist now. Sanchez said they wanted to maintain the shape and form of this church and add an element similar in mass, which was a little bit smaller, and connect the two separate modules with a glass circulation space but keep the residential rhythm for this neighborhood. The new addition drops down to 18 feet 6 inches in the back. Sanchez stated they were increasing the off-street parking spaces to 5 but taking out the stacked spaces comes to 4. To accommodate the 1980 approval of parking spaces they would not be able to utilize this development plan; there would be loss of open space by providing the parking on site. Sanchez said the setback was the minimum that they could ask for and the setback only touched at 2 places. DeFrancia said that they communicated with the neighbors sending letters to about 50 neighbors twice and held a meeting on August lst with 2 neighbors attending. The architectural harmony will be kept throughout the building even in the back. It was not their intent to expand any uses of the church. 7 Ashen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7.2007 LJ Erspamer asked if the building was a designated landmark. Sara Adams replied that it was not. Erspamer asked what the single family house was; did it have one kitchen. DeFrancia replied that it was the rector's house and his wife that were employed by the church and lived there in the single family detached house, which had 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room. Erspamer asked when this was approved does this eliminate the abeyance for parking. Adams responded yes that it would establish new parking requirements. Public Comments: 1. Claude Salter said that parking was a problem in the neighborhood with the uses in the church and the music going on in the tent. Salter said the distance between the buildings was not consistently 10 feet apart; she disagrees with the rear yard setback given the massing that they were adding. Salter said the code allowed the choir to be kept and section 1024.5 of the IBC was the accessibility issue. 2. Ann Burrows said that she lived to the south of the church and voiced concern was for traffic and increased traffic. 3. Warren Klug said that he was a member of the church and the church was a public facility that provides services for lots of community residents and a community gathering place. Klug said that the development of this building was to make it better and more usable; he noted houses in the neighborhood had master bedroom suites that were bigger than this additional square footage. The variances make the building work better; the building remains appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Klug said the basement is currently not accessible to handicapped and the renovation plan was very modest. 4. Steve Fallendar said that he lived across the street and the additional square footage was considerable; he said the basement increase in space was also significant. Fallendar asked that the resolution include that there will not be a school at this location. Fallendar said that he was nervous about metal used as the material; he questioned the landscape. 5. Colleen Collins letter was placed into the record. Collins said you could get the same number of seats without increasing the square footage. 6. Bob Blaich said that everything that is done in this community affects someone; this project has a high level of merit and it will benefit the community. Jim DeFrancia commented that the extension of the church by 12 feet was a function of design; the extension will have a construction area so the landscaping 8 ,•, -A will come down but they will be sensitive to the finish design of the back side of the church as well as replacing the landscaping. DeFrancia said that they cannot convert to a school; they would have to go back through the process with a whole different set of requirements. DeFrancia said they have made a representation into the public record of their intensions of lack of expanded uses. DeFrancia said that they do not anticipate a metal roof, currently they were looking at a slate roof. Erspamer asked for explanations on special events and parking issues for the next meeting. DeFrancia said that there have not been any parking problems from the church. Erspamer asked for a site visit. Phelan said that she would set up a site visit. Adams said there was a survey in the packet dated December 2006, which shows the alley is 20 feet. Rowland said that it was a great piece of architecture and was respectful to the neighborhood; he said the setbacks concerned him. Rowland asked that a shuttle or other form of transportation be considered for big special events. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the Christ Episcopal Church hearing to August 21 S`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in favor. Transcribed by: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 ~^ ,_, `~' `~' s/zi2oo7 Growth Management Ouota System Recommendation: Section 26.470.040.D.3- Essential Public Facilitvt The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: A. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and /or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the'needs of the community." Since 1881, the Christ Episcopal Church serves both members and non-members of the public from religious services to AA meetings. Staff finds that this criterion is met. B. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030. D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Response: The project does not expect to increase programs and capacity with the proposed addition; therefore affordable housing mitigation is not required. Based on the use of the proposal, no Growth Management allotments are required for the proposed changes to the Essential Public Facility. Staff finds that this criterion is met. C. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church serves the Aspen community through both spiritual guidance and as anon-member facility for AA meetings and Aspen Music Festival and School performances. The proposal perpetuates the Church's current role in "nurturing intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations" listed in the AACP. The design proposal retains an important Modem building in Aspen, and replaces an addition with a sensitive design that is compatible with the Modern azchitecture and the residential neighborhood, which meets the AACP policy on design quality and historic preservation. Transportation and housing goals of the AACP are met with the proposed development as the current congregation and number of employees will not be increased. The Church is situated in Aspen's West End neighborhood with adequate public transportation services. ~ The application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 2007 and is subject to the regulations in place at the time of submittal. Exhibit A GMQS Recommendation G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibit.doc Page 1 of 2 8/2/2007 Parking is addressed in Special Review criteria, Exhibit C. Staff finds that the AACP is met. D. A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposed development will not increase the Church's program and therefore is not expected to increase the number of employees. The Church currently mitigates for 3.5 employees with a four bedroom rectory located onsite, which will remain unchanged. There aze two full-time employees and two part-time employees on staff; the two full-time employees aze housed in the rectory. Staff finds that criterion d is not applicable, as no new employees are generated with this proposal. E. Free market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied with affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposal does not include a free market residential component. F The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements propose das part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Response: One of the primary reasons for this proposal is to increase energy efficiency and update the building to comply with current building code and accessibility requirements. The applicant proposes to update systems and components that will minimize impacts on the public infrastructure. One additional onsite parking space is proposed. Staff finds that criterion f is met. Exhibit A GMQS Recommendation G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibit.doc Page 2 of 2 ,-. ,~ '" s/2/2o0~ Conditional Use: Section 26.425.040 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standazds aze met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title; and Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church expansion will provide the current congregation with more meeting space and increase energy efficiency and accessibility. The Church facilities serve both the congregation and the Aspen community through various events, which meet the AACP philosophy to "nurture intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations." The one story addition meets the intent of the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District. The proposed mass is modest in scale and proportion, reads as a separate module with a short glass connector piece, and is below the maximum height in the R-6 district. The Church is not a designated historic landmazk, but the azchitecture is significant to Aspen's Modern history. The applicants are sensitive to the unique form of the Church and, despite the fact that the Church is not designated historic; the proposal meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for a new addition. The applicants propose to maintain open space on the site, which helps the Church blend into the West End neighborhood; this requires a reduction in paking requirements established in 1980 and dimensional variances for the reaz and east sideyard setbacks. Staff finds that criterion a is met. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church has occupied the site for the past 45 years, since 1962. This conditional use is consistent and compatible with the residential neighborhood and enhances the mixture of activities in the R-6 zone district without adversely affecting the neighborhood's integrity. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Exhibit B Conditional Use Criteria G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\Conditional UseExhibit.doc Page 1 of 2 ,. , sizizoo~ Staff Response: The proposed conditional use application seeks to expand the cttrrent floor azea on the site from 7, 118 square feet to 9,500 square feet. The congregation does not intend to expand membership; rather the additional square footage will increase energy efficiency, meet accessibility and building code requirements, and increase meeting space capacity. The proposed visual impacts are minimal and, in Staff s opinion, the proposed design of the addition greatly improves upon the current inadequate addition. The current ramp system that cuts across the front yard will be replaced with an elevator that meets accessibility requirements. The new mass is connected to the barrel vaulted Church with a glass connector piece, which successfully breaks up the density on the site. The applicant paid close attention to the alley elevation by sloping the roof of the addition towazd the reaz of the lot to minimize height impacts on the neighbors. The applicant requests dimensional variances from the R-6 zoning requirements and establishment of new parking requirements on the site. ~ The congregation does not plan on increasing membership with this addition, therefore, Staff finds that there are minimal impacts on the neighborhood and criterion c is met. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Response: The proposal will increase building efficiencies,Z which in turn, decreases the current impact on public facilities. Staff finds that criterion d is met. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Response: The Church provides housing onsite for two full-time employees. There aze a total of two full-time employees and two part-time employees. The Church is not increasing the number of employees with the new addition and currently mitigates for 3.5 employees onsite; therefore Staff finds that the need for affordable housing is met and criterion e is fulfilled. ~ See Exhibit C and E for explanation Z See exhibit A, part F, for a brief explanation. Exhibit B Conditional Use Criteria G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\Conditional UseExhibit.doc Page 2 of 2 .~. ~. siz/zoos Special Review for Parking: 26.515.040 Special Review Standazds. Whenever the off-street pazking requirements of a proposed development aze subject to Special Review, an application shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304, and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, vazying, or waiving off-street pazking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff Response: In 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved through Special Review twelve (12) onsite parking spaces, with the condition that the Church would provide four (4) spaces onsite (two aze stacked), which left eight (8) in abeyance to be provided onsite should there be complaints about parking in the future. Since 1980, no additional parking spaces have been added. Staff finds that the addition of one more parking space, for a total of five (5) spaces (two are stacked) is sufficient given the proximity to public transportation, and that the design proposal does not increase the programmatic goals of the Church. Furthermore, the Parking Department does not have a record of any complaints regazding Church parking. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically diffcult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff Response: Under the current Code, there is no definitive parking requirement for a Church in the R-6 zone district. The previous parking requirement, adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1980, required four spaces (two of which are stacked) onsite, with eight spaces in abeyance with the condition that the City could require the implementation of these spaces based on complaints. The applicant is proposing one additional parking space, which will bring the total onsite parking to five spaces, so that although one space of the five is obstructed due to the tandem configuration, four spaces are unobstructed. Exhibit C Special Review Criteria G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\SpecialReviewforPazking.doc Page 1 of 2 ~" 8izizoo~ Increasing the amount of onsite pazking would negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood. The proposal does not intend to increase the program or membership of the Church. Staff finds that the four spaces plus one stacked space are appropriate for the site, and providing more pazking would produce an undesirable result in the neighborhood. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The off-site parking facilities, public transportation, and other means of transportation serve the needs of the Church, as they have since 1962. The City never enacted its authority, as per the approvals in 1980, to increase the onsite pazking at the Church. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Exhibit C Special Review Criteria G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\SpecialReviewforParking.doc Page 2 of 2 ,... t, , Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1960 Employee Units in Lodges ROSOlUtion Christ Episcopal Church Condition Use Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Hunt suggested an automatic 45 day extension which would save time. Ms. Smith said the people working on revising the Code will look at this. Hedstrom said the Christ Episcopal Church public hearing would be held later. Karen Smith, planning director, told the Board the staff had misread the Board's wishes on this resolution. The Hoard had wanted to be more liberal in the single family zone district and review an unlimited amount of expansion by special review. Anderson moved to approve and adopt Resolution 00-09 and to strike the word "or" in the second line of the first para- graph; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Karen Smith said this was discussed at a previous P & Z meeting; she is ready to answer questions and to bring to the Board a compromise worked out by staff, the Church and neighbors. Ms. Smith said there was a question whether this required conditional use; it does because it is the location of parking on the lot of a conditional use in the R-6 zone. The Church is a conditional use and any expansion or modification requires approval. P 6 Z is being asked to approved a reduction of parking and to approve the config- uration of that parking. Ms. Smith recommended as a compromise that the parking be reduced from 19 to 12 with 4 implemented right now and 8 spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets. Ms. Smith presented a revised site plan; the 4 spaces to be implemented now are to be behind the Rectory with an access driveway off the alley. The conditions of this approval should be with the understanding that the Rectory is not on a separate parcel; the five lots comprise one undivided parcel. Any division in interest would require subdivision or exception. Separating the lots would dimin- ish the ability to service the Church with parking. Another condition is to reserve the right, if parking is insufficient, for any .party to be able to seek review of the parking with increase to 19, or the reconfiguration of parking through a condition use hearing. The soonest this should be reconsidered is in one year. It has been sug- guested a landscaping plan should be given to the planning office; there has been no agreement on this. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said he is not inclined., from an engineering standpoint, to recommend a reduction to 4 spaces. Hammond had recommended there be 10 spaces. The configuration is a special consideration in view of the neighborhood; however, Hammond said he was not that comfortable with 4 spaces. Ms. Smith said two of the spaces will be used for the Rectory. The parking is accessed off the alley and people will probably tend to use the street. The neighborhood feels that the sporadic park- ing is tolerable. Hedstrom agreed the planning office and P & Z should accede to compromise dictated by the wishes of the neighbors and the need of the Church. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Nick McGrath, representing Charles Collins who resides directly across the alley from the Church. McGrath stated r ~ Exhibit D ... Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes~ugust 19, 1980 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves . ,. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning s Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes no matter how much parking is behind the Church Will not fulfill the needs of the Church. A problem with putting too much parking behind the Rectory is the alley itself. The alley entrance is very narrow and in the winter it is difficult to use. McGrath said his client would prefer parking, if any, to the front of the Church with a curb cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath supported asking the Church to file a landscaping plan with the planning office. Charles Shepard, the Church, said they supported the reduc- tion. They originally thought a large amount of parking was required. Shepard said they do intend to landscape; however, he would prefer not to be tied down to a specific plan. But if the P & Z directs they have a plan, they will. Hunt asked if the parking were to be increased to 12 or 14, would the parking lot be paved. Otherwise there would be a terrible dust problem. Ms. smith said that was discussed but was not part of the recommendation but it could be included with the review criteria. Hedstrom asked about the parking in the front and the idea that it may be preferable. Ms. Smith said it was discussed and the engineering department expressed reservation at the time. Ms. Smith said this is mainly an engineering matter. Ms. Smith said she felt the visual impact on the front would be even greater. The Church is neutral on this question. Hedstrom said the parking in the front of the Church was probably continue until the city enforces a curb and gutter in that area. Anderson said with the Codes the parking could not be done in front. Ms. Klar agreed the impact seemed to be landscaping over parking, and that is the direction they should head. George Stark supported McGrath's view point. Pam Beck questioned parking in the alley and having the snow plowed. It may be impossible to park there at all. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt moved to recommend the reduction in parking from 14 to 12; approving the parking configuration of 4 spaces now as proposed with 8 held in abeyance and conditioned upon (1) five lots constituting one undivided development and (2) right is reserved to review numbers and configuation of parking including requirement to pave spaces and alley on an annual basis in response to complaint of interested party, and (3) file a landscape plan; Hunt amended .His -. motion to include in condition number 1 that the five lots constituting one undivided development and that the entire parcel is integral to the parking needs of the Church; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, mo~ion carried. ~ ~ Kathryn Koc ~t~ Exhibit D Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, Augus[ 19, 1980 8/2/2007 Dimensional Variances from the Requirements of the R-6 Zone District: Section 26.314.040 Standazds auplicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Response: The variance will support the development proposal that meets the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, as demonstrated in the other review criteria of this application. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Response: The variances requested are the minimum needed to utilize the pazcel and maintain the important architecture of the barrel vaulted church building. Staff finds that the proposed design strikes a balance that is sensitive to the unique shape of the church and the residential neighborhood, while meeting the programmatic needs of the congregation and local community. The proposal maintains a low plate height and expresses the new massing in modules that read as separate buildings and relate to the surrounding residences. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply.• a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Response: The original form of the Christ Episcopal Church remains intact on the pazcel, and the proposal is sensitive in scale, massing and form to the Modern architecture. Staff commends the applicant for preserving the Modern form, despite the fact that the Church is not a designated landmark. The restriction that the 1962 Church Exhibit E Dimensional Vaziances G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\Dimensional Vaziances.doc Page 1 of 2 k, ~t siaiaoo~ building creates on the lot is unique, as is the Conditional Use. Staff finds that the dimensional variances are appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. • Exhibit E Dimensional Vaziances G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\Dimensional Vaziances.doc Page 2 of 2 8/2/2007 ASPEN'S 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: MODERNISM The Modernist Movement Modernism as a style of azchitecture describes the works that were produced beginning in the 20`h century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. The roots of this style can be attributed in great part to the Industrial Revolution, which led to dramatic social changes, and an inclination to react against all that had come before. In addition there was a new abundance of raw materials, including bricks, timber, and glass; and stronger materials, particularly metals, which allowed structural innovations. Initially, the modern technologies were employed in ways that reflected much of the preference for decoration and organic design that had preceded the 20s' century, for instance in the Arts and Crafts Style of the 1920's and the influential designs of Frank Lloyd Wright. As the century progressed, however, the demands of the automobile, and the need for buildings to serve uses previously unknown, such as airports, led to the seazch for a new architectural vocabulary. The streamlined and austere became more relevant. "Functionalism" and "Rationalism" were terms used to describe azchitectural philosophies related to this period. "Modern building codes had replaced rules of thumb."I "Architecture was seen primazily as volume and not mass. So the stress was on the continuous, unmodulated wall surface- long ribbon windows without frames, cut right into the wall plane, horizontally or vertically disposed; flush joints; flat roofs. Corners were not made prominent. Technically, the argument went, materials like steel and reinforced concrete had rendered conventional construction- and with it cornices, pitched roofs, and emphatic corners-obsolete. There would be no applied ornament anywhere, inside or out...A house was a machine made for living Le Corbusier provocatively declazed in 1923 in his Towazds a New Architecture, which has proved the most influential book on azchitecture in this (the 20`h) century."Z Modernism in Aspen The period between the Silver Crash in 1893 and the end of World Waz II saw little new construction in Aspen. This changed when interest began to grow in developing a major ski resort, and when Walter Paepcke envisioned the town as the ideal setting for a community of intellect, cultural institutions, and pristine natural environment. As a result of this renaissance taking place, many ~ Robert Frankeberger, and James Garrison, "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism, and Beyond: Architectural Resources in the National Parks," Fomm Joumal. The Joumal of the National Tmst for Historic Preservation Summer 2002, p. 16. Z Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture: Settines and Rituals, (New York:Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 701. Exhibit F Page 1 of 14 Walter Paencke .-, 8i2i2oo7 important architects were drawn to live and work here and left an imprint of the philosophies of the modernist period on the town. The two masters who had the lazgest influence on Aspen, Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer, aze discussed at length in this paper, along with a number of others who completed notable works here. FRITZ BENEDICT Frederic "Fritz" Benedict (b. 1914- Medford, Wisconsin, d. 1995- Aspen, Colorado) was the first trained architect to arrive in Aspen at the end of World War II. Benedict had earned a Bachelor's Degree and Master's Degree in Landscape. Architecture at the University of Wisconsin before being invited to Frank Lloyd Wright's school, Taliesen, in Spring Green, Wisconsin in 1938. Initially, Benedict's role at Taliesen was as head gazdener, but his interest in Wright's philosophy of the integration of azchitecture and landscape led him to study design at both Taliesen and Taliesen West in Phoenix, Arizona for the next three years. Benedict, an avid skier, first visited Aspen as a participant in the National Skiing Championships held here in 1941, apparently told of the charms of the town by Frank Mechau, an artist whom he met at Taliesen and who resided in Redstone, Colorado. In 1942, Benedict was drafted to serve with the lOc' Mountain Division troops, an elite group of skiers who trained at Camp Hale, north of Leadville, Colorado. On weekends, the soldiers would often travel to Aspen for recreational skiing. Benedict saw active duty in Italy and served with the 10`s Mountain Division until the end of the waz in 1945. He returned to Aspen and purchased a ranch at the top of Red Mountain, focusing on operating the property as his livelihood for some time. According to Benedict, "The place (Aspen) was so dead and was starting to be a resort so slowly that there wasn't much to do in the way of design." 3 This situation changed for good after 1946, when noted artist Herbert Bayer arrived in Aspen with Walter Paepcke, and the duo's plans for the town brought more people and a new period of construction. Through Herbert Bayer, Fritz met his future wife, Fabienne, the sister of Bayer's wife Joella. Fabi persuaded Fritz to quit ranching and pursue azchitecture, which he did after being awazded a license under a grandfather clause that allowed architects to be licensed based on experience, rather than on testing. Benedict was known for setting buildings into the landscape in an unobtrusive and harmonious way, clearly derived from his landscape architecture education and the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright. He placed a high priority on creating an intimate relationship between a house and its garden. Benedict was a pioneer of passive solar and ' Adete Dusenbury, "When the Architect Arrived After the War," The Aspen Times July 31, 1975, p. 1-B. Exhibit F Page 2 of 14 Fritz Benedict 8/2/2007 earth shelter design. He experimented with caz-free village design, sod roofed structures, and solaz buildings. His master work, the Edmundson Waterfall house, which was strongly related to Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, exhibited many of these qualities and all of the central characteristics of Wrightian design, including a low pitched roof, strong horizontal emphasis of the structure, and the use of mitred windows at building corners. The most important of Benedict's works may best be defined by the examples that cleazly represent Wrightian ideas, or where innovation was key. Waterfall House, on Castle Creek Road, Pitkin Counry,1960 Benedict's earliest projects in Aspen were residences. In collaboration with his brother-in- law, Herbert Bayer, he also helped to design the buildings of the Aspen Institute, the intellectual center of Paepcke's facilities. Other known works by Benedict include the cabin at 835 W. Main Street (1947), the John P. Mazquand studio on Lake Avenue (1950, since demolished), the Copper Kettle (1954, 845 Meadows Road), Bank of Aspen (1956, 119 S. Mill Street), 625 and 615 Gillespie Avenue (1957), the original Pitkin County Library (1960, 120 E. Main Street), the Aspen Alps (1963, 777 Ute Avenue- the first luxury condominiums in 835 W. Main Street. 1947 the Rocky Mountains), the Bidwell Building, (1965, 434 E. Cooper Avenue), Aspen Squaze (1969, 617 E. Cooper Avenue), The Gant (1972, 610 S. West End Street), the Benedict Building (1976, 1280 Ute Avenue), the Aspen Club Townhouses (1976, Crystal Lake Road), and Pitkin County Bank (1978, 534 E. Hyman Avenue) In total, Benedict designed and renovated over 200 homes and buildings in Aspen and Snowmass a g _---~-.- The Copper Kettle, ]954 Mary Eshbaugh Hayes. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel, Aspen, Colorado. :~-_ Exhibit F Page 3 of 14 434 E. Cooper Avenue, 1965 8/2/2007 Benedict's works in Pitkin County, outside of Aspen's city limits, include two personal residences, the Waterfall house (1960, since demolished), the Aspen Music School campus, and the Aspen Highlands base lodge (since demolished). Benedict also did the master plan for Snowmass (1967), Vail (1962) and Breckenridge (1971.) Fritz Benedict was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in 1985, by election of his peers. This is a lifetime honor bestowed on registered azchitects who have made outstanding contributions to the profession, and only 5% of the profession receive this honor. The nomination submitted stated that "Frederic `Fritz' Benedict left a legendary influence on design and construction in the Rocky Mountain West...(creating) classics of the mountain vernacular."5 He was given the Greg Mace Award in 1987 for epitomizing the spirit of the Aspen community, was inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame in 1988 and the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame in 1995, and was given the "Welton Anderson" award for his contribution to Aspen's built environment by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in 1993. In all cases Benedict was recognized for being a pioneer of Aspen's rebirth as a resort community. Many quotes from his memorial service in 1995 attest to the community's respect for his role in Aspen's history. Bob Maynard, former president of the Aspen Skiing Company stated "Aspen was fortunate fifty yeazs ago to be wakened from her sleep by visionazies. The trio of Benedict, Bayer, and Paepcke combined dreams and hope and reality uniquely to restore a community ravaged by mining, trapped in poverty- yet willing to follow the dreamers."6 Similarly, the Aspen Times stated at his death, "Along with the late Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke and his Bauhaus trained brother-in-law Herbert Bayer, all of whom came to Aspen with a rare vision in the traumatic wake of World Waz II, Benedict was one of the fathers of modern Aspen, a man whose azchitecture not only helped shape the city aesthetic, but whose personal commitment to the original dream of a special `Aspen Ideal' made him the guazantor of the city's very soul."~ Local resident and fellow student of Taliesen, Charles Paterson stated, "Whatever he was building was one jump ahead.s8 Aside from his azchitectural contributions, Benedict influenced the Aspen environment in several other ways. Benedict and his wife donated more than 250 acres of land within Pitkin County for open space. He was the father of the 10`" Mountain Hut system (established in 1980), and served as the first chairman of Aspen's Planning and Zoning Commission, developing height and density controls for the City, open space preservation, a City parks system, a sign code, and a ban on billboards. He played a significant role in the founding of the Aspen Institute, and the International Design Conference. He served on the boazd of the Music Associates of Aspen for 35 years. 5 Joanne Ditmer, The Denver Post, as reprinted in the program for the Fritz Benedict Memorial Service. c Robert A. Maynard, Remazks given at Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service. Mary Eshbaugh Hayes, "Fritz Benedict, ] 914-1995: The Passing of a Local Legend," The Aspen Times July 15 and 16, 1995, cover page. e Charles Paterson, Remarks given a[ Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service. Exhibit F Page 4 of 14 /"A J f'"+.. 8/2/2007 HERBERT BAYER Herbert Bayer (b. 1900- Austria, d. 1985- Santa Bazbaza, California) was an artist of many disciplines. He apprenticed with architects in his native country Austria, and in Germany, starting at the age of 18. In 1921 he entered the most reknowned art and design school of the 20`h century, the Bauhaus in Weimar, Germany. The Bauhaus, which existed from 1919 to 1933, was begun in a spirit of social reform and represented a rejection of many design ideas that preceded it. "From skyscrapers to doorknobs, modern design was born, really, at the Bauhaus. The ideas of the Bauhaus shaped whole cities, changed architecture, modified the nature of furniture design and transformed the essential implements of daily life." 9 Bayer was named the head of the typography workshop at the Bauhaus in 1925 and was ultimately Herbert Bayer one of three masters named by director Walter Gropius, the other two masters being the gifted Josef Albers and Marcel Breuer. In 1928, Bayer left the school and established his own studio in Berlin, then becoming the art director for Vogue magazine. As Nazism gained strength in Germany, Bayer fled the country and immigrated to New York City in 1938. There, he had his first show with the Museum of Modern Art, and began to work as art director for corporations and ad agencies. By 1946, all of his work was for Walter Paepcke at the Container Corporation of America and Robert O. Anderson at the Atlantic Richfield Corporation, both of whom had an interest in Aspen and the establishment of the Aspen Institute. Walter Paepcke brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he served until 1976. Bayer was offered the chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration. -.*:" The Sundeck, 1946 on the grounds), Aspen Meadows On April 1, 1960, Bayer received a license to practice azchitecture in Colorado, without examination. He had no formal training in the discipline, so he generally worked in association with another firm, particularly with Fritz Benedict. The Sundeck on Aspen Mountain (1946, since demolished) was the first of his designs that was ever built. At the Institute, Bayer designed the Seminaz Building and it's sgraffito mural (1952, the first building Guest Chalets (1954, since demolished and e Beth Dunlop, "Bauhaus' Influence Exceeds It's Life," The Denver Post April 20, 1986. Exhibit F Page 5 of 14 ~: , ~-~ s/z/zoo? reconstructed), Central Building (1954), the Health Center (1955), Grass Mound (1955, which pre-dates the "earthwork" movement in landscape design by 10 years and was one of the first environmental sculptures in the country), the Marble .Sculpture Gazden (1955), Walter Paepcke Memorial Building (1962), the Institute for Theoretical Physics Building (1962, since demolished), Concert Tent (1964, removed in 2000), and Anderson Park (c. 1970.) Bayer also led the design for the rehabilitation of the Wheeler Opera House (1950-1960), designed two personal residences on Red Mountain (1950 and 1959), and other homes in Aspen, including those still in existence at 240 Lake Avenue (1957) and 311 North Street (1963). Aspen Meadows Health Center, 1955 The period during which most of Bayer's architecture was designed is confined to 1946-1965. Important characteristics of his buildings. were simplicity and the use of basic geometrical shapes and pared down forms. He was heavily influenced by Bauhaus and The Marble Sculpture Garden, 1955 International Style principles. Color was an important component to some of his work, and he often used primary red, blue and yellow graphics. Bayer paint scheme Bayer believed in the concept of designing the total human environment and that art should be incorporated into all areas of life. He drew logos and posters for the Aspen Skiing Company, and even designed signs for small Aspen businesses. He provided the paint color schemes for certain Victorians that Paepcke's Aspen Company decided should be saved in the 1940's. A strong blue color, known locally as "Bayer Blue" was one of his selections and can still be seen on the former Elli's building (101 S,. Mill) and other locations in town. His choice of a bright pink for Pioneer Park (442 W. Bleeker) and a bold paint scheme that once existed on the Hotel Jerome will also be remembered. Exhibit F Page 6 of 14 Aspen Institute Seminar Building, 1952 F~ 8i2i2oo7 Bayer spent 28 years living in Aspen and was one of the first artists to make his home here. A Rocky Mountain News article from 1955 stated "Even in competition with millionaire tycoons, best-selling novelists, and top-ranking musicians, Herbert Bayer is Aspen's most world-famous resident.s10 During his yeazs in Aspen, he resided at times at 234 W. Francis, a Victorian home in the West End, in an apartment in a downtown commercial building, 501 E. Cooper Avenue, and in his home on Red Mountain. Bayer moved to Santa Bazbaza for health reasons in 1975 and died there ten years later, the last surviving Bauhaus master. Notable among Bayer's many achievements include his credits in typography. He designed the "universal" type font in 1925 and was credited with "liberating typography and design in advertising and r ~'` creating the very look of advertising we take for granted today."~ ~ Much ~` of modern print design reflects his ideas. He was the inventor of photomontage. Bayer created the "World Geo-Graphic Atlas" in 1953, which was described as one of the most beautiful books ever printed in $"`~` this country by the Atlantic Monthly and the greatest world atlas ever poster, 1946 made in the United States by Publisher's Weekly. Bayer created the famed "Great Ideas of Western Man" advertisement series for the Container Corporation of America and had more than 50 one-man exhibitions of his artistic works. His paintings are represented in the collections of at least 40 museums. He spent six decades of his life working as a painter, photographer, typographer, architect, sculptor, designer of graphics, exhibitions, and landscapes. His last work was the 85 foot tall, yellow articulated wall sculpture at the Denver Design Center, which can be viewed from I-25, neaz Broadway in Denver. Bayer founded the International Design Conference in Aspen in 1950 and was named a Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in 1953. He was the Chair of the City and County Zoning Committee for five years and was very concerned with the issues of sprawl. Bayer promoted increased density in town, put the original tree protection ordinance in place, and helped institute the ban on billboards. ARCHITECTS OF NOTE Charles Paterson was born Karl Schanzer in Austria in 1929. His mother died in his youth, and his father fled Austria, taking Charles and his sister when Hitler invaded in 1938. They traveled first to Czechoslovakia and then to France. Once there it was decided that the only way to get the two children out of Europe entirely was to allow 10 Robert L. Perkin, "Aspen Rebom: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," The Rockv Mountain News September 27, 1955. "Joanne Ditmer, "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale," The Denver Post October 1, 1997, p. IOG. Exhibit F Page 7 of 14 8/2/2007 them to be adopted by a family in Australia, whom Mr. Schanzer knew through business connections. Relocated to that country in 1940, the children took on the family's name; Paterson. Their father fought in the war and was eventually reunited with his children in New York City, after they immigrated. In New York City, Charles "Charlie" Paterson started engineering school, but he had an interest in skiing and was disappointed with the conditions in the area. He moved west in 1949, stopping in Denver. There, he worked for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad and skied on weekends. On one ski trip, Paterson met someone who had been to Aspen, and decided to hitchhike there a week later. After finding a job as a bellhop at the Hotel Jerome, he decided to stay. Within a month of his arrival in Aspen, Charlie Paterson bought three lots on West Hopkins Avenue, shortly followed by another three that comprised a full half a block between Fifth and Sixth Streets. There he built cone-room cabin in 1949 out of leftover lumber. Paterson returned to New York from 1950-1951 to continue his studies, then moved back to Aspen and began expanding the cabin. In 1952, he leased a Victorian house that had been operating under the name "Holiday House," and his father came to town to help out. This experience got Paterson interested in running his own lodge, and led to more construction on the Hopkins Avenue property. In 1956, he added three units and opened the Boomerang. Convinced by Fritz Benedict to study architecture, Paterson left again to spend three years at Taliesen East in Wisconsin, under Frank Lloyd Wright's instruction, during which time he drew some of the plans for the Boomerang Lodge as it is known today. The lodge's lounge, 12 more rooms, and a pool were added in 1960. The noted underwater window, which allows guests in the lounge to look into the pool, was featured in Life Magazine in the 1960's. In 1965 and 1970 other expansions took place on the property. ' Although Paterson has designed relatively few buildings, among them his own business, structures at the Christiania Lodge, and a residence in Basalt, the Boomerang is his master work, exhibiting strong influences of Wrightian architecture. Paterson designed, helped to build, and financed the structure, and is still its host and manager today. It has been described as "...timeless, ageless" and "...almost futuristic."12 Boomerang Lodge Other contributions to local organizations made by Paterson include being a member of the iz Scott Dial, "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge That Charlie Built, and Built, and Built," Destination Maeazine. Exhibit F Page 8 of 14 ,,,~, .. . ``' ``' sizizoo7 Boazd of the Music Associates of Aspen for 20 yeazs, Chairman of the Aspen Hall of Fame for 2 years and of the Aspen Board of Adjustment for 20 yeazs and counting. He has also served on the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Boazd of Directors. Paterson worked for the Aspen Skiing Company as an instructor from 1952 to 1969. Eleanor °°Ellie" Brickham graduated from the University of Colorado's School of Architecture. Construction was a family business, so Brickham's motivation to be a designer began as a child. She moved to Aspen in 1951, attracted by the skiing, but once there, found herself the only female architect in town. Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in the work going on at the Aspen Institute. During her time in that office, and later ' " with her own firm, she designed a number of i residences and commercial structures in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 W. Sleeker Street), and the Patricia Moore Building (1969, 610 E. Hyman Avenue.) Within Pitkin County, Brickham designed numerous homes in Starwood, on Red Mountain, and in t Pitkin Green. Her works total at least 50 ~ ~ { buildings in the Aspen area. 433 W. Bleeker Street, 1973 Brickham's designs have been chazacterized by spaze, simple forms and detailing, and she has an interest in passive solar techniques. Still practicing today, Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness.s13 Victor Lundy designed a second home for his family in Aspen, which they have occupied at 300 Lake Avenue since 1972. Like Benedict, Lundy is a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects. He received his degree in azchitecture from Harvard, studying with former Bauhaus director Walter Gropius and Bauhaus master Mazcel Breuer and was later awarded two prestigious traveling scholazships by the Boston Society of Architects and Harvard University. Lundy has been in practice, most recently in Texas, since 1951 and has designed many notable government, commercial, office, and educational buildings throughout the world. He has received a Federal Design Achievement award, the highest honor in design given by the National Endowment for the Arts. "Bill Rollins, "Brickham: Simplicity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Asoen Times. Exhibit F Page 9 of 14 300 Lake Avenue. 1972 ~~ 8i2i2oo7 Robin Molnv (b.1928- Cleveland, d. 1997- Aspen) apprenticed at Taliesen in the 1950's. In Aspen, he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission and was the designer of Aspen's downtown pedestrian malls. He also designed several notable commercial buildings, including the Hearthstone House (1967, 134 E. Hyman Avenue) and the 720 E. Hyman Avenue building (1976) along with area residences. Well known azchitect Harrv Weese also contributed a building to Aspen in the Given Institute (1973, 100 E. Francis Street). Weese, of Harry Weese and Associates, Chicago, was an internationally known architect responsible for a number of significant projects throughout the United States, including major historic preservation projects in the Chicago area, and the design of the Washington, D.C. subway system. A graduate of MIT, he studied with famed architect Eliel Saarinen at Cranbrook Academy in Michigan, and then joined 100 E. Francis Street. 1973 Skidmore, Owing, and Merrill for a short time. In 1947 he opened his own office. Weese was recruited by the Paepcke's, who donated the land where the Given is located, to design the building. Eligibility Considerations There are specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the historic context. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following distinctive characteristics if influenced by Wrightian design principles: • Low horizontal proportions, flat roofs or low pitched hip roofs. • Deep roof overhangs create broad shadow lines across the facade. Glazing is usually concentrated in these areas. • Horizontal emphasis on the composition of the wall planes accentuates the floating effect of the roof form. • Materials are usually natural and hand worked; such as rough sawn wood timbers and brick. Brick is generally used as a base material, wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend more towazd heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud framing. • Structural members and construction methods are usually expressed in the building. For example; load-beazing columns may be expressed inside and out, the wall plane is then created by an infill of glass or brick. • Roof structure is often expressed below the roof sheathing • Glass is used as an infill material which expresses a void or a structural system; or it is used to accentuate the surface of a wall through pattern or repetition. • There is typically no trim which isolates the glazing from the wall plane. Window openings are trimmed out to match adjacent structural members in a wood context. Brick openings tend to be deeply set with no trim other than the brick return. Exhibit F Page 10 of 14 ,,, si2i2oo7 • Structures are related to the environment through battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, cleaz areas of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground. • Decoration comes out of the detailing of the primazy materials and the construction techniques. No applied decorative elements are used. • Color is usually related to the natural colors of materials for the majority of the structure; natural brick, dark stained wood, and white stucco. Accent colors aze used minimally, and to accentuate the horizontal lines of the structure. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following distinctive characteristics if influenced by Bauhaus or International Style design principles: • Simple geometric forms, both in plan and elevation • Flat roofs, usually single story, otherwise proportions aze long and low, horizontal lines are emphasized. • Asymmetrical arrangement of elements. • Windows are treated as slots in the wall surface, either vertically or horizontally. Window divisions were made based on the expression of the overall idea of the building. • Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. • Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to sepazate itself from style and sentimentality. • Materials aze generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. • Entry is generally marked by a void in the wall, a cantilever screen element, or other architectural clue that directs the person into the composition. • Buildings aze connected to nature through the use of courtyards, wall elements that extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the natural environment. This style relies on the contrast between the machine made structure and the natural landscape to heighten the experience of both elements. • Schemes are monochromatic, using neutral colors, generally grays. Secondary color is used to reinforce a formal idea. In this case color, or lack there of, is significant to the reading of the architectural idea. Although modernism has likely changed the course of architecture forever, it is possible to set a date when the style in its purest form began to wane: azound the mid 1960's nationally, and into the early 1970's in Aspen. At this point, there was a growing unease with some ways the Modern Movement had reshaped cities and resulted in "towers and slab blocks"14 followed by a move away from the design principals that had guided the mid-century. The period of historic significance for buildings of this style in 14 Kostof, p. 743. Exhibit F Page 11 of 14 aizizoo7 Aspen, a term used to define the time span during which the style gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance, is 1945 until approximately 1975. Aspen has been fortunate to have drawn the talents of the great minds in many professional fields since the end of World War II. The architects described above had made important contributions to Aspen's built environment that continue to influence its character today. While there are numerous towns in Colorado that have retained some of the character of their 19`s century mining heritage, few or none are also enriched by such an excellent collection of modernist buildings as exist here. Exhibit F Page 12 of 14 .- 4. ~, 8/2/2007 Bibliography Chanzit, Gwen F. "Herbert Bayer and Aspen," Exhibition Notes, Adelson Gallerv/Paepcke Building, Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado, December 1999- December 2000. Cohen, Arthur Allen. Herbert Bayer- Limited Edition: The Complete Works. MIT Press, 1984. Dial, Scott. "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge that Charlie Built, and Built, and Built," Destination Ma azine. Ditmer, Joanne. "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale." The Denver Post. October 1, 1997. Dunlop, Beth. "Bauhaus' Influence Exceeds Its Life," The Denver Post Apri120, 1986. Dusenbury, Adele. "When the Architect Arrived After the War," The Aspen Times July 31. 1975: Frankeberger, Robert and James Garrison. "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism, and Beyond: Architectural Resources in the National Parks," Forum Journal, The Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Summer 2002. "Fritz Benedict." Retrieved from http://www.vailsoft.com/museum/index.html, the Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame website. "Fritz Benedict Honored by Peer Group of Architects." The Asnen Times June 20, 1985. Fritz Benedict Memorial Service Program, July 25, 1995. "Harry (Mohr) Weese." Retrieved from www.artnet.com. Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Bendict's House in the Hill," The Aspen Times Mazch 11, 1982. Hayes, Mazy Eshbaugh. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel, Aspen, Colorado. Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Fritz Benedict, 1914-1995, The Passing of a Local Legend," The Aspen Times July 15 and 16, 1995. Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture: SettinQS and Rituals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Exhibit F Page 13 of 14 8/2/2007 Laverty, Rob. "50 Years of Benedict: A Forefather of Modern Aspen Looks At What Has Been Wrought," High Country Real Estate, Aspen Daily News February 6-12, 1999. "Noted Designer Herbert Bayer Dies." The Asnen Times October 3, 1985. Perkin, Robert L. "Aspen Reborn: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," Rocky Mountain News September 27, 1955. Rollins, Bill. "Brickham: Simplicity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Aspen Times December 22, 1977. "Transitions: Robin Molny Changed Aspen- and Made His Friends Laugh," Asnen Times, January 10-11, 1998. Urquhart, Janet. "History Richochets Through the Boomerang," The Aspen Times November 16`h and 17`h, 1996. Exhibit F Page 14 of 14 V w~I" ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT Name: t/~/~JT r~(J~GO~//1- ~ifLCIJZGy Location: 53,6 ~(/. >~0~77-1 0075 //-/S, $GOC,lG`Icl ~(S /~J/%6+1y (Indicate street address, lot & block numb r, le al de ri tion where a ro riate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ~jlL~/LT s~j~/G/•(~Z. Address: .~0 ~ ~-i(0 ~'/~1I([~~ p~"~ ~ . `D4 l4'.St~ Co ce/~/~ Phone #: ~~ . ~ ~ ~ X~ PROJECT: Name: Crw`7~ ~(~'(A~i~ C/K(l(uf/ Address: s~j /O ~ . J~lILT~ Phone #: 9~S ?j~-7 p TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Development ^ 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/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumi~ation) Expansion ^ Mountain View Plane Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ~ Other:y~ylUn~.~m ^ Lot Line Ad'ustment ^ TexUMa Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildin s, uses, revious a royals, etc.) G~IC/R~11 ~co~ltL~S ~~ f/yP,edt/r~ b P4~5fil~US Ca><!D/Trar~uyL USE 1/-~t/6fW5 SY~G/n- l~/l.6Lt/ FaK-- P/h~~ccG PROPOSAL: (descri tion of ro osed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.) ,~Mti/~6L ~ d/zl(rlNN2- GfZu/uG/ BGdI~ lk~Ltl/J/~ /IylJ~TcoN T~ ~i~Pol~7 SP c~5 d/ icoi~iYc- ,~rrv~ SP/fi~ Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ © Pre-Application Conference Summary [i] Attachment#l, Signed Fee Agreement ^i' 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 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. ,~ ' ~'^, ~t.r PROJECT NARRATIVE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 W. NORTH ST. This application seeks the City of Aspen's approval for development to the Christ Episcopal Church property at 536 West North Street. The proposed development plans aze intended to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. This will permit the church to continue its significant contributions to our community, to minister to its congregation's spiritual needs and to maintain its traditional identity in Aspen's West End. Christ Episcopal Church was established in 1881 during the height of Aspen's early mining days. The original church building, located at the corner of Second & Bleeker Streets, was later closed as a result of Aspen's dwindling population during the "Quiet Yeazs." The town's revival after World War II as a resort destination saw the reestablishment of the church in the building that now houses La Comida restaurant, and later, in its current location. Opened in August of 1962, the existing distinctive arched church, designed by Chicago architect and part-time Aspen resident Francis Stanton, has been an integral component of the West End neighborhood for almost 45 years. The contemporary design is reflective of the modernist design philosophy fostered by Walter Paepke, Herbert Bayer and others influential in the post-war renaissance of Aspen. Modest expansions to the south of the original building were completed in 1973 and in 1976 as approved by City of Aspen Special Review. [n 1981, the adjacent rectory was built to provide employee housing on-site. The proposed scope of work described in this application will allow for church facilities that respond to current accessibility requirements, comply with all life/safety codes, and provide the necessary program spaces for the fulfillment of the church's mission. The original arched church structure will be extended an additional 12' to the north and current deficiencies, such as roof leaks, poor lighting, ventilation and acoustics will be corrected. New construction will replace the existing support spaces added to the church in the 70's. This low-scaled element accommodates kitchen & fellowship spaces, adequately-sized toilet rooms and much-needed storage areas for the church. The building floor azea will increase From 7,118 SF to 9,500 SF. Overall, significant improvements in the church's energy efficiency and sustainability are expected [o be realized. The proposed development plan requires the following approvals from the City of Aspen's Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council: • GMQS Review for Essential Public Facilities • Conditional Use Review • Special Review for Parking • Variances from Dimensional Standards in R-6 Zone District Responses to the relevant review criteria are outlined below. .,s GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM This proposal responds to Section 26.470.040.D.3 Essential Public Facilities as follows: a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility. Response: An essential Public Facility is deTined by the City of Aspen Land Use Code as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or for beneTit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." The Aspen community has long embraced the significant role of our local religious institutions as important contributors to the quality of our daily lives. Christ Episcopal Church has enhanced our community's ability to achieve the Aspen Idea -the cultivation of the mind, body & spirit -for almost 45 years. b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0. Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Response: Dedicated Annual Development Allotments do not exist for churches or other religious facilities. The City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council may, at their discretion, grant such allotments based on the merits of each application. c) The proposed development is consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan states "The genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions, and not by the physical look of our man-made artifacts or the magnificent beauties of the nature surrounding us." The Christ Episcopal Church core values and vision statement include the following: o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through hospitality, community-building, and friendship. o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through compassion, service and giving of ourselves. o United by faith in Christ, we will honor the uniqueness of every person, caring with compassion for the spiritual and physical needs of our brothers and sisters. The church reaches out beyond its own congregation to foster "quality human interactions" among the broader Aspen community. Programs and facilities for diverse activities from AA meetings to concerts by Aspen Music Festival and School musicians serve to enhance daily life for the citizens of our town. The proposed development will permit the church to continue this important community role. .~ d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project aze mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing 2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, 511 part-time positions at the church. e) Free-Market residential floor area on the pazcel is accompanied by affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not include free-market residential floor area. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plan is intended to provide appropriate worship, fellowship and support spaces for its current congregation and the Aspen community. Code compliance, energy efficiency, sustainability, and accessibility are primary goals of this work. Expanded membership and additional programming are not. As a result of satisfying current plumbing codes, additional plumbing fixtures will be required. However, the use of current technologies like low-flow water closets will minimize the potential impacts on water & sewage treatment systems. Similarly, efficiencies in other new building systems &components will have mitigating effects that increase the current facility's performance and reduces its impact on public infrastructure. New heating/ventilation and lighting systems will improve energy consumption. Appropriate building insulation in the existing arched church and properly designed building enclosures in the new construction will achieve exceptional thermal performance. Fire suppression systems will provide a measure of safety that does not now exist for the church and its adjacent neighbors. r ..r Parking is addressed in more detail later in this application. CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT This proposal responds to Section 26.425.040 Standazds Applicable to All Conditional Uses as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The conditional use of this property by the Christ Episcopal Church is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan as outlined in the Growth Management Quota System, Item c) above. Paragraph 26.710.040.0.1 lists "Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses" as permitted conditional uses for the Medium-Density (R-6) zone district. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel for the development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the pazcel proposed for development. Response: The conditional use of this property by Christ Episcopal Church is a tradition that dates back to the existing church's construction on the site in 1962. Similar uses are evident throughout the Medium-Density (R-6) zoning district that comprises this West End neighborhood. These include: The Aspen Community Church at 200 E. Bleeker, the First Baptist Church at 726 West Francis, and the Christian Science Society at 734 West Main. These organizations, like Christ Episcopal Church, are familiar, integral, and traditional components of their surrounding neighborhood. C. The location, size, design and operating chazacteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking ,trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on the surrounding properties. Response: The Christ Episcopal Church has operated at this location for almost 45 years. The proposed development plan is intended to allow the church to continue its traditional role in serving its congregation and the Aspen community with facilities that minimize adverse effects on the neighboring properties. Since the original arched church building has only been modestly expanded (most recently 31 years ago in 1976), the existing building provides inadequately sized and inefficient spaces for the church's current needs. This application seeks the .. City of Aspen's approval to increase the building area from 7,118 SF to 9,500 SF - an additiona12,382 SF. Dimensional requirements for the R-6 zone district permit up to 4,050 SF by right on the parcel. The attached drawings illustrate design concepts that minimize the impacts of this additional area. These include: o Separate buildings reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building area on the site. The existing rectory remains a separate, independent structure of 2,897 SF. It will continue to provide dedicated employee housing for the church, and it is not included in the scope of work of the proposed development plans. o Distinct modules reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building area on the site. The 6,603 SF intended for worship, fellowship & support spaces is divided among two distinct modules: the original arched church building and an adjacent sloped-roof support structure. These elements are joined by a glazed circulation spine. o The scale and rhythm of the adjacent neighborhood is reinforced. The distinct building components -original church, addition and rectory - reflect the traditional rhythm of the typica130' wide lots identified in Aspen's historic town plan. o The lower level building area is partially below grade. Approximately'/. of the volume of this level is below grade reducing the overall visual impact of this floor area. This was a design feature of the original arched church and is being incorporated in the new addition as well. o The sloped- roof of the new addition reduces the building height. The roof slopes from front to back resulting in a lower scale along the alley to minimize impacts on views & light for the neighbors. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools. Response: New efficiencies of the proposed development plans outlined in the Growth Management Quota System, Item ~ above will minimize impacts on available public utilities and services. Existing public facilities are adequate Tor the conditional use. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing 2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, fill part-time positions at the church. -'a ~r SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF-STREET PARKING This proposal responds to Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards as follows: A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Response: Currently, 4 on-site parking spaces are provided in a stacked configuration behind the rectory. These are accessed from the alley. The church congregation and members of the community that use the existing facility park on the street, walk within the West End neighborhood or take advantage of the RFTA cross-town shuttle that serves the neighborhood. The design proposal increases the on-site parking to 5 spaces. (Only 2 of these spaces will be stacked parking.) Access will remain from the alley. The traditional use of street parking and transit routes will continue to be used by the church's members and the general public. Since the proposed development plans do not anticipate expansions in church membership or programming, parking demands are not expected to increase beyond the current usage. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Response: In 1980, the City of Aspen approved a Special Review for Parking for the Christ Episcopal Church property that permitted 10 on-site parking spaces. This plan was never implemented. The requirement to satisfy the 1980 Special Review for Parking at this time would have the following undesirable results: o It would prevent the realization of the development plans outlined in this application; thereby reducing the viability of the church, its mission, and its contributions to our community. o It would result in the loss of open space on-site. o Increased building mass on North Street would be likely. The 1980 Special Review did not anticipate the current spatial needs of the Christ Episcopal Church. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Response: Existing off-site parking on adjacent streets has proven to be satisfactory for the 45 years Christ Episcopal Church has been in this West End r, ,--, v .~ location. No additional demands are expected. Similar uses by the Aspen Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science Society are evidence that street parking is compatible with the neighborhood. A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: The requested variance is the minimum variance that would permit the plans outlined in this application to be realized, thus insuring the viability of the church, its mission, and its contributions to our community. The project would improve the availability of on-site parking with the addition of 1 space for a total of 5 spaces. A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan considers the role and contributions of Christ Episcopal Church to be desirable in sustaining a vibrant community. The West End neighborhood R-6 Zone District supports many similar uses. The Aspen Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science Society all enjoy relief from parking requirements of this area. VARIANCE FROM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT This proposal responds to Section 26.314.040 Standazds Applicable to Vaziances as follows: A1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title. Response: The grant of variance will permit the implementation of the development plans outlined in this application. This will allow the Christ Episcopal Church to continue its traditional role in the Aspen community, to maintain its West End identity, and to successfully minister to its congregation. It has been demonstrated above that the church's contributions are supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: The grant of the requested variances to allow reduced setbacks at the west sideyard, the rear property line and increased site coverage will permit the Christ Episcopal Church to continue its traditional role in the Aspen community with improved, accessible, code-complying and energy efficient facilities. The variances allow the church to retain and enhance the signature 45 year old arched structure. The original siting of this building and subsequent development on the site has resulted in several dimensional non-conformities. These include west, east and combined sideyard setbacks as well as site coverage. The site is uniquely shaped. It is a trapezoid that results from the transition of the Aspen town grid to the neighboring Aspen Institute property. The skewed angle of the north alley property line minimizes the impact of the requested variance on the adjacent property. Only the northeast corners of the expanded original church building and the new support facilities will be 5' back from the property line. The rear facades recede up to 8'10" from the property line due to the angle of the lot lines. The impact of this variance is further mitigated by the relatively low scale of the building components. The arched expansion peaks at 28' above grade but drops quickly to reduce the building profile. The parapet of the new addition is 18'6" above grade and it reflects an appropriate residential scale at the alley property line. The existing non-conforming sideyard setbacks are a result of the original arched church building and the rectory built in 1981. Since these buildings are being retained in their current locations, this situation will remain unchanged. The grant of variance for site coverage is the minimum variance that will permit the church to realize appropriately sized facilities as proposed in this application. The careful control of mass, scale, building form and height results in sufficient open area to relate comfortably to the adjacent residential neighborhood. A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: c. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or d. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege V ..s denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The original arched church has been on this site since 1962. The rectory is the most recent addition to the site built 26 years ago. These existing site conditions and the evolution of the dimensional requirements for the R-6 Zone District have created unique restrictions for this conditional use. The Aspen Area Community Plan supports the continued role and contributions of the Christ Episcopal Church. The granted variance would permit the church to maintain its traditional West End identity in appropriate, accessible, code-complying and energy efficient facilities into the future. ~-. ..r To: P and Z Members and August 21, 2007 Community Development Go Sara Adams Re: Christ Episcopal Church Variance Application 536 W. North Street Dear Board Members and Sara, We are full time Aspen residents and neighbors of the church. We request that you add the following three (3) conditions to approval of the application. We believe that requesting these conditions is a more neighborly response than asking you to simply deny the application. We believe that the size of the expansion, lack of adequate on site parking, and the potential impact on the neighbofiood justify adding these three conditions: Condition 1. The rear yard (alley) setback shall be a minimum often (10) feet to comply with the R-6 zone district code. Justification: The Church is asking for a dimensional variance, and the rules for granting such variances are very clear -the grant must be the "minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure", and literal enforcement "would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficuty." Code section 26.314.040. Staff s response to these requirements mentions only the architecture of the church, and does not address questions of reasonable use, deprivation of rights, unnecessary hardship, or practical difficulty. Preserving the church's architecture is irrelevant to this variance request. In any event, the church can undoubtedly preserve its architecture by reducing the extent of its expansion, without a variance of the setback. Furthermore, the architecture cannot be a "special condition and circumstance unique to the parcel, building or structure," because the church was built by the applicant and therefore its uniqueness "results from the actions of the applicant" and cannot count in the determination of hardship or difficulty. The Church can build a substantial addition without extending into the rear yard setback. Complying with codes in new construction is an important protection to existing neighbors, and certainly would be required for each of the neighbors wishing to expand. Most West End houses abut alleys, and the codes protect the integrity of those spaces. No site specific hardship exists, as required by the code, to justify this portion of the variance request. The Church can make more than reasonable use of the parcel, building and structure when complying with the 10' zoning setback. Condition 2. The Church shall submit a list of community events and programs that the church hosts as of this date, including typical attendance numbers and frequency, and shall agree not to significantly increase the number of events, or their frequency or attendance. This limitation shall not apply to religious functions held primarily for the benefit of church members. Church shall be permitted to change the community events and programs from time to time, so long as the number, frequency and attendance do ~. -~ ~/ not significantly exceed present levels, and so long as the Church continues to meet the definition of a Church under all applicable codes, including the Conditional Use approval. Justification: The presenters of the Church petition, and various members of the Church who spoke at the first P and Z hearing, all represented that the Church does not intend to increase employees, community programs, or membership. This representation was relied upon in the staff review of employee generation, and in the staff review of the compatibility of the expansion with the neighborhood. Church and Music events currently cause parking and traffic problems in our neighborhood, and we believe this condition gives us some protection against increasing the problems. This condition simply memorializes the representations of the Applicant made in the public hearings and the representations evidently presented to the Community Development staff. This type of condition is Dearly contemplated in the conditional uses code, 26.425.040. Condition 3. Roof material shall meet the requirements of the Residential Design Standards, and be consistent with the character or the neighborhood. Building materials on the rear of the building shall be the same materials, and in substantially the same proportion, as the front of the building. if the existing rear yard landscaping is removed or damaged, the new landscaping shall substantially replace the existing landscaping in a manner to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Compliance with these conditions shall be determined by review of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit The metal roof proposed for the existing rounded structure shown on Sheet A2.2 of the architectural plans submitted by Studio B Architects, last revised 7.31.07, is not approved, nor is it denied, by the adoption of this motion. Justification: Even after compliance with the rear yard setback, the expansion very signfficantly exceeds allowable FAR and lot coverage ratios. This large, non-conforming structure and Special Use jusfrfies careful review of the final exterior materials and landscaping, to insure compatibility with the residential neighborhood. Please understand that the Church has been a good neighbor. We believe the three conditions that we are requesting will allow the Church to make a large expansion, and, at the same time protect our neighborhood. The code governing Conditional Uses recognized that special conditions may be needed to protect the neighborhoods. Section 26.425.040 of the Conditional Uses code, immediately following paragraph E, gives the Community Development Director and P and Z the right to impose conditions on approval including specffically the type of conditions we are proposing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Debbi and Steve Falender /~ 603 W. Gillespie St. 920-1816 ~,, Q ~~~ r. .~ ~ ... August 17, 200'1 Ms. Sara Adams Members of P&Z Via email to saraa(a~ci.aspen.co.us RE: Christ Episcopal Church Variance Application -Reasons it should be denied. Dear Sara and Board Members: I have lived for 14 years at 610 North Street, 2 houses away from this applicant. I have lived in Aspen since 1984. I used to work for the City of Aspen and have since volunteered for many City and school committees. I know the difficulty you have when an applicant asks you to bend the rules or be granted a variance. I am asking that you require the applicant to adhere to the zoning codes that are in place. The Christ Episcopal Church is a good neighbor. I have attended a few services and other programs there such as concerts, lectures and weddings. The parking and traffic during these events creates problems throughout the neighborhood. I am convinced that a larger church will make these problems worse. Although the applicant has indicated that it will not expand its events and programs, I understand that the applicant has declined to put this promise down in writing. Wehave along-standing parking problem in our neighbor due to our closeness to the Aspen Meadows. Many times I cannot park in front of my house because the street is lined with cars attending events from the Church or at the Music Tent or Harris Hall. I also oppose the mass of the proposed expansion which is out of keeping of the character of the West End. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to deny the application. Sincerely, Elyse A. Elliott 610 W. North Street Aspen, Colorado ...r To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Charles and Janice Collins 531 Gillespie Street Aspen, Colorado Re: Christ Episcopal Church Conditional Review Date: August 7, 2007 As 40 year + immediate neighbors of the Christ Episcopal Church we respectfully ask you to give careful consideration to our request and vote the following revised conditions before approving this project: We request denial of the proposed north rearyard setback variance. What is the justification for requesting a 5 foot rear yard variance allowing fora 12 foot expansion of the historic church located in the R-6 residential zone district? The requested variance does not support our historic preservation goals. It represents 48% site coverage increase over the existing building footprint. As of today, the existing inferior of the church can accommodate the proposed new theatre seats for the same number of parishioners as the present pews, approximately 80 + persons. In addition, the proposed overflow seating provided in passage overflow and hospitality hall will more than accommodate increased holiday attendance, recital needs and community functions. The present altar area will comfortably accommodate a piano, choir and proposed new organ when, as-built altar steps are removed and a flat stage- like area as shown on the proposed new plan is designed. No redesign is necessary in the north end of the under croft area. The historic church is the most visible part of this overall proposed plan which will add an additiona12382 FAR sq. ft. With a conditional use, in a residential neighborhood, expanding the north side alters its scale, original design, and leaves a substantial loss of mature landscaping along the entire the north side. C/ 2 As we have become a heavily impacted residential neighborhood, we ask the church for a commitment i.e., a covenant regarding the type of usage for now and in the future, with neighborhood input included as part of any conditional use. Lastly, we request to see and approve a construction management plan with a schedule of commencement and completion for the entire project. Thank you. r^ i.. Lisa Markalunas I S Williams Ranch Court P.O. Box 8253 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970)309-4598 August 27, 2007 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 To City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Members: -~, I am writing to express my concern over the plans currently under your review for the significant expansion of Christ Episcopal Church located at Ss' and North Streets in the West End. I grew up just one block from the Church and continue to walk in the neighborhood often and am well awaze of the impacts of traffic and pazking that the services and events at the church have on this residential neighborhood. I specifically wish to address the request fora 2,000 squaze foot FAR bonus on a relatively small site with significant squaze footage already in existence. The granting of such a lazge bonus will only serve to overwhelm the site and will increase the impacts ~of the new building on neighboring properties. I am also concerned about the request to build so close to the alley along the north property line and feel that if you grant the requested variance, the new structure will have a much more significant impact on the property owners to the north across the alley than would otherwise be the case. In addition, it will be necessary to remove and/or compromise a great deal of mature landscaping that currently screens neighbors from the existing building. Please also consider the impact of additional traffic and pazking on neighbors that aze already significantly impacted by,the Music Festival's lack of sufficient pazking. Any increase in winter music performances at the church, the accommodation of lazger weddings, lazger services and other events all will generate more traffic and parking on existing narrow streets aheady heavily utilized by traffic circumventing the existing S-curves and cutting through the West End. I appreciate your consideration of these concerns and am hopeful that what is approved on the site will be in keeping with the scale and chazacter of this historic neighborhood. Sincerely, Lisa Markalunas ,, AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2007 DUE TO A LACK OF A QUORUM ON THE 21ST THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 28 4:30 p.m. SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Christ Episcopal Church GMQS and other land use approvals - (continued from August 7`h) -Sara Adams VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN Asuen Plannin¢ & ZOn1nE MeetinE Minutes - August 21 2007 Dylan Johns opened the regular P&Z meeting in the Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Due to a lack of quorum the meeting was continued to August 28`h for the Christ Episcopal Church GMQS. Staff present were Jennifer Phelan, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Asaen Plannin¢ & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes - AuQUSt 7, 2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 LIFT ONE CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE/PUD .................................................... 2 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ............................................................................................................ 6 I Aspen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetine Minutes -August 7.2007 John Rowland opened the regulaz Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present included: LJ Erspamer, David Guthrie, Brian Speck and John Rowland. Dylan Johns was excused. Staff in attendance: Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Municipal Court Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said that Jennifer Phelan would be acting Deputy Director for Community Development since Joyce Allgaier resigned. MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve the minutes from the July 17`" and July 24`" meetings; seconded by L.I Erspamer and IJ Erspamer added to the July 17`" that it was a property tax and not a sales tax district and added to the North of Nell that the pedestrian amenity was amended after Erspamer asked about the North of Nell being responsible for the pedestrian. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (6/19; 7/10; 7/19, 7/24) LIFT ONE CONCEPTUAL TIMESHAIiE/PUD John Rowland opened the continued public hearing for Lift One Conceptual Timeshare/PUD. Jennifer Phelan stated that this was a continued hearing and there were a number of meetings going through the nuts and bolts of the project. The application was to combine a number of parcels into 4 distinct parcels; pazcel 1 was to develop Lift One Lodge with 32 Timeshare Lodge units, guest services, 5 affordable housing units, sub grade parking, apres ski area and a public restaurant. Parcel 2 was along Aspen Street with a structure containing 6 affordable housing units; parcel 3 was the historic lift one park; parcel 4 was Willoughby Park to relocate the Skiers Chalet building and develop at a Ski Museum, rehabilitate the Deep Powder Cabins, provide sub grade parking, a shuttle stop and improve the pazk and green space. Phelan explained that this was a 4 step project for a planned unit development with conceptual approval recommendation from P&Z to Council for conceptual. The next step was final review to P&Z and then the final review to Council completing the 4 step process. Phelan said that the basic process was the same for a conceptual timeshare and a PUD application. The proposed development was consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area; Lodging at the base of the mountain was an appropriate use of land; it provides affordable housing on site; updating and protecting historic Asaen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Au¢us~ 7.2007 resources on the parcels. Phelan said another review criteria for conceptual approval was the site design to insure that the PUD enhances public spaces and ensures the public health and safety. There was an appropriate orientation of buildings facing the street so that the streetscape was interactive along Aspen and Dean; emergency access and vehiculaz access will be improved. Handicap access to the ski lift would be improved. The third review requirement of conceptual was that the landscape plan was compatible with the visual character of the city with surrounding parcels of the subject property. Phelan said the applicant has been working with the Parks Department to increase the usability of the Park, which will be flushed out in the final review process. The applicant was looking at preserving the old lift, the ticket office and the Deep Powder Cabins. Phelan said the architectural character at conceptual was to encourage architectural interest, variety, character and visual identity in the proposed development. This project was incorporating natural heating and cooling features and looking at making the buildings interesting to the pedestrian and streetscape. The lighting needed to meet the safe, general aesthetic concerns and the code; this criteria was compliant. Phelan noted a review criteria that the common park, open space or recreation areas be for the mutual benefit of all; there were public improvements being made to create better landscaped open space, rehabilitation of historic features on those parks and those were met in the conceptual phase of review. Another PUD criteria was that the utilities and public facilities were adequate to service the proposal and the Development Review Committee met; there will be some service utilities upgrades. Phelan said the last conceptual review criteria was the access and circulation; the existing road network will be improved and this criteria was met. Phelan distributed Exhibit C a letter from Michael Mizen and one from June 14~' and also Exhibit D an addition and change to the resolution. Bob Daniel said the purpose of the meeting was to clarify some measure of the energy uses and conservation, which will be presented by David Haughton, Dave Haughton stated that he was a mechanical engineer interested in maximum energy efficiency and minimum environmental impact. Haughton said that his philosophy was to reduce the loads on a building so the mechanical can be down sized. Loads can be reduced by adding insulation, using day lighting controls that do not require lights to be turned on, reducing the amount of outside air and recovering heat from exhaust air. Haughton said the main discussion was the GSHP (ground source heat pump system), which has push pull systems; there was an integrated design process so that everything worked together to reduce the loads. Haughton utilized slides to show the ground source heat system holes, which were about 250 feet deep with a closed loop heat exchange system made up of pipe to pump and send the heat throughout the building in the closed loop 3 Aspen Plannine & ZonIDE Commission Meetine Minutes - Aueust 7.2007 system. Haughton said this was a hybrid system with gas boilers for the snow melt system. Haughton said the system costs more to install but less to operate in the long run. LJ Erspamer asked if the ground source system pump goes out will the boiler be able to run the whole system Haughton replied no and they did not design a system with 100% redundancy. Haughton used slides of the rig used to drill the holes and the heat exchange system prior to being buried underground. Michael Wampler, public, asked if the pipes were independent. Haughton responded the pipes were in a series and parallel connected; the whole idea was to pressure test every step of the way and the system was designed not to fail. Bob Daniel said there was a process to mitigate the energy demand created by snow-melting South Aspen Street so the ground source system was a more efficient way to heat and cool the building without condensing units on roof tops. Daniel said this might be considered state of the art in Aspen but in the energy world as state of the shelf; it has become a technology that was tried, true and proven. John Rowland asked if they were trying to achieve a LEDS accreditation. Daniel replied not at this point. David Guthrie asked about photovoltaic considerations with panels on the roofs. Daniel answered that they did a quick sun study and Shadow Mountain caused shade during the times of most need. Rowland asked if staff called for an independent geotechnical study to gauge if the mountain was shifting and how much per yeaz. Phelan responded that at the Development Review Committee April 11`x' meeting referred to the installation of an inclinometer with bi-monthly monitoring a minimum of one season cycling before the issuance of a building permit. Sunny Vann said that they were satisfied with the changes to the conditions in the resolution at this time. Guthrie suggested adding a condition that APCHA pay for the Deep Powder cabins as affordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation. Guthrie asked that the wattage and fixtures for the lighting be sensitive to the area. Vann said that they don'tjust meet code but have to submit a lighting plan that was appropriate and reduce the overall lighting. 4 _ _ .. _. Ashen Plannin¢ & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes - Aueust 7, 2007 LJ Erspamer asked the timeline of the lift being rebuilt and the lodge being built. Vann replied that the lift was a condition of Aspen Mountain Lodge, assuming that it goes forward. Public Comments: 1. Leon Fell asked to revisit the 2 sand volleyball courts with regards to timing so that they do not lose the use of those courts; when the 2 go down another 2 would come up. Fell said the courts were integral to the success and vitality of the event. 2. Galen Bright stated that fifteen owners of South Point would be dramatically affected by the placement of the Ski Museum; he asked if there would be story poles placed to see where the height and mass in the roofline will be located. Bright said the obvious placement was the original design where the volleyball courts are or consider placement on Aspen Street next to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. 3. Tom Smith, attorney for the Caribou Condominiums, supported the 3A 1 condition. Phelan responded that one of the conditions was to evaluate the feasibility of increasing the setback of the lodge's east wing location in relation to the eastern property line for skier access to the Caribou Condominiums. 4. Gail Morgan asked that the letter from Shadow Mountain Condominiums be placed into the record. Erspamer asked if the figures of the qualifications were checked and accurate. Phelan replied that she was just handed the case and this was conceptual review. Erspamer said that the HPC decision about the location of the museum was something that P&Z could not address. Phelan replied that the final decision was with HPC on the location of that museum; additional comments could be addressed by HPC at final. Sara Adams stated there were HPC Guidelines to help with decisions. Erspamer said that the Shadow Mountain owners have parked on street for their overflow parking; he asked where will they park with this project. Phelan responded that the overflow parking was proposed in the parking garage under Willoughby Park. Erspamer said the up-zoning from conservation zone was a big issue. Erspamer asked what prevented another lodge from up-zoning to lodge to build another private membership club at the bottom of Little Nell by coming to P&Z to get the zoning changed. Phelan replied that the application would be judged on its own merits and review criteria. Erspamer asked how much traffic this drop-off area 5 Asaen Plannin¢ & Zonin¢ Commission Meetine Minutes -August 7 2007 would generate. Vann responded there would clearly be an increase in the level of activity that currently was being done in this area; there were proposals to transport individuals from Ruby Pazk and other hotels along Dean Avenue and Durant via the trolley system. Vann said the street section was designed to handle the level of traffic. Guthrie asked when the time was to ask about the large hotel vehicles driving one person two blocks and how that could be dealt with; this was like a private limo service. Phelan stated that this was apublicright-of--way, which was a much broader scope than just this application. Guthrie said that he could not put the community issues on this one project. MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2007 incorporating Exhibit D, the language including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder cabins as affordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation , the volleyball courts timing, concern for the location of the Ski Museum; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, no. APPROVED 3-1. LJ Erspamer explained that the application does not promote the efficient use of land with the change of conservation zone to lodge. Erspamer said he would like to see this project become pedestrian friendly; there was too much traffic and pazking was a problem. Erspamer thanked the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking requirements; and Dimensional Variances. Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with 4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7.2007 needs of the church; it was in context with the neighborhood and the addition was sensitive and brings the building into accessibility requirements by the code. Commission questions were regarding the site coverage amount requested. Adams said the maximum was 27% and the applicant was requesting 40%; the building was one story, well below the height limit and fit into the neighborhood. The rectory was 4 bedrooms and currently housed the 2 full time employees. Jim DeFrancia said that he was chairman of the building committee; the objective was to make more efficient use of the facility for the present uses. DeFrancia said that they were not planning an expansion of the congregation; they were redesigning the spaces to be more efficient. Some other current uses for the church included AA, the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Youth Experience, La Leche, AIA, and holiday baskets; it was clearly a community facility. DeFrancia stated they wanted to bring the facility into compliance with the code. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said the intent was to provide appropriate worship fellowship support spaces for the current congregation and the community; code compliance; sustainability and accessibility were primary goals. Sanchez said to comply with the current plumbing codes they were adding additional plumbing fixtures. There would be new heating, ventilation and lighting improving energy consumption and proper building insulation. Sanchez said they were adding fire suppression systems providing a line of safety that doesn't exist now. Sanchez said they wanted to maintain the shape and form of this church and add an element similar in mass, which was a little bit smaller, and connect the two separate modules with a glass circulation space but keep the residential rhythm for this neighborhood. The new addition drops down to 18 feet 6 inches in the back. Sanchez stated they were increasing the off-street parking spaces to 5 but taking out the stacked spaces comes to 4. To accommodate the 1980 approval of parking spaces they would not be able to utilize this development plan; there would be loss of open space by providing the parking on site. Sanchez said the setback was the minimum that they could ask for and the setback only touched at 2 places. DeFrancia said that they communicated with the neighbors sending letters to about 50 neighbors twice and held a meeting on August 1 ~` with 2 neighbors attending. The architectural harmony will be kept throughout the building even in the back. It was not their intent to expand any uses of the church. ,-~,, Aspen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetin¢ Minutes - Au¢ust 7 2007 LJ Erspamer asked if the building was a designated landmark. Sara Adams replied that it was not. Erspamer asked what the single family house was; did it have one kitchen. DeFrancia replied that it was the rector's house and his wife that were employed by the church and lived there in the single family detached house, which had 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room. Erspamer asked when this was approved does this eliminate the abeyance for pazking. Adams responded yes that it would establish new parking requirements. Public Comments: 1. Claude Salter said that pazking was a problem in the neighborhood with the uses in the church and the music going on in the tent. Salter said the distance between the buildings was not consistently 10 feet apart; she disagrees with the rear yard setback given the massing that they were adding. Salter said the code allowed the choir to be kept and section 1024.5 of the IBC was the accessibility issue. Ann Burrows said that she lived to the south of the church and voiced concern was for traffic and increased traffic. 3. Warren Klug said that he was a member of the church and the church was a public facility that provides services for lots of community residents and a community gathering place. Klug said that the development of this building was to make it better and more usable; he noted houses in the neighborhood had master bedroom suites that were bigger than this additional square footage. The variances make the building work better; the building remains appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Klug said the basement is currently not accessible to handicapped and the renovation plan was very modest. 4. Steve Fallendar said that he lived across the street and the additional square footage was considerable; he said the basement increase in space was also significant. Fallendar asked that the resolution include that there will not be a school at this location. Fallendar said that he was nervous about metal used as the material; he questioned the landscape. 5. Colleen Collins letter was placed into the record. Collins said you could get the same number of seats without increasing the square footage. 6. Bob Blaich said that everything that is done in this community affects someone; this project has a high level of merit and it will benefit the community. Jim DeFrancia commented that the extension of the church by 12 feet was a function of design; the extension will have a construction area so the landscaping 8 Asuen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 7, 2007 will come down but they will be sensitive to the finish design of the back side of the church as well as replacing the landscaping. DeFrancia said that they cannot convert to a school; they would have to go back through the process with a whole different set of requirements. DeFrancia said they have made a representation into the public record of their intensions of lack of expanded uses. DeFrancia said that they do not anticipate a metal roof, currently they were looking at a slate roof. Erspamer asked for explanations on special events and parking issues for the next meeting. DeFrancia said that there have not been any parking problems from the church. Erspamer asked for a site visit. Phelan said that she would set up a site visit. Adams said there was a survey in the packet dated December 2006, which shows the alley is 20 feet. Rowland said that it was a great piece of architecture and was respectful to the neighborhood; he said the setbacks concerned him. Rowland asked that a shuttle or other form of transportation be considered for big special events. MOTION.• LJ Erspamer moved to continue the Christ Episcopal Church hearing to August 21 S`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in favor. Transcribed by: l~ ~ /~--~--rv ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 ~ ~~ MEMORANDUM ~ ~ ~• TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THR~J: Jennifer Phelan, Interim Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner RE: 536 West North Street: Conditional Use Review, Special Review, Dimensional Vaziances and GMQS Recommendation for an Essential Public Facility, -Resolution No. ,Series 2007 -Public Hearine (Parce12735-121-11-808) DATE: Aueust 7, 2007. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Christ Episcopal Church, 536 West Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission North Street, Aspen, CO. approve the project, with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conditional Use Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, Review to increase the allowable floor area on the lot from 501 Rio Grande Place, Suite 104; 7,118 square feet to 9,500 square feet. Special Review is Aspen, CO. LOCATION: Lots 11 - 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 536 West North Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6, Medium Density Residential. The church qualifies as "an arts, civic and cultural use," which is permitted as a conditional use in the R-6 zone district. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to increase space for church services and update facilities by demolishing and replacing the addition to the main church building. requested to establish new off street pazking spaces. Dimensional setback variances aze required for the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regazding GMQS allotments for an Essential Public Facility. ~ Section 26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code de&nes arts, culturah and civic uses as "the use of land or buildings by non-profit, arts, cultural, religious, or public organizations such as a church, fraternal club, performing arts theane...." Page - 1 - of 5 Historic photograph of Christ Episcopal Church, built in 1963 by Chicago architecture firm Stanton and Rockwell. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES' The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: •~ Conditional Use Review for the iricrease of allowable floor azea pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the fmal review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Special Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430, for the establishment of off- site pazking spaces for a religious facility. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Dimensional Variances for a reazyard setback and site coverage pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.314. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).z The following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council: • Growth Manasement Review for an Essential Public Facility for the development of a new addition to the church, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.D.3 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). BACKGROUND: The Episcopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881 during the Mining Era. The azchitecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by prominent Modern azclutects and theorists Waiter Paepke, Herbert Bayer, and Fritz Benedict.3 53o West North Street, the Christ Episcopal Church, is attributed to azchitect Francis Stanton of the Chicago firm Stanton and Rockwell. Completed in 1962, the Church's Modern form and small scale design contributes to Aspen's West End neighborhood. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The lot azea is 15, 599 squaze feet, and was assigned an allowable floor area of 7,118 square feet for the modest addition to the church, through the Conditional Use Review process in 1976.4 In 1980, a rectory was built on the site to provide an employee housing unit; concurrently, the Church was granted a reducfion in required off=site pazking from 14 spaces to 12 spaces, 4 of which were required to be provided on-site with the remaining 8 spaces held in abeyance for future implementation should there be complaints The Church currently has four spaces, two of which are in a tandem configuration. a Pursuant to Section 26.304.030.D, the application is consolidated and the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for dimensional variances. ' Modern Architecture in Asnen, context paper written by the Aspen Community Development Department. ° The current floor azea for a single family home in the R-6 zone district fora 15, 599 squaie foot pazce] is 4, 050 squaze feet. 5 During the August 19, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a resolution was not adopted; however a motion was adopted and the minutes serve as record. See Exhibit D. Page-2-of6 ~. ...r PROJECT SUMMARY: The Christ Episcopal Church proposes to demolish a 1973/76 modest addition to the Modern arched church building and replace it with a larger, more efficient addition that will serve the existing congregation. The applicant proposes to increase the floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,500 square feet. The Growth Management Quota System is triggered by the increase of floor area on the site, and requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Essential Public Facilityb to City Council. Special Review is requested to newly establish the pazking requirement from the previous 1980 approval, which required four (4) spaces with eight (8) in abeyance, to the proposed five off street pazking spaces. The addition requires dimensional requirements for the reaz yard setback and site coverage. Dimensional Chart: s t ~ _ " _ ~ ~ eYt~ ' ~ ~ & -' F ~ ~ k= ~ Lot Size (square feet) 15,599 15,599 6,000 Front Yard Setback 10 10 10 (feet) East Side Yard 13' 7" 13'7" -no change 15 Setback (feet) ro osed West "alternate front 9'4" 9' 4" 6' 7" ard" Setback feet Rear Yard Setback 10 5 10 (feet) Combined Sideyazd n/a Not applicable as a n/a Setback (feet) corner lot Height (feet) 19' 11" 19' 11" 25 Distance between 23' 8" 10 5 Buildings on Lot (feet) Site coverage 28% 40% maximum is 27% Floor Area Ratio 7,118 9,500 4,470 (for 2 detached dwellings (square feet) a 15, 599 s uare foot lot) Off Street Parking 3* 4* Established by Special Review *Note: Pursuant to Section 26.S15.O10.A, parking spaces in a tandem configuration only count as one space. The Church currently has two stacked parking spaces that only count as one space 6 Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as " a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." Christ Episcopal Church is located on the corner of North Street and Fifth Street. Pursuant to Section 26.575.040.0 Corner Lots, "the remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district." Page-3-of6 4 "'~ according to the Aspen Land Use Code. The proposal is to maintain the stacked spaces and to add one additional pazking space that meets Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS' GROWTH MArvACEMExT REVIEW: Christ Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility, which requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council. The proposal to increase floor area of the Church triggers this review; however the Church does not intend to increase employeess, community programs, or congregation membership. A four bedroom rectory, which mitigates for 3.5 employees, houses the two full-time employees of the Church onsite. No new affordable housing is proposed with this application. The design proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and will minimally impact the public infrastructure by updating current building inefficiencies. Growth Management allotments for Essential Public Facilities are granted at the discretion of City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds that the Growth Management criteria are met9 for an Essential Public Facility and recommends approval. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: A Conditional Use review is requested to increase the floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 squaze feet, which involves replacing the existing addition with a larger, more efficient and Code compliant design. The current meeting space is inadequate for the congregation's needs, and the building's mechanical systems and components are failing. Staff finds that the proposal increases building efficiency and accessibility, and the desi~n is compatible with the R-6 zone district. Staff finds that the Conditional Use criteria are mete and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve 9,500 square feet of floor area for the site. SPECIAL REVIEW FOa PARKING: The Aspen Municipal Code does not assign a parking requirement for churches in the R-6 zone district. The previous 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission approval described previously indicates that three onsite parking spaces (with two in a tandem configuration) were approved for the Church, with the condition that this could be revisited at the discretion of the City. The applicant proposes to add one parking space equaling four spaces (two are stacked). Staff finds that adding more parking to the site would have an adverse impact on open space, site layout, and the compatibility of the Church with the residential neighborhood. In the past 27 years, since the 1980 parking approval, no additional spaces (those in abeyance) have been added to the site; furthermore, the Parking Department does not have any record of complaints regazding parking for the Church. Staff, based on a recommendation from the Parking Department, finds that the current offsite parking, public transportation, and other means of transportation are sufficient at this time. DIMENSIONAL VAatANCES: The proposal requires the following variances: a rear yazd setback variance, five feet (5') is provided where ten feet (10') is required; and a variance for site coverage, forty percent (40%) coverage is provided, where twenty-seven percent (27%) is the a Currently the Church employs two full time employees and two part-time employees. 9 Exhibit A. 10 Exhibit B. Page-4-of6 .~., ~.. ,, ,.' maximum. Staff finds that the variances are appropriate for the site, meet the criteria and recommends approval. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Engineering Department and Pazking Department have reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP, as well as, the applicable review standazds in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 square feet through the Conditional Use process, an establishment of off-street parking requirements through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite spaces and one stacked space, the required dimensional variances as indicated in Staff's memorandum, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility." ATTACHMENTS: ExH[BIT A - GMQS Criteria EXHIBIT B - Conditional Use Criteria EXHIBIT C - Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT D - Planning and Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes EXHIBIT E - Dimensional Variances Criteria EXHIBIT F - Aspen Modern Architecture Paper ExHIBITG- Application Page - 5 - of 6 ~ ~ '~ ,Vl~~~ I t N/u~ A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~(,i1~ APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO ,_YW~ ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL YW VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH ~ ~ ,~(„~ , CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL ~"`~~r~_~~ PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12,13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO.2735-121-11-808. RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish new off street parking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church programs, employment, or membership; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No._, Series of 2007, by a ~ -~ vote, an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page I of 5 r^ --, ti.. ..,, the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set Forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,500 square feet through the Conditional Use process, established new off street parking requirements through Special Review, certain dimensional Variances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standards, floor area, and off-street parking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: The subject property is approved for a total of 9,500 square feet of floor area for the design presented at the August 7, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the approved design and a site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 2 of 5 proposed redevelopment. .-, d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. £ A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Snecial Review: Parkins Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) pazking spaces and one (1) stacked parking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of approved parking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 7: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze not connected to the sanitary sewer system. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 -~•, .. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where. soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. £ Soil Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 9: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: Landscaaing a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. d. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Section 11• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12• 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. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 4 of 5 ..~ .,, ~, Section 13: 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 _~' day of August, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Dylan Johns, Chair P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 ~.~ 9/19/2007 The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: A. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and /or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." Since 1881, the Christ Episcopal Church serves both members and non-members of the public from religious services to AA meetings. Staff finds that this criterion is met. B. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Response: The project does not expect to increase programs and capacity with the proposed addition; therefore affordable housing mitigation is not required. Based on the use of the proposal, no Growth Management allotments are required for the proposed changes to the Essential Public Facility. Staff finds that this criterion is met. C. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church serves the Aspen community through both spiritual guidance and as anon-member facility for AA meetings and Aspen Music Festival and School performances. The proposal perpetuates the Church's current role in "nurturing intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations" listed in the AACP. The design proposal retains an important Modern building in Aspen, and replaces an addition with a sensitive design that is compatible with the Modern architecture and the residential neighborhood, which meets the AACP policy on design quality and historic preservation. Transportation and housing goals of the AACP are met with the proposed development as the current congregation and number of employees will not be increased. The Church is situated in Aspen's West End neighborhood with adequate public transportation services. t The application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance l4, Series of 2007 and is subject to the regulations in place at the time of submittal. Exhibit A GMQS Recommendation G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibit.doc Page 1 of 2 ~' ~ ,, 9/19/2007 Parking is addressed in Special Review criteria, Exhibit C. Staff finds that the AACP is met. D. A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposed development will not increase the Church's program and therefore is not expected to increase the number of employees. The Church currently mitigates for 3.5 employees with a four bedroom rectory located onsite, which will remain unchanged. There are two full-time employees and two part-time employees on staff; the two full-time employees are housed in the rectory. Staff finds that criterion d is not applicable, as no new employees are generated with this proposal. E. Free market residential ,floor area on the parcel is accompanied with affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The Ciry Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Response: The proposal does not include a free market residential component. F The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements propose das part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Response: One of the primary reasons for this proposal is to increase energy efficiency and update the building to comply with current building code and accessibility requirements. The applicant proposes to update systems and components that will minimize impacts on the public infrastructure. One additional onsite parking space is proposed. Staff finds that criterion f is met. Exhibit A GMQS Recommendation G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibit.doc Page 2 of 2 .-~. .~. ~~ ~ 9/19/2007 Conditional Use: Section 26.425.040 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title; and Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church expansion will provide the current congregation with more meeting space and increase energy efficiency and accessibility. The Church facilities serve both the congregation and the Aspen community through various events, which meet the AACP philosophy to "nurture intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations." The one story addition meets the intent of the R-6 Medium Residential Zone District. The proposed mass is modest in scale and proportion, reads as a separate module with a short glass connector piece, and is below the maximum height in the R-6 district. The Church is not a designated historic landmark, but the architecture is significant to Aspen's Modern history. The applicants are sensitive to the unique form of the Church and, despite the fact that the Church is not designated historic; the proposal meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for a new addition. The applicants propose to maintain open space on the site, which helps the Church blend into the West End neighborhood; this requires a reduction in parking requirements established in 1980 and dimensional variances for the rear and east sideyard setbacks. Staff finds that criterion a is met. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church has occupied the site for the past 45 years, since 1962. This conditional use is consistent and compatible with the residential neighborhood and enhances the mixture of activities in the R-6 zone district without adversely affecting the neighborhood's integrity. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Exhibit B Conditional Use Criteria G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\Conditional UseExhibit.doc Page 1 of 2 .-., 9/19/2007 Staff Response: The proposed conditional use application seeks to expand the current floor area on the site from 7, 118 square feet to 9,500 square feet. The congregation does not intend to expand membership; rather the additional squaze footage will increase energy efficiency, meet accessibility and building code requirements, and increase meeting space capacity. The proposed visual impacts are minimal and, in Staff s opinion, the proposed design of the addition greatly improves upon the current inadequate addition. The current ramp system that cuts across the front yard will be replaced with an elevator that meets accessibility requirements. The new mass is connected to the barrel vaulted Church with a glass connector piece, which successfully breaks up the density on the site. The applicant paid close attention to the alley elevation by sloping the roof of the addition toward the rear of the lot to minimize height impacts on the neighbors. The applicant requests dimensional variances from the R-6 zoning requirements and establishment of new parking requirements on the site. ~ The congregation does not plan on increasing membership with this addition, therefore, Staff finds that there are minimal impacts on the neighborhood and criterion c is met. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Response: The proposal will increase building efficiencies,z which in turn, decreases the current impact on public facilities. Staff finds that criterion d is met. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Response: The Church provides housing onsite for two full-time employees. There are a total of two full-time employees and two part-time employees. The Church is not increasing the number of employees with the new addition and currently mitigates for 3.5 employees onsite; therefore Staff finds that the need for affordable housing is met and criterion e is fulfilled. ~ See Exhibit C and E for explanation. Z See exhibit A, part F, for a brief explanation. Exhibit B Conditional Use Criteria G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\Conditional UseExhibit.doc Page 2 of 2 ,~-. .~> --, ~"~ 9/19/2007 Special Review for Pazkin~: 26.515.040 Special Review Standards. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development aze subject to Special Review, an application shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304, and be evaluated according to the following standazds. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.8, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street pazking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffrc generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff Response: In 1980, the Planning and L,oning Commission approved through Special Review twelve (12) onsite pazking spaces, with the condition that the Church would provide four (4) spaces onsite (two are stacked), which left eight (8) in abeyance to be provided onsite should there be complaints about parking in the future. Since 1980, no additional parking spaces have been added. Staff finds that the addition of one more pazking space, for a total of five (5) spaces (two are stacked) is sufficient given the proximity to public transportation, and that the design proposal does not increase the programmatic goals of the Church. Furthermore, the Parking Department does not have a record of any complaints regarding Church parking. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically diffrcult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff Response: Under the current Code, there is no definitive parking requirement for a Church in the R-6 zone district. The previous parking requirement, adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1980, required four spaces (two of which are stacked) onsite, with eight spaces. in abeyance with the condition that the City could require the implementation of these spaces based on complaints. The applicant is proposing one additional parking space, which will bring the total onsite parking to five spaces, so that although one space of the five is obstructed due to the tandem configuration, four spaces aze unobstructed. Exhibit C Special Review Criteria G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\SpecialReviewforParking.doc Page 1 of 2 9/19/2007 Increasing the amount of onsite parking would negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood. The proposal does not intend to increase the program or membership of the Church. Staff finds that the four spaces plus one stacked space are appropriate for the site, and providing more parking would produce an undesirable result in the neighborhood. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The off-site parking facilities, public transportation, and other means of transportation serve the needs of the Church, as they have since 1962. The City never enacted its authority, as per the approvals in 1980, to increase the onsite parking at the Church. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Exhibit C Special Review Criteria G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\SpecialReviewforParking.doc Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Runt suggested an automatic 45 day extension which would save time. Ms. Smith said the people working on revising the Code will look at this. Hedstrom said the Christ Episcopal Church public hearing would be held later. Employee Units in Lodges Karen Smith, planning director, told the Eoard the staff Resolution had misread the Board's wishes on this resolution. The Board had wanted to be more liberal in the single family zone district and review an unlimited amount of expansion by special review. Anderson moved to approve and adopt Resolution 60-09 and to strike the word "or" in the second line of the first para- graph; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Christ Episcopal Church Condition xaren Smith said this was discussed at a previous P & Z Use meeting; she is ready to answer ciuestions and to bring to the Board a compromise worked out by staff, the Church and neighbors. Ma. Smith said there was a question whether this required conditional use; it does because it is the location of parking on the lot of a conditional use in the R-6 zone. The Church is a conditional use and any expansion or modification requires approval. P & Z is being asked to approved a reduction of parking and to approve the config- uration of that parking. Ms. Smith recommended as a compromise that the parking be reduced from 14 to 12 with 9 implemented right now and 8 spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets. Ms. Smith presented a revised site plan; the 4 spaces to be implemented now are to be behind the Rectory with an access driveway off the alley. The conditions of this approval should be with the understanding that the Rectory is not on a separate parcel; the five lots comprise one undivided parcel. Any division in interest would require subdivision or exception. Separating the Lots would dimin- ish the ability to service the Church with parking. Another condition is to reserve the right, if parking is insufficient, for any party to be able to seek review of the parking with increase to 19, or the reconfiguration of parking through a condition use hearing. The soonest this should be reconsidered is in one year. It has been sug- guested a landscaping plan should be given to the planning office; there has been no agreement on this. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said he is not inclined., from an engineering standpoint, to recommend a reduction to 4 spaces. Hammond had recommended there be 10 spaces. The configuration is a special consideration in view of the neighborhood; however, Hammond said he was not that comfortable with 4 spaces. Ms. Smith said two of the spaces will be used for the Rectory. The parking is accessed off the alley and people will probably tend to use the street. The neighborhood feels that the sporadic park- ing is tolerable. Hedstrom agreed the planning office and P & Z should accede to compromise dictated by the wishes of the neighbors and the need of the Church. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Nick McGrath, representing Charles Col line who resides directly across the alley from the Church. McGrath stated .- - Exhibit D a.- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutacrltugust 19, 1980 '"* '""~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning b Zonin Commission August 19, 1980 generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes no matter how much parking is behind the Church Will not fulfill the needs of the Church. A problem with putting too much parking behind the Rectory is the alley itself. The alley entrance is very narrow and in the winter it is difficult to use. McGrath said his client would prefer parking, if any, to the front of the Church with a curb cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath supported asking the Church to file a landscaping plan with the planning office. Charles Shepard, the Church, said they supported the reduc- tion. They originally thought a large amount of parking was required. Shepard said they do intend to landscape; however, he would prefer not to be tied down to a specific plan. But if the P & Z directs they have a plan, they will. Hunt asked if the parking were to be increased to 12 or 19, would the parking lot be paved. Otherwise there would be a terrible dust problem. Ms. Smith said that was discussed but was not part of the recommendation but it could be included with the review criteria. Hedstrom asked about the parking in the front and the idea that it may be preferable. Ms. Smith said it was discussed and the engineering department expressed reservation at the time. Ms. Smith said this is mainly an engineering matter. Ms. Smith said she felt the visual impact on the front would be even greater. The Church is neutral on this question. Hedstrom said the parking in the front of the Church was probably continue until the city enforces a curb and gutter in that area. Anderson said with the Codes the parking could not be done in front. Ms. Klar agreed the impact seemed to be landscaping over parking, and that is the direction they should head. George Stark supported McGrath's view point. Pam Beck questioned parking in the alley and having the snow plowed. It may be impossible to park there at all. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. aunt moved to recommend the reduction in parking from 14 to 12; approving the parking configuration of 4 spaces now as proposed with 8 held in abeyance and conditioned upon (1) five lots constituting one undivided development and (2) right is reserved to review numbers and configuation of parking including requirement to pave spaces and alley on an annual baeie in response to complaint of interested party, and (3) file a landscape plan; Hunt amended His . motion to include in condition number 1 that the five lots constituting one undivided development and that the entire parcel is integral to the parking needs of the Church; seconded by Ande"son. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. % x-Ya.c-"" "`7 i"~+ ~:~ ''mil Kathryn Koc , City Cler~~ Exhibit D Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 19, 1980 `'~ 9/19/2007 Dimensional Variances from the Requirements of the R-6 Zone District: Section 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Response: The variance will support the development proposal that meets the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, as demonstrated in the other review criteria of this application. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Response: The variances requested are the minimum needed to utilize the parcel and maintain the important architecture of the barrel vaulted church building. Staff finds that the proposed design strikes a balance that is sensitive to the unique shape of the church and the residential neighborhood, while meeting the programmatic needs of the congregation and local community. The proposal maintains a low plate height and expresses the new massing in modules that read as separate buildings and relate to the surrounding residences. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Response: The original form of the Christ Episcopal Church remains intact on the parcel, and the proposal is sensitive in scale, massing and form to the Modern architecture. Staff commends the applicant for preserving the Modern form, despite the fact that the Church is not a designated landmark. The restriction that the 1962 Church Exhibit E Dimensional Variances G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\Dimensional Variances.doc Page 1 of 2 9/19/2007 building creates on the lot is unique, as is the Conditional Use. Staff finds that the dimensional variances are appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. Exhibit E Dimensional Variances G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\Dimensional Variances.doc Page 2 of 2 9/19/2007 ASPEN'S 20T" CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: MODERNISM The Modernist Movement Modernism as a style of architecture describes the works that were produced beginning in the 20`h century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. The roots of this style can be attributed in great part to the Industrial Revolution, which led to dramatic social changes, and an inclination to react against all that had come before. In addition there was a new abundance of raw materials, including bricks, timber, and glass; and stronger materials, particularly metals, which allowed structural innovations. Initially, the modern technologies were employed in ways that reflected much of the preference for decoration and organic design that had preceded the 20`h century, for instance in the Arts and Crafts Style of the 1920's and the influential designs of Frank Lloyd Wright. As the century progressed, however, the demands of the automobile, and the need for buildings to serve uses previously unknown, such as airports, led to the search for a new architectural vocabulary. The streamlined and austere became more relevant. "Functionalism" and "Rationalism" were terms used to describe architectural philosophies related to this period. "Modern building codes had replaced rules of thumb."` "Architecture was seen primarily as volume and not mass. So the stress was on the continuous, unmodulated wall surface- long ribbon windows without frames, cut right into the wall plane, horizontally or vertically disposed; flush joints; flat roofs. Corners were not made prominent. Technically, the argument went, materials like steel and reinforced concrete had rendered conventional construction- and with it cornices, pitched roofs, and emphatic corners-obsolete. There would be no applied ornament anywhere, inside or out...A house was a machine made for living Le Corbusier provocatively declared in 1923 in his Towards a New Architecture, which has proved the most influential book on architecture in this (the 20`h) century."z Modernism in Aspen The period between the Silver Crash in 1893 and the end of World War II saw little new construction in Aspen. This changed when interest began to grow in developing a major ski resort, and when Walter Paepcke envisioned the town as the ideal setting for a community of intellect, cultural institutions, and pristine natural environment. As a result of this renaissance taking place, many ~ Robert Frankeberger, and James Garrison, "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism, and Beyond: Architectural Resources in the National Parks," Forum Journal. The Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Summer 2002, p. 16. Z Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture: Settines and Rituals, (New York:Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 701. Exhibit F Page 1 of 14 Walter Paencke 9/19/2007 important architects were drawn to live and work here and left an imprint of the philosophies of the modernist period on the town. The two masters who had the largest influence on Aspen, Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer, are discussed at length in this paper, along with a number of others who completed notable works here. Frederic "Fritz" Benedict (b. 1914- Medford, Wisconsin, d. 1995- Aspen, Colorado) was the first trained architect to arrive in Aspen at the end of World War II. Benedict had earned a Bachelor's Degree and Master's Degree in Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin before being invited to Frank Lloyd Wright's school, Taliesen, in Spring Green, Wisconsin in 1938. Initially, Benedict's role at Taliesen was as head gardener, but his interest in Wright's philosophy of the integration of architecture and landscape led him to study design at both Taliesen and Taliesen West in Phoenix, Arizona for the next three years. Benedict, an avid skier, first visited Aspen as a participant in the National Skiing Championships held here in 1941, apparently told of the charms of the town by Frank Mechau, an artist whom he met at Taliesen and who resided in Redstone, Colorado. In 1942, Benedict was drafted to serve with the 10`h Mountain Division troops, an elite group of skiers who trained at Camp Hale, north of Leadville, Colorado. On weekends, the soldiers would often travel to Aspen for recreational skiing. Benedict saw active duty in Italy and served with the 10`h Mountain Division until the end of the war in 1945. He returned to Aspen and purchased a ranch at the top of Red Mountain, focusing on operating the property as his livelihood for some time. According to Benedict, "The place (Aspen) was so dead and was starting to be a resort so slowly that there wasn't much to do in the way of design." 3 This situation changed for good after 1946, when noted artist Herbert Bayer arrived in Aspen with Walter Paepcke, and the duo's plans for the town brought more people and a new period of construction. Through Herbert Bayer, Fritz met his future wife, Fabienne, the sister of Bayer's wife Joella. Fabi persuaded Fritz to quit ranching and pursue architecture, which he did after being awarded a license under a grandfather clause that allowed architects to be licensed based on experience, rather than on testing. Benedict was known for setting buildings into the landscape in an unobtrusive and harmonious way, clearly derived from his landscape architecture education and the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright. He placed a high priority on creating an intimate relationship between a house and its garden. Benedict was a pioneer of passive solar and 'Adele Dusenbury, "When the Architect Arrived After the War," The Asoen Times July 31, 1975, p. l-B. Exhibit F Page 2 of 14 Fritz Benedict ~^* `.r ~` earth shelter design. He experimented with caz-free village design, sod roofed structures, and solar buildings. His master work, the Edmundson Waterfall house, which was strongly related to Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, exhibited many of these qualities and all of the central characteristics of Wrightian design, including a low pitched roof, strong horizontal emphasis of the structure, and the use of mitred windows at building corners. The most important of Benedict's works may best be defined by the examples that clearly represent Wrightian ideas, or where innovation was key. Waterfall House, on Castle Creek Road, Pltkin County,1960 Benedict's eazliest projects in Aspen were residences. In collaboration with his brother-in- law, Herbert Bayer, he also helped to design the buildings of the Aspen Institute, the intellectual center of Paepcke's facilities. Other known works by Benedict include the cabin at 835 W. Main Street (1947), the John P. Mazquand studio on Lake Avenue (1950, since demolished), the Copper Kettle (1954, 845 Meadows Road), Bank of Aspen (1956, 119 S. Mill Street), 625 and 615 Gillespie Avenue (1957), the original Pitkin County Library (1960, 120 E. Main Street), the Aspen Alps (1963, 777 Ute Avenue- the first luxury condominiums in 835 W. Main Street. 1947 the Rocky Mountains), the Bidwell Building, (1965, 434 E. Cooper Avenue), Aspen Square (1969, 617 E. Cooper Avenue), The Gant (1972, 610 S. West End Street), the Benedict Building (1976, 1280 Ute Avenue), the Aspen Club Townhouses (1976, Crystal Lake Road), and Pitkin County Bank (1978, 534 E. Hyman Avenue) In total, Benedict designed and renovated over 200 homes and buildings in Aspen and Snowmass a `"'~ 9/19/2007 ate`,, The Copper Kettle, 1954 "Mary Eshbaugh Hayes. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel, Aspen, Colorado. Exhibit F Page 3 of 14 434 E. Cooper Avenue, 1965 ~"', 9i19i2oo7 Benedict's works in Pitkin County, outside of Aspen's city limits, include two personal residences, the Waterfall house (1960, since demolished), the Aspen Music School campus, and the Aspen Highlands base lodge (since demolished). Benedict also did the master plan for Snowmass (1967), Vail (1962) and Breckenridge (1971.) Fritz Benedict was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in 1985, by election of his peers. This is a lifetime honor bestowed on registered architects who have made outstanding contributions to the profession, and only 5% of the profession receive this honor. The nomination submitted stated that "Frederic `Fritz' Benedict left a legendary influence on design and construction in the Rocky Mountain West...(creating) classics of the mountain vernacular.s5 He was given the Greg Mace Award in 1987 for epitomizing the spirit of the Aspen community, was inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame in 1988 and the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame in 1995, and was given the "Welton Anderson" award for his contribution to Aspen's built environment by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in 1993. In all cases Benedict was recognized for being a pioneer of Aspen's rebirth as a resort community. Many quotes from his memorial service in 1995 attest to the community's respect for his role in Aspen's history. Bob Maynard, former president of the Aspen Skiing Company stated "Aspen was fortunate fifty years ago to be wakened from her sleep by visionaries. The trio of Benedict, Bayer, and Paepcke combined dreams and hope and reality uniquely to restore a community ravaged by mining, trapped in poverty- yet willing to follow the dreamers."6 Similarly, the Aspen Times stated at his death, "Along with the late Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke and his Bauhaus trained brother-in-law Herbert Bayer, all of whom came to Aspen with a rare vision in the traumatic wake of World War II, Benedict was one of the fathers of modern Aspen, a man whose architecture not only helped shape the city aesthetic, but whose personal commitment to the original dream of a special `Aspen Ideal' made him the guarantor of the city's very soul."' Local resident and fellow student of Taliesen, Charles Paterson stated, "Whatever he was building was one jump ahead."s Aside from his architectural contributions, Benedict influenced the Aspen environment in several other ways. Benedict and his wife donated more than 250 acres of land within Pitkin County for open space. He was the father of the 10`h Mountain Hut system (established in 1980), and served as the first chairman of Aspen's Planning and Zoning Commission, developing height and density controls for the City, open space preservation, a City parks system, a sign code, and a ban on billboards. He played a significant role in the founding of the Aspen Institute, and the International Design Conference. He served on the board of the Music Associates of Aspen for 35 years. 5 Joanne Ditmer, The Denver Post, as reprinted in the program far the Fritz Benedict Memorial Service. s Robert A. Maynard, Remarks given at Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service. ' Mary Eshbaugh Hayes, "Fritz Benedict, 1914-1995: The Passing of a Local Legend," The Aspen Times July 15 and 16, 1995, cover page. s Charles Paterson, Remarks given at Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service. Exhibit F Page 4 of 14 ,--~ ... HERBERT BAYER -°~. `'~ 9/19/2007 Herbert Bayer (b. 1900- Austria, d. 1985- Santa Barbaza, California) was an artist of many disciplines. He apprenticed with azchitects in his native country Austria, and in Germany, starting at the age of 18. In 1921 he entered the most reknowned art and design school of the 20`h century, the Bauhaus in Weimar, Germany. The Bauhaus, which existed from 1919 to 1933, was begun in a spirit of social reform and represented a rejection of many design ideas that preceded it. "From skyscrapers to doorknobs, modern design was born, really, at the Bauhaus. The ideas of the Bauhaus shaped whole cities, changed architecture, modified the nature of furniture design and transformed the essential implements of daily life." 9 Bayer was named the head of the typography Herbert Bayer workshop at the Bauhaus in 1925 and was ultimately one of three masters named by director Walter Gropius, the other two masters being the gifted Josef Albers and Marcel Breuer. In 1928, Bayer left the school and established his own studio in Berlin, then becoming the art director for Vogue magazine. As Nazism gained strength in Germany, Bayer fled the country and immigrated to New York City in 1938. There, he had his first show with the Museum of Modern Art, and began to work as art director for corporations and ad agencies. By 1946, all of his work was for Walter Paepcke at the Container Corporation of America and Robert O. Anderson at the Atlantic Richfield Corporation, both of whom had an interest in Aspen and the establishment of the Aspen Institute. Walter Paepcke brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he served until 1976. Bayer was offered the chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration. ,.~'~ The Sundeck. 1946 on the grounds), Aspen Meadows On April 1, 1960, Bayer received a license to practice azchitecture in Colorado, without examination. He had no formal training in the discipline, so he generally worked in association with another firm, particularly with Fritz Benedict. The Sundeck on Aspen Mountain (1946, since demolished) was the first of his designs that was ever built. At the Institute, Bayer designed the Seminaz Building and it's sgraffito mural (1952, the first building Guest Chalets (1954, since demolished and 9 Beth Dunlop, "Bauhaus' Influence Exceeds It's Life," The Denver Post Apri120, 1986. Exhibit F Page 5 of 14 t^ °~A.., 9/19/2007 reconstructed), Central Building (1954), the Health Center (1955), Grass Mound (1955, which pre-dates the "earthwork" movement in landscape design by 10 years and was one of the first environmental sculptures in the country), the Marble Sculpture Garden (1955), Walter Paepcke Memorial Building (1962), the Institute for Theoretical Physics Building (1962, since demolished), Concert Tent (1964, removed in 2000), and Anderson Park (c. 1970.) Bayer also led the design for the rehabilitation of the Wheeler Opera House (1950-1960), designed two personal residences on Red Mountain (1950 and 1959), and other homes in Aspen, including those still in existence at 240 Lake Avenue (1957) and 311 North Street (1963). Aspen Meadows Health Center, 1955 The period during which most of Bayer's architecture was designed is confined to 1946-1965. Important characteristics of his buildings were simplicity and the use of basic geometrical shapes and pared down forms. He was heavily influenced by Bauhaus and The Marble Sculpture Garden, 1955 International Style principles. Color was an important component to some of his work, and he ofren used primary red, blue and yellow graphics. Bayer paint scheme Bayer believed in the concept of designing the total human environment and that art should be incorporated into all areas of life. He drew logos and posters for the Aspen Skiing Company, and even designed signs for small Aspen businesses. He provided the paint color schemes for certain Victorians that Paepcke's Aspen Company decided should be saved in the 1940's. A strong blue color, known locally as "Bayer Blue" was one of his selections and can still be seen on the former Elli's building (101 S. Mill) and other locations in town. His choice of a bright pink for Pioneer Park (442 W. Bleeker) and a bold paint scheme that once existed on the Hotel Jerome will also be remembered. Exhibit F Page 6 of 14 Aspen Institute Seminar Building, 1952 >~ ~~ ~.e>, ~% 9/19/2007 Bayer spent 28 years living in Aspen and was one of the first artists to make his home here. A Rocky Mountain News article from 1955 stated "Even in competition with millionaire tycoons, best-selling novelists, and top-ranking musicians, Herbert Bayer is Aspen's most world-famous resident."10 During his years in Aspen, he resided at times at 234 W. Francis, a Victorian home in the West End, in an apartment in a downtown commercial building, 501 E. Cooper Avenue, and in his home on Red Mountain. Bayer moved to Santa Barbara for health reasons in 1975 and died there ten years later, the last surviving Bauhaus master. Notable among Bayer's many achievements include his credits in typography. He designed the "universal" type font in 1925 and was credited with "liberating typography and design in advertising and :~ -- creating the very look of advertising we take for granted today."~ ~ Much of modern print design reflects his ideas. He was the inventor of w,._. photomontage. Bayer created the "World Geo-Graphic Atlas" in 1953, which was described as one of the most beautiful books ever printed in this country by the Atlantic Monthly and the greatest world atlas ever Poster, 1946 made in the United States by Publisher's Weekly. Bayer created the famed "Great Ideas of Western Man" advertisement series for the Container Corporation of America and had more than 50 one-man exhibitions of his artistic works. His paintings are represented in the collections of at least 40 museums. He spent six decades of his life working as a painter, photographer, typographer, architect, sculptor, designer of graphics, exhibitions, and landscapes. His last work was the 85 foot tall, yellow articulated wall sculpture at the Denver Design Center, which can be viewed from I-25, near Broadway in Denver. Bayer founded the International Design Conference in Aspen in 1950 and was named a Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in 1953. He was the Chair of the City and County Zoning Committee for five years and was very concerned with the issues of sprawl. Bayer promoted increased density in town, put the original tree protection ordinance in place, and helped institute the ban on billboards. ARCHITECTS OF NOTE Charles Paterson was born Karl Schanzer in Austria in 1929. His mother died in his youth, and his father fled Austria, taking Charles and his sister when Hitler invaded in 1938. They traveled first to Czechoslovakia and then to France. Once there it was decided that the only way to get the two children out of Europe entirely was to allow 10 Robert L. Perkin, "Aspen Reborn: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," The Rockv Mountain News September 27, 1955. ~ ~ Joanne Ditmer, "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale," The Denver Post October 1, 1997, p. IOG. Exhibit F Page 7 of 14 ~"1 9/19/2007 them to be adopted by a family in Australia, whom Mr. Schanzer knew through business connections. Relocated to that country in 1940, the children took on the family's name; Paterson. Their father fought in the war and was eventually reunited with his children in New York City, after they immigrated. In New York City, Charles "Chazlie" Paterson started engineering school, but he had an interest in skiing and was disappointed with the conditions in the azea. He moved west in 1949, stopping in Denver. There, he worked for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad and skied on weekends. On one ski trip, Paterson met someone who had been to Aspen, and decided to hitchhike there a week later. Afrer finding a job as a bellhop at the Hotel Jerome, he decided to stay. Within a month of his arrival in Aspen, Chazlie Paterson bought three lots on West Hopkins Avenue, shortly followed by another three that comprised a full half a block between Fifth and Sixth Streets. There he built aone-room cabin in 1949 out of leftover lumber. Paterson returned to New York from 1950-1951 to continue his studies, then moved back to Aspen and began expanding the cabin. In 1952, he leased a Victorian house that had been operating under the name "Holiday House," and his father came to town to help out. This experience got Paterson interested in running his own lodge, and led to more construction on the Hopkins Avenue property. In 1956, he added three units and opened the Boomerang. Convinced by Fritz Benedict to study architecture, Paterson left again to spend three years at Taliesen East in Wisconsin, under Frank Lloyd Wright's instruction, during which time he drew some of the plans for the Boomerang Lodge as it is known today. The lodge's lounge, 12 more rooms, and a pool were added in 1960. The noted underwater window, which allows guests in the lounge to look into the pool, was featured in Life Magazine in the 1960's. In 1965 and 1970 other expansions took place on the property. Although Paterson has designed relatively few buildings, among them his own business, structures at the Christiania Lodge, and a residence in Basalt, the Boomerang is his master work, exhibiting strong influences of Wrightian architecture. Paterson designed, helped to build, and financed the structure, and is still its host and manager today. It has been described as "...timeless, ageless" and "...almost futuristic."12 Boomerang Lodge Other contributions to local organizations made by Paterson include being a member of the 'Z Scott Dial, "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge That Charlie Built, and Built, and Built," Destination Ma¢azine. Exhibit F Page 8 of 14 ~. ~... '' 9i19i2oo7 Board of the Music Associates of Aspen for 20 years, Chairman of the Aspen Hall of Fame for 2 years and of the Aspen Board of Adjustment for 20 years and counting. He has also served on the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board of Directors. Paterson worked for the Aspen Skiing Company as an instructor from 1952 to 1969. Eleanor "Ellie" Brick6am graduated from the University of Colorado's School of Architecture. Construction was a family business, so Brickham's motivation to be a designer began as a child. She moved to Aspen in 1951, attracted by the skiing, but once there, found herself the only female architect in town. Eazly in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, particip; Institute. During her time in that office, and later with her own firm, she designed a number of residences and commercial structures in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 W. Bleeker Street), and the Patricia Moore Building (1969, 610 E. Hyman Avenue.) Within Pitkin County, Brickham designed numerous homes in Starwood, on Red Mountain, and in Pitkin Green. Her works total at least 50 buildings in the Aspen area. Brickham's designs have been characterized by spare, simple forms and detailing, and she has an interest in passive solar techniques. Still practicing today, Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness.i13 Victor Lundv designed a second home for his family in Aspen, which they have occupied at 300 Lake Avenue since 1972. Like Benedict, Lundy is a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects. He received his degree in architecture from Harvard, studying with former Bauhaus director Walter Gropius and Bauhaus master Mazcel Breuer and was later awarded two prestigious traveling scholazships by the Boston Society of Architects and Harvard University. Lundy has been in practice, most recently in Texas, since 1951 and has designed many notable government, commercial, office, and educational buildings throughout the world. He has received a Federal Design Achievement award, the highest honor in design given by the National Endowment for the Arts. ~' Bill Rollins, "Brickham: Simplicity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Aspen Times. Exhibit F Page 9 of 14 433 W. Bleeker Street, 1973 300 Lake Avenue. 1972 ~. 9/19/2007 Robin Molnv (b.1928- Cleveland, d. 1997- Aspen) apprenticed at Taliesen in the 1950's. In Aspen, he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission and was the designer of Aspen's downtown pedestrian malls. He also designed several notable commercial buildings, including the Hearthstone House (1967, 134 E. Hyman Avenue) and the 720 E. Hyman Avenue building (1976) along with area residences. Well known architect Harrv Weese also contributed a building to Aspen in the Given Institute (1973, 100 E. Francis Street). Weese, of Harry Weese and Associates, Chicago, was an internationally known architect responsible for a number of significant projects throughout the United States, including major historic preservation projects in the Chicago area, and the design of the Washington, D.C. subway system. A graduate of MIT, he studied with famed architect Eliel Saarinen at Cranbrook Academy in Michigan, and then joined 100 E. Francis Street. 1973 Skidmore, Owing, and Merrill for a short time. In 1947 he opened his own office. Weese was recruited by the Paepcke's, who donated the land where the Given is located, to design the building. Eligibility Considerations There are specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the historic context. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following distinctive characteristics if influenced by Wrightian design principles: • Low horizontal proportions, flat roofs or low pitched hip roofs. • Deep roof overhangs create broad shadow lines across the facade. Glazing is usually concentrated in these areas. • Horizontal emphasis on the composition of the wall planes accentuates the floating effect of the roof form. • Materials aze usually natural and hand worked; such as rough sawn wood timbers and brick. Brick is generally used as a base material, wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend more toward heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud framing. • Structural members and construction methods are usually expressed in the building. For example; load-beazing columns may be expressed inside and out, the wall plane is then created by an infill of glass or brick. • Roof structure is often expressed below the roof sheathing • Glass is used as an infill material which expresses a void or a structural system; or it is used to accentuate the surface of a wall through pattern or repetition. • There is typically no trim which isolates the glazing from the wall plane. Window openings are trimmed out to match adjacent structural members in a wood context. Brick openings tend to be deeply set with no trim other than the brick return. Exhibit F Page 10 of 14 r 1, 9/19/2007 • Structures are related to the environment through battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, clear areas of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground. • Decoration comes out of the detailing of the primary materials and the construction techniques. No applied decorative elements are used. • Color is usually related to the natural colors of materials for the majority of the structure; natural brick, dark stained wood, and white stucco. Accent colors are used minimally, and to accentuate the horizontal lines of the structure. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following distinctive characteristics if influenced by Bauhaus or International Style design principles: • Simple geometric forms, both in plan and elevation • Flat roofs, usually single story, otherwise proportions are long and low, horizontal lines are emphasized. • Asymmetrical arrangement of elements. • Windows are treated as slots in the wall surface, either vertically or horizontally. Window divisions were made based on the expression of the overall idea of the building. • Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. • Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate itself from style and sentimentality. • Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. • Entry is generally marked by a void in the wall, a cantilever screen element, or other architectural clue that directs the person into the composition. • Buildings are connected to nature through the use of courtyards, wall elements that extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the natural environment. This style relies on the contrast between the machine made structure and the natural landscape to heighten the experience of both elements. • Schemes are monochromatic, using neutral colors, generally grays. Secondary color is used to reinforce a formal idea. In this case color, or -ack there of, is significant to the reading of the architectural idea. Although modernism has likely changed the course of architecture forever, it is possible to set a date when the style in its purest form began to wane: around the mid 1960's nationally, and into the early 1970's in Aspen. At this point, there was a growing unease with some ways the Modern Movement had reshaped cities and resulted in "towers and slab blocksi14 followed by a move away from the design principals that had guided the mid-century. The period of historic significance for buildings of this style in ~" Kostof, p. 743. Exhibit F Page 11 of 14 ~"` ..., 9/19/2007 Aspen, a term used to define the time span during which the style gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance, is 1945 until approximately 1975. Aspen has been fortunate to have drawn the talents of the great minds in many professional fields since the end of World War II. The architects described above had made important contributions to Aspen's built environment that continue to influence its character today. While there are numerous towns in Colorado that have retained some of the character of their 19`h century mining heritage, few or none are also enriched by such an excellent collection of modernist buildings as exist here. Exhibit F Page 12 of 14 Bibliography 9/19/2007 Chanzit, Gwen F. "Herbert Bayer and Aspen," Exhibition Notes Adelson Gallerv/Paepcke Building Aspen Institute Aspen Colorado, December 1999- December 2000. Cohen, Arthur Allen. Herbert Bayer- Limited Edition: The Complete Works. MIT Press, 1984. Dial, Scott. "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge that Charlie Built, and Built, and Built," Destination Ma ag zine. Ditmer, Joanne. "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale." The Denver Post. October 1, 1997. Dunlop, Beth. "Bauhaus' Influence Exceeds Its Life," The Denver Post Apri120, 1986. Dusenbury, Adele. "When the Architect Arrived After the Waz," The Aspen Times July 31, 1975. Frankeberger, Robert and James Garrison. "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism, and Beyond: Architectural Resources in the National Pazks," Forum Joumal, The Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Summer 2002. "Fritz Benedict." Retrieved from http'//www.vailsoft.com/museum/index.html, the Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame website. "Fritz Benedict Honored by Peer Group of Architects." The Aspen Times June 20, 1985. Fritz Benedict Memorial Service Program, July 25, 1995. "Harry (Mohr) Weese." Retrieved from www.artnet.com. Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Bendict's House in the Hill," The Aspen Times March 11, 1982. Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel, Aspen, Colorado. Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Fritz Benedict, 1914-1995, The Passing of a Local Legend," The Aspen Times July 15 and 16, 1995. Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Exhibit F Page 13 of 14 ~"1 ..M, n 9/19/2007 Laverty, Rob. "50 Years of Benedict: A Forefather of Modern Aspen Looks At What Has Been Wrought," High Country Real Estate, Aspen Dailv News February 6-12, 1999. "Noted Designer Herbert Bayer Dies." The Asnen Times October 3, 1985. Perkin, Robert L. "Aspen Reborn: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," Rockv Mountain News September 27, 1955. Rollins, Bill. "Brickham: Simplicity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Asnen Times December 22, 1977. "Transitions: Robin Molny Changed Aspen- and Made His Friends Laugh," Asnen Times, January 10-11, 1998. Urquhart, Janet. "History Richochets Through the Boomerang," The Asnen Times November 16`h and 17`h, 1996. Exhibit F Page 14 of 14 N £SZl-1191800tR1O100'N3dSH "'~'~^~°;~&~«~~ ~-•-~-*.~-- . o N .. oi.~... .,a. •...... . ios 133211S H12iON 1S3M 9£S : ~~ ~~, F ~ , ~ 4 ~ e 3dSb' d0 H~bf1H~ lb'dO~Sid a g U ~ O 3 1SI~IH~ B . ~ ~s a :; , k Q h a s 3 ~4 ~ i O g ~I~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~,~~ ~~~ o o ~~~~~~~~~~ o :?~? ~~^ m paxa m;'a 8 ~o ~ N F C 3 :6 -_ %~ ~~ ~Y sY n ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ?_ `~ Q ~ ,~,~. _ o 0 ~W cyi f" - Cj/ O a ~o o ~ m < _ d 9 m e~ as as 9 ~~ ~ ~o 4~ ~~ ~I~ O8 < ~ m ~ 4 d a ~ - - - - - _ - _ - ~ ~ z ~ D ®~ g a oaJ oO~ Z ~x - v y &: c~ izr - _ s. m: ® ., . ~ o ~L ``~ 4 ~ ~ ~. _ 0 ~ Y m. - m~ ~ 11n _ ~. I V~ ~~ - - ~ ~ ®` ~`~ m~ ~ 1 .~ a a ~' ~; ~ w F" e u B f~ a ~ ~ O~n x 8 - c ~ Oo~~ ~ s ~'' ~' _ ~ 3 ~ O $ ~ ~ ,e m ~ - 4 : m a ~ t„ `\ A £ n S ~ ~ °n s ~® Fi O~Q 4 ~. o _ ~m a ~~ ~ ~ - O 4 4 _ _ _ _ C r' - y ~' m _ _ '- m ~L 5..1. ItO'A~ ~ ~ - [u iN \ Q®x%~Z "3 __ _ _ _ _ O rv3~ O IYD~• ~ ,~ y: } ~ ~' d t 9~ - ~ QQQa Q ~ IZ~ ry ~ ~ O ~ C q ~ L u \ \ o~ ~~ - A ~~ o -YI- ~ ~ 0~ I I ° ~ ~~ a i' :h ~ i I ~RI ,a~. c ;. ~- ~ =v D ~ ~F E;a ® I 6 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ASPEN N e~ ~ ~~ a r c h i t e c t s • '^ a ,o , ,-~ a.,, +, ,, o „ n , e 536 WEST NORTH STREET O -+~w-~-~-M ++o.~o.+.~,i oro+m~a~m ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1253 ~° r•I °°~~~ °° ^~° ~°° £SZL-119L804V2iO10~'N3dSb' X1918 ~~°° 133211S H1ilON 1S3M 9£S m ~ 5 ~ Y N3dSb' ~O H~2if1H~ ~`ddO~Sid3 1SI~IH~ 9 0 ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ Q F a s a 9~ 8 V ~- - r°'- w `i/ WI9 J z 0 ~ i d i -~ A ~~ ~. B' I I I I I I I I I 1 9 n U b ~ ~u i I 8 S E I £~ I ~ __._. ,. V W I F _ _ _ B g o ~ ~ ~ g ~6 & ~ [ D ~ ~ g9 > ~ g ° ®~ CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ASPEN N S z g R a a r c h i t e c t s 536 WEST NORTH STREET • N ~ ~ s~~-•••~••_•••^~°•°~°~ ASPEN,COLORAD081611-1253 ... ..s.ma....i ero cw v.x n a~oexirerm m n b G m a 4 5 : ~ o ~ Y ~ n m~ FF P ~ ~" ° a ~ y sa II ~ ~ __ I I D O I~ m ~ I 4 _. u = I I I o m 'I • r I ,.~ ~ f f < ~ 5'-11' fP 1. O ' ~ Z I I I ® I I i L i i ~ 5'.3' '~ + I I _. , r,~ _ -__ ~ '.~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ I I O ~ z~ ~ ~ ~~ 9 ~~ ~~ I x _ F I H---- I ~ ..... .. .. .. .. .. -~,l j 5f~' P~ ' I L I I i .. '. ' '.. _ ~. ~~ I ii ,I ,,, I __ VJ ii Irl -- -O I I I I ,, -~ ~ m f ~ ~ ~;o~ ' ~ & s~~mo Nm F 8~ r e ~ ~ ~ ' g ~ p c, m ~ ~~~8 ~_° m 4 r n ~ ~gy' s s x D ~ '°d° 9 s g ~ I g CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ASPEN m 6 W c w~ a r c h i t e c t s 536 WEST NORTH STREET '°'"°°'°"°'°'°°'""'°' "°'"° "°" ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1253 la &~CIXL -O[b "- ~ esz~-<<s~eoavao~o~'N3dsv ~~" ~... .^". "'~~~~° 133N1S H1210N 1S3M 9£5 s '~ 1~o a ~ I u~ o ' e ~ ~ M N3dSd ~O H~2if1H~ ~`ddO~Sld3 1SI~IH~ 9 o s s ~'~ W~ Q Q Wo w II ~~ VJ J Qa ~ W y o ~~a ~ w ~~ M 8 ~ ~ ~ c5~ 'a QwE ~ o~ I O- KS ~~ O{Z~ ~j~ ~~ ~~ O ~~ 600 ~Fk i3s iii ~ __.IIII~O 1111/111 c~ '<~~ ~ ~ ~ 5S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w¢ ~~N W a ~~ u u ~a s ~~ ~u ~_ { wFpp au ~fo j$ v, i ~ m R ~ w{ rc~* epZa II I g~~F~ 1111 -~ I I 11 I I III .u-.S I I I I II II II ' II I -, I I III I II I I I I I I I 'I 'I' ~ I II ~ I I z ' O III i Q I w I II ~ ~ = 11 ~- I~ ~w e 0¢ 3 ~N o I I T ~I ~i:~ ~~ Wh ___ ___ Z °.,d~~.~~dn. o.n3 .~..,m°. .....,...,,..._ . O 7 o a 1 I ~... ....... ... ..,, & ~ seaF-~FS~soaeao~o~'Nadsv u e o" as Q 133ii1S H12iON 1S3M 9E9 b 3a ~ N3dSb' ~O H~?Jf1H~ ~b'dO~Sld3 1SIbH~ € sga _ r "'' ~S w ~ E z 'pr' U z0 N g ~ ~ '~ ~ ,° j!'., ° r a~3y a ~ ~" i, r v oce is uE zw°a ~Q V r^ t,{ ~""'~ „pgn3 t ~°~ B axr .` ~ N WW KNU~2 KID a~OQj am0 ~" ..`6L4 C ~Sx t k 7 y o .e r~~ oo~:ate ¢~~ ~Umwm bwo&m .,J ,.<.• U K 01-~°~a' MJFaNV m7mm~ JEFJ mp F j { e FL'e may,. Y. ZOmN Kmm~m Y<<ZFp^ N mN O Z¢ EJU~ ryk B~rsc fr Jv~i e-Oumi mdOUOO Ujrj OOm Iti~rv Z~Jppir" aJKv°1i ~n ~_ .~f I ~~"".nr r.J Z ~ >¢UO" Jm>nn ~ ~t ~;~~ x5 rcrc $ 4fi r6WZq OEZmm NUJ j Zmv Ye- and y Np3wo mz~mm Z~z~~ ~wmm 00~¢m i„t ryx~ ~ +,. KUaUF- ~C~FU ~~ -a c v 11 v ~« r~nnaru Iwo&[>r 3n`~ru ~~ ~ 4'•. rk~ §4 r°~ .~.. , k "YY+ytk9, o ~ ~~ w6 ~~ ~ ~Y Yu Q r r~ /.` 4..XF ~ ~ ~ of '. ~ i Yecyt4.n a tr B+tac ~....• rv.. ~I ru a$ '+°f k.u... xN a 9 o vw ~~.a.,' x 9's K ~~ ~~ ii ~ ~ Y ~ ~' o p ~ ~ ~ ~~ mm ~ } ~ ~s ~ °° ~ N ~ F~ Zo 1P o ZZ t~9 (y9 ~~ ~~ ~.% ~ i o ~ OJ r ~ ¢'a H~ .'wY j ° ~~ dda a~ dd dd ° ~~ - ~; ?+.y r u;~`~e a~~~ x.ti g rc w w mm ~ qq ~'~ ~ u ~ x i 5 z~ gg "5 ~ xa i ~ N ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~LL ~ @~ ¢ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ G' ~~ y~ o ~ ~m xo d°5 ~~ ~ »~ u3 ~i n ~ i C ~'~ u p f/J (n LL~LL ~ j/1NV1 ~ NNpn m ~ v~ ~ m arch ~ % rvc~n•r °J < E j ~E t g F l $~ gFl g! !~!{¢ ii g5 $!~iqiri8~1 3 i i ! 8Fa t!I{F~8le $t18a 8e ~ r e m o $~Ii6~$iii~ilii~iilBe~~ia6i~~{t~l tt~88i548511iaerrll$ I~#i $iiE~3~ttt! ii8illii!$54151iF $i~€i~tit w gg g } z o m9t8%$5i&€kd:.:.i$ie~€€?bs~e$!E'' e~E clS ~dg•.~~ ~ r. s;`ts ;°ESxBs riffs l.. $m ...i=.H4e: C , ~.._>. ~ N H 0 N ve rw w w toW > d Z ~ F €i I °f~_ § O W J K J m w j m ~ O_ ~ tt ! ! i N x a a o w O rc `~ a o w O ~ 5 eBYqq pp¢¢ p 181I $ I s IiI ~( is a psp s! 8181 9F ~!a8 w m s J rc r a m i J m r Q s & 1~ 84E ]] 8 i@ fib i,rt lrsFi ! i' $ t i f 9 8 {~$[~~~~~iE~iilii~~~ii~[i1F~ ~a4~~f€€ If€55~11ii~ fa9ii91$~~~a~ ittt{~tl~t~~~EE i i$.ite~$I1i911€:S.a4$€i.ii Q N " lY °6SSe3t8,!',$ti$6°€8rr-§isg$! i5:l~. e-X8686809- E€[.°'.~E@aE$e158~a°kc.~~e:Fl~: o E3i6i's$ C3& €9: a.: e'x'a3 ee lL o m W fb 4~ o ~ . m s 3 ~' o e m m wLL 9"n Q fl #1§ ~ a ~_ € i~ s i °~5 54 i €- ! p o $ i a F Z a ~ w R m m^ ro x y o ~ ° a i 8 lib P a i f58i8 ee r 88 r ! k~sdg£ ii 'i rei 8! iE ! i$@€ _ p ts{ ii p yy y gg g y e i $588 Bli 33S~e$F8$f~isEi ~ a xo i ' NN"'N r <crcn m 11~$6l[~~$~I#Ii$1 lFillii.:a FB~l~Il881583l84i$ iiil#.i!$!€4~~ t}~ii4 9$i48ii~8$s ilrsi.' 8 €V O m~ m d Z ~ ~ e[vaF 5 55 t i• A Y $ __~ d'_[ d 93 E Se~,y_ 0 5 ~ < o > ~ '3.i5wd~m?e$tli8$35 °.a'?E:< li!ls.~~rt4E8r e... a3 d€ddd.:t6$5°s s88e4Ba FsBr..s[.. 4_ -8a s. d»3.. > Fmn F E ~ ¢ f,~ Z OQ•`n W N O mm O 0 ., zoo ~urv tt~ uq~n '= u w a 4€; r u (~ y p _ { 3 c S 2m F~im wi ~ rcN~~•F r rc Oa 5 is ~ E 8 a 8! Is 8FP$ e$. -[[ a8 $r€ ~! 5 8 k i9 } p a u ~r r w rc LL $ a! 1 8 {~'. S 1 4 8 "~ a~o~ 2~ ~ ~=~aa°~ `~ ~ ~d a iii@0~~~~~~~~9{~E~~~i~ii~ ~I~ii~3~i3iaf95i~i~ #i~56Fii$I~Ei~i~~5i1~3i~E~~i €11i131~1.F : r~E75~~:5itiailEt~ F6 WyFp F °.1 N~QW 6O O WW K J m wW m -I S ® gy !E a p6 O_d~ 6N U' ~p Fd KwO ~ ~J O ¢ p ~J O 4 g {{ r gg d5 e b S f. ~~eo ecy¢ ~yy ]S w~ ''¢ o v v w 3 z "~ zU ~ a p w u~i wv~ z C`e~i r p w z~ ~j r ilg'.5~944g3~8Yi=9i4$s98<$ $Y.s§ii$s~9.:.53i:. 35na59e'ae8au~-.,a oa~e091§~99A..8.:8E~e'Bi' 8-= 5E$Fassea $°E$o; Q6p O ~ ~~ow O 6W WmO~ 6N ~ pNSOpJ IL~ W mZ m ~ d m m ~ S 4¢ r s$, g 3 b8 € ~5 ge °'n lea E e ~ Be 3` 1 S g$€Y° $= e $g ~i Q1~~€ E 's ie®$+" nysb 9 N °aB i i~ i ~ ~~ ~ a$€~' ee 1p3 ~ g ! ~8 1€ a 3 eg€ ~~~ ggI Sa ~$ ~e ~ 5 J 8 e ~'~ b i .~ .ee5 $@~~ ~ § ~ ~r ~$_~ ga `' 9$ H9~4€~8€6 5. '~y(i €~ e O 8g~ ~ 'j b € ~y 8~ $m z 48 i ,. 8c° r3° pg y y8 5 Ba Hyy 5 ~$ 6F$ a q'e ~ 6 63 € ~~ 9~ a~:'~ e~B~e '~6 Fn~! W~ b BV ~.& b$ Eea~A~ dG' ~ ~ ~__ p$ ®~ Y~ @ ~t ~ tlb. ~ ~s ~e ~k g G~d£ ®®8 Y r Syy p q (@ ~ i ~ YY~~ ~Yk ¢ ~'W q g 3 YYY PP 55 ~ sC s I .s $Y V8 n5w~ii a3dg BbelE ~ a ~°e~1 ~S~ ~~ 88 ~9 b { E~gd e i cE ~ ~e €e 6v eZ~e ~aS aks ..w ._ .. FF gg i p y gg §q vq5 E yn9" (( g ~ 6€ y ~89. 6 EEc~ 8$e F3 b g 6€ ~°® ~g~ i€.dp3 . a.€A ES~ Y € vi ~ a ° ~ , i ~+ gg 6 f' ' J Z c y 19. $F ad~ 3 ~ Eb~e 3 ei16~s ~=35p 18 € `~~ i&~ '~ng 811 5 ~ ~ t= ll.l $c$ a~ nl€p¢i s3 4ingg Y~4 ~$'ts: ~ {~~ $6ffie~e $i~~Qpp~~€' €~~ ~ ¢ p g $ 5~ ~ Z ~ ~1. n~~s yyr~s~E~ 3Y~§ 4aY'n~a9 a~5w$~~$l~e y4s a 9! @k~:p ~E! 2 E° ~ § ! ~ a ~~ 9€ gn€5€~-99 8 s15n8 €ck6, g5x x € $ S! B6w e H U ! .,ae 1 ~ 8' ~ ~ ~$ 6qn eg'[ € n ~ °a @ a8.i §8$€i$!e5 "$Ii~e ~l~t8 ~$~ ~ 84 ~ 4 § 89 ¢ w bgi sn ~$~~~~~ ~~~ €~~ ~~~i~qi ~a ~$~~~$~~i~$~g~ Egg{t~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ Q B$ ~p ~i q a 9~ d~, ~I g~ ~ os Bg~br €~ to ! 6~e ~~e€6e~61a i6~g°1i $l fQ'gg6g @i~ Y e5 pg gg ge ~8 (y~~(~y~[ zm a° Fe sB ~jp ~c Ee s~ ~ ,. ~t tpg €tl:e, 6 ~gg r' €€i@~€€p@a i g3~[$09~~ WR ~~€~'~3t€~B~@ ~".` ~~ ~ + T ~ ~ ~ ~ v '€n5~~8 Y485~56 3~ff1 [i~~el.°6S~ 9~ ~39[~S 8e 7 e.. 811 N 9 ~... ~~ ~~~ --- - O R U ~o pF °p j ~ ~ OF u~ > ~~r a~~ ~ pza ' ~< ¢~ ~~ <~~ m1 2 ~ ~ ~ a ~ €~< j ~ ~ ` ~R 8~ p g ~~ W _ ~ ¢N z ~¢~ ¢ ~<T ¢ U _ z [S pm W~ g~'~ `~'~a ~ N ~~3 ~° ~S$ ~ ` g $ ~ ~ €~ w < ~¢ ¢ o~ WW 2 ' ~~ F H ~ ?~j Z ffi~ S ~~~ ~~~ ¢ F =t?~ 4 °'9' ~ ~ ~W, ~ -° °~ F26 ZP~w ~N Np ~ _ ~ry ~ Z a cgs B' B 4w@ ~h~ R mbp€ ~~m € ~ ~ X60 o. ~. a^.~ k m Ni~ %n~~9o ~ ~~ o~ ~~u Q mm g y ~~~~ R pi ~ m ~ ~~qq °a Nav , `~^ ~Z~ ? i umc z~ (` ~ ~~ Eo ° V y ~ LL m Nb F F U W ~V= } O O ® °~ff °" _ o WZi ~ (7 j a ~ 0 ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ ~~ s - ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ OO {} L~' bg S$ 3 ~~ m,~ s° a'm ~... M'M p~~ x lea x o ~ I~~n ~¢_ _ _ _ m~ ,Ia'szI 3.00,oo.oos ~~ e ~ p GM n 1 - ~ w 9ih ~ U O ¢ p s oar v r q ~ w o g O -Y- X I %-X -%- N W O U I w ° H K ~o ~ Q ` ~ 3 ti ~ W a ~ ¢ ~ I q p ° ~ ~ N __ ~« ¢4 Y'ZS ~ O n / QO ~ #arc MM ~1 ~ ~i N m / ~m , o °~ &~ ° ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ° W° O ( ~ { { ~ ^~ ABLN3 W0. ~ ~ [ W ~ N NBddR 9'Zf ~ O ~. ~ Q f ~ p ~ N I ~ - i BM f~ z ,n ~ ~ I ~ o° ~ I i ° ° N = W B'6 J / O ~ ~ w ~`1 I $a~ 3 € I 96 _ 1 ~ 1 609 ~ p~ fl ~ ~ ~ OQ ~° ff o ~ . -o ~';o boo as d ` ~ ~° oo ~~_- ~ZBBG- °° ~ ~- ~_ BACK Di CURB ~ ,~_ M'OY O BB s~~xss x,r.~i3 ° F' <3 ~~ a o V] F~~~&€ a ~g~ € ~W m6g~fi x hWwL" ~ z~p~a u~m~w ~o~¢ ~3~~~ 'Ta$hi o~ o ~a~o~ u~ © VJ X1tlM ~NO~ T A ao us v s z c a` a w O F 0 z 6 ~~ U Z s 1 a a '....' ~,.~,~_,.... '........ eez~-~~s~aoavao~o~'N3dsv 4 a 133a1S H121ON 1S3M 9£S I i N3dSd d0 H~2~f1H~ lt/dO~Sld3 1SIbH~ 9 5 z m K ~ 1~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ I ~~~ i r x x x 0 ~ o ~~ o~ n ~ ~.. ~ ~ / I ~ y e~ ' n, r `~ I `" ~ y g ~ II j G /, ,' ~ ~ ~ f sKZ ~. - ~x-~x-x-x- ~ ~ y. ~i ~,'~ ~ ,{ ~ 1 ~ ry ~~ r~ I T ~ ~ ~ ~ W n-° k ~ ~ ~ t o~ r ,o rn o ~ °S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ka Sb b ~ ~ J~ ~~ Y ~ y~ p c~~' rb ~~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ '~ m - c~ tlaih ~ ~ ~ ~ I Y J 3 fa ~ r b a W ~% ~fl J F. ~ W N 'rye N S \ \ J ~ 'F.4', ~ ' 2 C~. Cf r \ i O~ ~ ~- Zn p s l ~ ~ Y r ~ b w~ J snry ~~ f~ ~ ~ I~ t G M ~ w r / ~~ i "~{~pz~ ~ ~'1 ~ V ~ fY I N ~ ~.,,~,. 3 ~' a ~ .oh ~ M W n~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ °= ~ '° ACt01 ~4Ja~ ~ _~ __.. 3.00 d h _...._•..... ~~ dOt O C1/If ......... -- ~-_ ~ troy A'f't '4,~f 133ais Fll~l.~ `~ - . YZ J __ e o~. ~+ •~~.-m. £9 ~, . m ~ ._•• 9 SA 6 ~ _ s ~ o a I y o i e 1332l1S HliJON 1 3M 9 S wo ~ N ` ' ~ m ~J m I N3dS d d0 H~2if1H~ lb dO~Sld3 1SRiH~ s ~.. ; a m a a ~ ~s ~ ~ Q g o w a ss> aye ~~tl~ C o a~Y ~gW~~ s~~= ~py~Y ~~E 'w t'~i OOz `a~ ~OQ~n $~g GGFGO O Fp~ OZ~FO ~>fSm~ 0 ~VF rn or ~QN aa~~~ ~w~a~ ~~ ~°~ V~ rn ~ ~o ~ 8oas "~ ogi `+' T gg 2 0_ _a ~`i s~ga~ $c~Cw $m~ ~Eo 0 p„ {n..~ .(.. .,,~ p, N~ - ~% z Q J a O W J_ 0] Q ~ Z_§ ~.... w ~ e W Q m N r ,. .. .p.. {..R ~% s 3~ / I I ~ $s~ ~ w I I ~~a~~~4 :~r~a€g~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~~E 3•e 4&~~tie ~ I ~ YY !~ ~'a i s9 I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~4n~q 4n~R„ I D Z I L I I I; F ~Ov~ I I ~ I _ I ~ ~ ~' Bn ~p-~ o w F„ ry. a # .. y.. Se d ~9 ~ ` s ~§ I - 2 -- - l ~ ---- - I ~ ~ '°' I I p.. p., .. a„ Q @ ~ I I ~ ~ o r y e C d I 'w o 8 ~ ~ ~ a ~ - ~ s ~ ---- - 9' . ~ > I ~ I '~ @ ~ m ~ ~ b § Y I LL09~ ~ / V ~ ~ I ~ 3 ~ 4:Y~~ ~4 ~ ~~ ~vS i roe= ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~:p ~ ~ k ~ 93e~ g~ ~ g I ,. ~ I s o 'k' ___ - ___ __~.~- 4 3`JW0159NLL51%3 .,._..._.._..._..._....-.... ~~.....,..~._ .................. ~...~.,.a..~..A,.~..~..3„~....a.a~...,~.,~.a..ewe..~...,~.~~~.,~.,..~.,.o,...o. ~~.o.~..~.~...o~~,.,~,..~ .. ..,. .,. ~.~b o. wo o.. ~„ 0~. .3,. ~.~.. a~..,a,m ~..,., ~.s,~3~~.~n..a~.. ~o £5Zl-lL9lBOOHbOl00'N3dSV ..~. __m,,,.._ o ~ 1332i1S HliiON 1S3M 9E4 s a of a ~ ~ u , , i e LLg N~dS`d d0 H~2Jf1H~ lddO~Sld~ 1SR1H~ 9 ~ LL~ =J m 0 ° w ~ 7 S. ~Sw Y~ ~ a a s~~ tlo~Owd ~'a&~ 'e°~ ~Ya 'a o7~ ~O='t29~r ~Yi O--~~~ 3x$ =Fo o pF t~9 OZZFO ~>r2m Ow'QQ~ -S £ ¢~ Za2 O~w=G p¢~Ow ~ja ~~~ w rj QF ~ fjp ~.nO p }~iN O~~ ~ Du~2 - o" 'z o`2"~ ~ o ~ Y uo ~`~ o~°~~ 8LL LLw 3~g ~~~ - aw 8d3 0 .oo Z Q J a O g w 5 .~ o ,.. ~... _..... ._."..., E9Zl-L181800VbO100'N3dSV "° ""'°'"'-" w 133211S H12iON 1S3M 9£5 : I ~ a a , e ° ° ~< M N~dSd ~O H~~1f1H~ ltJdO~SId~ 1SIbH~ 9 I I a b g <~ m a ~ a ~. , _ 69 € N u~ .. 4 ~° ~ a a 3 ~ ~~ o Y ~ 4 z ~ ~ o ~ 8 ~ Y c r ~o ~ - u m _ e ° _ ~ _ Fin _ _ ____ ` : _ bo Rm ~ .8 b6„ .m". I I I I I I I I •' . 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I ___ _ I _\I I I I I . ~ pp ~n ~ 1 1 1 I C $ ~o° ~ I I I I I I I ' ~ s I I I 1-. I. I I , :. I I ~ I I I i I I I I I I 1 1 I ~ ~ li I I ~ I I I 1 I I 1- I I ~ I I ~ I L I ~ I _ 1 1 ~ I I I L I f I ~ I I ~ 1- ~- - I - l I I I~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . - T I 1 I ~ ~ I I 1 ( j - - I I I I ~ I I I - ~ ~ I -. ~ ~ + . I ~ ~ I ... . I f I':. ~ I I j .. I ~ O I 1 ~ I I ~ I I. I 1 1 - I ~~ i . - 1 I _ _ ~ 11 T J I I , 1- I, I I ~ ~ I I g I W I - I' ' I I I 7 I 1 I .. 1 ~, o I 1 1 - J I I F > I I I w I f- I--. I ~ ~ I ~ W m I I''~ ' I ~ I~ I ~ I '. I - I, ,` I 1 I ~ 1 I Z I '. I ~ Q I I I . - - ~ ~ a I I - 1 ', . ". 1 I I '. [. ~ I I W I 1 ~ I I I I Q ~ l '~' \----- -I ~-' o : ~ I I Z ., i i F- 1 ~ I ;` I i I I ~ X 1 - 1 I I W y 1 I 1 I •• . I I (V -_. 1 ~ I I ~pL-- ' 1 I 11 - . ! I I '.. 1 w ~ o G ~~o "~ i~a: a I I I I I 1 z d a ~ ~L ~~ " a gw'o s ~d W°~z ~ea° Z ~w" , '~ ~g I ' ~ ~ ~ C ' s~ ~_.~_____ I ~ n Y o ° p£ E ' $$g OZZFO 8~~p~ 2mN SwF= ~ zz Oua paS ^ s~ R ~ ~ s ~~ _ ~` ~~~~3 ~`S3 ~~o ~i m uo a E °m u° a s _ ~ $~ 3 ~ g S pgg _ ~ o - n~ oa : z~3 .c LLw NS ~ mE o ~ q '~ .~ o E9Zl-1191800V2iO100'N3dSV °` "~°"""~: 1332J1S H1NON 1S3M 9E5 s l o a l 4 I~ y o s e w„ eo ' N~dSd d0 H~2if1H~ ~ddO~Sld~ 1SIbH~ 9 ~ , s 6$ =. ~" , m s o ~a 8 ~ ~a ~~ m~ 03 ug¢ ~O I A.01 2~,6 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I ~0 ' ~~ I I ` ~~ ~~~ ' ~~~ I I ~ I I °o~ ~ rc I I _______ I I _______ I I ~~u I fag n-~ ~ 1 I I I I ~W~m ~ I I ~ '~~~~ ~a c I I I ^~ I I I . . I I o I I ~~ I 1 ' ~~$y ~ I I I I `-------~ J~ I __ I I I I I ( I ------ I 0 I w~ y I ]Z I I a ~~O I I ------- ~ ,,"a 0 ( I YaU ' ~ 3 ~ I ~ ~ 4 Z~ i I I ~ w~ I ' I (~ .w y yy ei n.o-s fl x-s o0 ~q ~~ ~ S ~~ ~ k ~ Q~ a f d Fp ~ s ~ ~ ~ Fp G~ ~ FD $ _ m ~{ S _ Fm w w ~ um W u~ Q ~ O 3 L 6~ ~w~ ~~o~ ~ w a gg ~ ~ ~w" g~ o 4~ tl w~ a~ ~ ~<" lyw~ ~ ~'< a ~ ~~~ ~3~F4 ~>ri m~ ~~~ z F ~a„ ~, „gam i or ~^i o~~'~G ow~F~ ooa aaE ~ 8Q ~~~ s~8as gLL~LL~ ~~~ w;= C7 Z 1- 0 ~ w w _~ ~ ~ S 3 c .-.....,___.... _..,.,._.e...,..~._....... ~...,,~w,..~w.m,..~.....,,.~w,.a.,,.,.~o.,.~o~~.oa3.~...m.~~.».o,wm., ~o,,..o. ~..~~3.~.~...owe,,,o.~.., ~« 3.,, ~.~, ,.m ~s w„ oa. ..,. 0~, ,,3.M »a., 3aa..,~~~. .o,,.., ~e~~~3~~.~...aa..~ m,.o ESZI-11918 OdV2iOl00 ~N3dSV '~° -'~-^'~-'-_ `°„........ ~~~~~~~~~ o £ 1332i1S H12iON 1S3M 9ES ~ I ~ e I i 4 o L a °o N~dSd d0 H~2~f1H~ lddO~Sldd 1SRiH~ B I I <" m _ _ ~"- o " ; Y `> ~g a ~ hw `g3 ~ ~ I ~ ~ o~~ ~g~~ ~~~~ ~~Y ~~~ g °0 0'2~ °ooi~: o~~~N S~g ~`cd p FO ¢¢ z uF ~L Zupadlx G064w u~0~ Ow~a O ~-~~ ~O KZi% ¢}a 33~~ 4600 4600 Ony 3 3~ ~LU 806 yp p00 ~Fi1z wow s$63 gw F gi€ ~~_• I '31 A.~[.LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oLL ~ o s u LL a ' ~~ s s ~m x ]fA 0-.6 ', I' .2~~6 __ I _ I I I 9~.L ~ ____ _ ____ ~ :~~ I i I 11 ~ ~ I ,I I _ I = '~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I a II I I 1 ~a I ¢E I I orc I ~o 'o'- 1 I I I I r~ I I I I I I I I I F w a a io ~ l y I w` II 1 _ I I I o p ' , I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ~ m I II I i 1 I I I I ~ -_ _ ___ ___ __ I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I b zb o~ ~ _____ _ w 3a I m Ufa I I I I I I I I _ w I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ~ ~ o wo I I I I I I I I I I 1 o ~ I I I I I I ~~a i I I d~F I I I ourc' I I I I I I I I I zaoo t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I --- - - ' I ~ ----- ------- ., I i I .... I C. -----,-t . ~ I I ' I I I I , s~ o ~ ~~--~_---- o0 ' I ~ ~ o ~ i m ~w m _ oo ~ w E9Zl-119180aVJOl00'N3dSH ~"° -~~-"""-~~ O 133211S HILION 1S3M 9E9 s ~ o a ~ i q a ~ e J I N~dSb' ~O H~bf1H~ ~`ddO~Sld~ 1S12iH~ B ~ ~ ~~ Q ~ a; ~ i I I L _. _~x-x-x-x-x-x-x o~ ~ ~~yy~ S ~ '~ii'_o- o~ b o '~ ~ F V ____ ______~ _. _. ,. ~o ----- ~~/~y ~ i ~~ l.. ~a I _ i W~~ILIl / 4: ~ < I ~f/~Lj fir{ ~` U I / I ~~ i i i I I ~ I ~ U lx ~ ~ a ~ ~ .ryb l I I 1 ~ ~ o~ l ~ l / u I k~ i _o° ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ,i g ~ I o _____ I ¢~ r--__-VIII I~~I ~ 3 I ~ rl~--___~111~~1~~L-____, '~ ~ ~~ J I I ~ d I, I ____~_--___-1_____ w ~ ~ ~Irli I T- -- R--r--~ , / r ~~ , ~ I / ~ ~ / fI -______- ~~~ \\~\\ % w ~•,.~ I - - - - ~ rv I _ I I ~\ ~ > r / I I ~~' ~ ` ~~ , 0- c I Y ~ h I I - ~ -- m I ~ r ~ ~ ~ i I / ¢ ~ I F___ , __ __________ / z I 1- I I I I A - - ~ I~ III I ~ I ~ ~ . _ I - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - _--_ --_--_-- ~ '` _ I I I I ~ ~~ I~ IIIII ~.,. I-A' j ~ ~ I IIII I I I I I ~ __ -__ I Tp - - - - - - - I f I L ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _. _._ b ~ ~I p a O~ ~._ _~~ j er, b 6~ i ~ ~ 1Qf it - - _.. _. ~ w G c ~mtl~ ~"~" "'°° "" £9Zl-1191800VLiOl00'N3dSb' 1332J1S H12dON 1S3M 9E4 s l o a l i y a i e /11 N3dSt~ d0 H~2jf1H~ ~`ddO~Sld3 1SIbH~ ~ I I Q N sa a ~ I .~C'.BI ~ I qe I a3 ~ AE I~ alai I nz ~ '03 I I I I I l a I I I o-- - --- - ---~- --~- ~---~-- - I I I I .. I I I I I I < ~ ~ s0 I I I I •ry I I I I - - - - - - - o I ---- , p ~ ~~~ ~ I I ~ m I i q_ z0 y$ ~' r ~ I I 'I - r y < - __y " ~, g ooh ,e~}-- - --- - - ,. d LL p ~~ O N-j/ 0 ~ I t O b o m °9~~ ~o4W® 0 0 '. I - ~ - _ _~ ~ I 'fi w __ ~ o O ~ ~ ~ %" ~ ~9 ' ~~~e I I a ; % I i ~ c 0 - - - .. ~~ ~ ~~~ o ~... ~ Z Q J d b ~ r J _~`~~ ~;~Q -- - w ~- ~ 9- W ~ J9 ~® W 4 O - I J m r ~ _ ~- _ _ - _ _ - _ T _ - _ _ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I pN o ~,.,,~.p, ~~~~"'~~- ~ E9Zl-lL9lB OOViiOl00 N3dSV 133iJ1S H1NON 1S3M 9E5 s ~ e a ~ l y a i e ^, N~dSd ~O H~?~f1H~ ~`ddO~Sid3 1SI~IH~ 9 I ~ w ~ { Q E o _q 6a a r ~ .tesl .L. ~ ... I ~ I I I I I - i ~~ ®wa8 ,A - ® - ~ 3AOBV MCONIM 3 65V1903Nrv15 4x 9 nvoo r~ I ~i 4 O Y ~--- mioo alvro sza 'b ~ ~ 4 I& oho ® ~°L ® o: ~~ 5319V1 ~w- ® ~ 'JNIO'Af LI z o om ~oq~ r 0 ~~ ~i ~, ~ I ~ Q ', I~ 4 ~°~= , in I I J -T-,--~ I I i 0 0 ~~ xz ~ 03 I I I I ~~ o00 ~ ~ ooa ® 0000 ~ ~ aoa° ~~~ i i ~~~ `i e~-~~ ~~~ O°~~O O q O ® COOO ~~q~ OOOO ~OO~ I I OO~ ~ ® ~~_~~ i ~i ~~0~ ~~OO ~ ~ OO_~~ ~OOO I ~°I ~OOO ® ~~~~ i~ Li ~~~0 9 9 ~^f n 039 ~ ~ ~ ~ W A~ a ~"~D QO i i ~_° o --- - 9N --- OD i i- ~ ~ 4 ®~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LJ U"1 ~' ~4 wl ~I „~. ....... _ ~. ~~~ N ""~~"~ ~""'° E4ZL-1191800V2lO100'N3dSb' ' ' z " ' 133ii1S H12JON 1S3M 9E5 ~ ~ ' a ~ 4 ~ • ~ N~dS`d ~O H~~If1H~ ~ddO~Sld3 1SRiH~ 9 I ~~ _ ~ sa a ~ Q ~ o o w ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ LLg µ~ ?$ < ' ~ ~ 3 F Zm F T U' rt~ N~ ~~_ I I I' I I I 1 Z O_ I I w4 W O Q u a s s ~~B 1: Z~ Z O_ a w I ~"1 s,~e~~........._._.,. £5Z l-1181800ViiOlOO~N3dSV q ~ ~ e 1332i1S H1aON 1S3M 9£5 ' i N3dSd ~O H~bf1H~ lddO~Sld3 1SIZIH~ 6 ~b LL.~ I `r.. ZI~ x ~- o-- ~- o-- o-- ~- ~NI IL' I` iI it i ~ ~n o` yl~ ---- ~- J ~ =~o 3 d ~ ~ I ~ ~- __ ---~--j----- L - J ----- it ~§ S 8 ~ s d' =L . i ~g LL bu ??${ ~$mR I I ~I ro ~I II I ~~ i J~ i i ~~o ~ ~~-- i ~o I Z4 O:' Uj u I w w~ ~~ CV i i it it 8 ` w J J J ~o ,... ~. a, _~~~~~- N E9dl-118L804V2iO100'N3dSV 1332i1S H12iON 1S3M 9E9 ~ ~ ' a ~ ! a ' ' e z N3dSt/ d0 H~2if1H~ ~`ddO~Sid~ 1SIbH~ 9 ~ _ ° °~ ~ ~ - Q a o s3~ g ~~ ~' ~~ ~ o S . a S b ~ \\\ ~ w ~ i ~ N ~ ~ g $ $ ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ i i i i i ~~ u I ~l (/ m (~ ~ I I I V m ~ /~ +WI' ~ III -1 1~~Yy- ~ I ~ ~ I f l l I I I W I m ~o ~ III III III III I '. I S O I III III III ','.. ',,', ~ ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ III III III '',. -, III I III III III ' t ~o ~o ~ ~o III III ~ 0o , III III III I ~o _ , III III ~~~ III ~ w no n I III III <o ' w p s ~o m fo ~ III III III ~ aa ~ Z ° O_. ~ ~ ~ I III III ',. : ~ 0 Z Ov Y W w I I ~ I ` 5 ~` w 6 ~ H C L L rn y ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 3 o ~ u Fo 'o a r c h i t e c t B s Transmittal: To: Jessica Garrow ~ ~~, ~ - 7 2~~7 COP~dv,t,~; .~iC.~Jitrl~i'il From: Studio B Architects, Gilbert Sanchez Fax: 970.920.7822 Date: May 2, 2007 Phone: 970.920.9428 ~ Pages: Re: Land Use Application CC: Jim DeFrancia Jessica Garrow, Please find the enclosed Land Use Application for the Christ Episcopal Church. We have included: -Completed Application -Project narrative on CD -(18) copies of all proposed and existing drawings. Survey, Plans, Sections, Elevations. Please contact Gilbert Sanchez or Mike Piche at Studio B Architects at 970.920.9428 with any comments or concerns. ~/ ~~ ~~1( -~ u~~~~ Thank You, Michael Piche Studio B Architects 501 rio grande place suite 104 -aspen, CO 81611 - p 970.920.9428 - f 970.920.7822 wwwstudiobarchitects.net CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 DATE: 1.26.2007 PROJECT: 536 W. North St. REPRESENTATIVE: Bob Blaich, Gilbert Sanchez Tel: 920.9276 DESCRIPTION: The Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, is interested in demolishing and replacing an existing addition. The property is located in the R-6 zone district, and the existing addition was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1976 for a total of 1,760 square feet in size. The Applicant is interested in replacing the addition to remedy subgrade space problems (plumbing, etc), and to create additional space for Church services. The proposed addition would encroach into the IoYs rear yard setback. The rear yard setback in the R-6 zone district is ten (10) feet, and the Applicant would like to reduce it to five (5) feet. This will require a Variance from the dimensional standards in the zone district. The Applicant would also like to increase the allowed FAR on the lot in order to accommodate additional sanctuary space. According to the Applicant, the existing FAR on the lot is approximately 7,100 square feet. They would like to increase the FAR to 9,371 square feet. This will require a Conditional Use Amendment. Staff recommends combining the reviews. These are Planning and Zoning Commission Reviews. In 1980 the Church went through a Special Review to determine the number of parking spaces required on the lot. The Church was required by the Planning and Zoning Commission to put ten (10) spaces on-site, which never occurred. The Applicant will either need to comply with the approved Special Review for parking, or will need to receive an Amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Special Review for parking. The Applicant may decide to voluntarily designate the property, and could access the benefits available to historic properties. The Special Review and Variance required for the property would then be heard by the Historic Preservation Commission through the provision in the Land Use Code allowing Combined Reviews. The Conditional Use review would remain a Planning and Zoning Commission review. The Applicant has stated that the ramp in front of the property may be altered, and an existing tree may be affected. The removal of any trees requires approval from the parks department. Because an increase in floor area is proposed, the Applicant is required to go through a Growth Management Review. As a Church, they are considered an Essential Public Facility, a review for which requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and final approval by the City Council. This review cannot be combined with an HPC review. ATTACHMENT3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: SCo~rrL Gftu~uH (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial.net leasable: Existing: /~ Proposed. ~f~' Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: / Number of bedrooms: Existing: ~ Proposed: ¢ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ~A' DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 7t //g Allowable: ~/ Ofa Proposed: 9t,SD O .i Principal bldg. height: Existing: ~9 ///~r Allowable: ~S ~ 0 t~ Proposed: /~ ~ // Access. bldg. height: Existing: -' Allowable: - Proposed.• - On-Site parking: Existing.• 4 Required: `D ~ Proposed: Tj Site coverage: Existing: c/ ~ / o Required.• a.Z !o Proposed: 4'4 ~c Open Space: Existing: 1V~}' Required: IVA•- Proposed. Jlf/t- Front Setback: Existing: /o t Required: 6o t Proposed: /a ~ Rear Setback: g Existin /o t Required: /D Proposed: ~ s Combined F/R: Existing: 1~f}- Required.• ><ff} Proposed: ltFir Side Setback: Existing: / u /3 " ~ ~ Required: /~ /Lt/N • Proposed: I n /3 -7 ' Side Setback: Existing: 9~ ~ ~~ Required.• /St .utN• Proposed: ~/t"~ ~~ ~ , Combined Sides: Existing: ~i a31 ~// i Required: ~f 9 Proposed: ~ i, ~3 -// Distance Between Existing i~ v~~ ~ ~ ~ i Required: ~ Proposed.• /0 Buildings ~ P~t~ /~4zvu~t*Eat.T ~`tr~ ~` 1980 ~l/n-- P~!/~Lw Existing non-conformities or encroachments: S! G~ CO f/r~r}6'~~ ~Ti ff/>~T y ~~~ 1 Vaziations requested: SIZE ~/ t lam- 5L7.~9t6; t l~r /' Cd~tglct~p 471. SI?7Re.r/< ;~ a~a ~ 's _, ~ _- ~~ ~ ~~' - . ~. ~~ ~ .. ,~ '*~-.. ~~- . ~'~~.~' ~-~- _~.: A '~ ~. ~'" ~ ~ ae' " u i~ f r 1 K .`t- ~~ ' i a ~* ~ 'J~ y~~ t~ ~' .~,,T ri, "!r.• ~±~ _ ~ . ~ ~',' ~• r. ~1 ~ If ~ r~ ~~. -; • ~ 1 '_ •1F Iir SYL "f~ ~ -, ~ ~ i I I ,.. -- ~wytr _~__. . --.. ._. ' F~ - , +~- +' _ ,,,., - ~~ :_ ~syy Jr,^ i:. .~ ,~: X.; y~+ 4 ~ rt1 a ~~ ~ ~ W ;i ~~ i '~ . J ~ ~~ ~+ ' i 7~. y Fyn ~ '•{ a ~ +~ :' L . ~ ~ ti f f ~ '~ 7~/ ~ ~~ ti i ' x ~,i . ~'j~ , a: i:r_ ,. ~ 4 ~;~,- .~, r ~ ~ r' ~ , ~' ~:~ •~: ~ Ir ..~~ is i 7 ~ ~T{jj 7 i ~ 1 ~~ ~7' ~ ~ ~ i _ * ~ ~t~*,~µ, r ' ~~~ o ~~z ~? ~, }~ ...' ,~ ,~.~, ~ ,~, .. ,qt .,~,,~a y.~. * ~' i ~ y ~ ~ r,~ i ' _~ ~ s 9 ,~ ~~,~. ~i -~. r~ ~r ~~ ~ t r .r, F' ,.: ~~ , ` ,~ t ~ ~ ~. y ;s ` " ~~ ~+ ,..• , ' ':~.. .~.rt. ' ~ ~.~ . . IL,; ( . ~ 9 ~ ~ v I ;: wry ~ ° ~` ! ."~'', 'Y".i;~~" ~~~, .. r. a ,; ~ ~ ,J r . _A . ~ f ~~~ ~ ~~~~r ;; J l 1 y . T ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ a ~ ., ~ ~ r 1 ~ t ~~• t ,~' `f I 4 <<* ~' t ~.., PROJECT NARRATIVE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 W. NORTH ST. This application seeks the City of Aspen's approval for development to the Christ Episcopal Church property at 536 West North Street. The proposed development plans are intended to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. This will permit the church to continue its significant contributions to our community, to minister to its congregation's spiritual needs and to maintain its traditional identity in Aspen's West End. Christ Episcopal Church was established in 1881 during the height of Aspen's early mining days. The original church building, located at the corner of Second & Bleeker Streets, was later closed as a result of Aspen's dwindling population during the "Quiet Years." The town's revival after World War II as a resort destination saw the reestablishment of the church in the building that now houses La Comida restaurant, and later, in its current location. Opened in August of 1962, the existing distinctive arched church, designed by Chicago architect and part-time Aspen resident Francis Stanton, has been an integral component of the West End neighborhood for almost 45 years. The contemporary design is reflective of the modernist design philosophy fostered by Walter Paepke, Herbert Bayer and others influential in the post-war renaissance of Aspen. Modest expansions to the south of the original building were completed in 1973 and in 1976 as approved by City of Aspen Special Review. In 1981, the adjacent rectory was built to provide employee housing on-site. The proposed scope of work described in this application will allow for church facilities that respond to current accessibility requirements, comply with all life/safety codes, and provide the necessary program spaces for the fulfillment of the church's mission. The original arched church structure will be extended an additional 12' to the north and current deficiencies, such as roof leaks, poor lighting, ventilation and acoustics will be corrected. New construction will replace the existing support spaces added to the church in the 70's. This low-scaled element accommodates kitchen & fellowship spaces, adequately-sized toilet rooms and much-needed storage areas for the church. The building floor area will increase from 7,118 SF to 9,500 SF. Overall, significant improvements in the church's energy efficiency and sustainability are expected to be realized. The proposed development plan requires the following approvals from the City of Aspen's Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council: • GMQS Review for Essential Public Facilities • Conditional Use Review • Special Review for Parking • Variances from Dimensional Standards in R-6 Zone District Responses to the relevant review criteria are outlined below. ~,, 4.~ PROJECT NARRATIVE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 W. NORTH ST. This application seeks the City of Aspen's approval for development to the Christ Episcopal Church property at 536 West North Street. The proposed development plans are intended to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. This will permit the church to continue its significant contributions to our community, to minister to its congregation's spiritual needs and to maintain its traditional identity in Aspen's West End. Christ Episcopal Church was established in 1881 during the height of Aspen's early mining days. The original church building, located at the corner of Second & Bleeker Streets, was later closed as a result of Aspen's dwindling population during the "Quiet Years." The town's revival afrer World War II as a resort destination saw the reestablishment of the church in the building that now houses La Comida restaurant, and later, in its current location. Opened in August of 1962, the existing distinctive arched church, designed by Chicago architect and part-time Aspen resident Francis Stanton, has been an integral component of the West End neighborhood for almost 45 years. The contemporary design is reflective of the modernist design philosophy fostered by Walter Paepke, Herbert Bayer and others influential in the post-war renaissance of Aspen. Modest expansions to the south of the original building were completed in 1973 and in 1976 as approved by City of Aspen Special Review. In 1981, the adjacent rectory was built to provide employee housing on-site. The proposed scope of work described in this application will allow for church facilities that respond to current accessibility requirements, comply with all life/safety codes, and provide the necessary program spaces for the fulfillment of the church's mission. The original azched church structure will be extended an additional 12' to the north and current deficiencies, such as roof leaks, poor lighting, ventilation and acoustics will be corrected. New construction will replace the existing support spaces added to the church in the 70's. This low-scaled element accommodates kitchen & fellowship spaces, adequately-sized toilet rooms and much-needed storage areas for the church. The building floor area will increase from 7,118 SF to 9,500 SF. Overall, significant improvements in the church's energy efficiency and sustainability aze expected to be realized. The proposed development plan requires the following approvals from the City of Aspen's Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council: • GMQS Review for Essential Public Facilities • Conditional Use Review • Special Review for Parking • Variances from Dimensional Standards in R-6 Zone District Responses to the relevant review criteria are outlined below. f,~. ~ 4 `./ GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM This proposal responds to Section 26.470.040.D.3 Essential Public Facilities as follows: a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility. Response: An essential Public Facility is defined by the City of Aspen Land Use Code as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or for benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community." The Aspen community has long embraced the significant role of our local religious institutions as important contributors to the quality of our daily lives. Christ Episcopal Church has enhanced our community's ability to achieve the Aspen Idea -the cultivation of the mind, body & spirit -for almost 45 years. b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0. Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Response: Dedicated Annual Development Allotments do not exist for churches or other religious facilities. The City of Aspen P-anniag & Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council may, at their discretion, grant such allotments based on the merits of each application. c) The proposed development is consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan states "The genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions, and not by the physical look of our man-made artifacts or the magnificent beauties of the nature surrounding us." The Christ Episcopal Church core values and vision statement include the following: o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through hospitality, community-building, and friendship. o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through compassion, service and giving of ourselves. o United by faith in Christ, we will honor the uniqueness of every person, caring with compassion for the spiritual and physical needs of our brothers and sisters. The church reaches out beyond its own congregation to foster "quality human interactions" among the broader Aspen community. Programs and facilities for diverse activities from AA meetings to concerts by Aspen Music Festival and School musicians serve to enhance daily life for the citizens of our town. The proposed development will permit the church to continue this important community role. ~~ `, ~_s d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing 2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, fill part-time positions at the church. e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not include free-market residential floor area. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plan is intended to provide appropriate worship, fellowship and support spaces for its current congregation and the Aspen community. Code compliance, energy efficiency, sustainability, and accessibility are primary goals of this work. Expanded membership and additional programming are not. As a result of satisfying current plumbing codes, additional plumbing fixtures will be required. However, the use of current technologies like low-flow water closets will minimize the potential impacts on water & sewage treatment systems. Similarly, efficiencies in other new building systems &components will have mitigating effects that increase the current facility's performance and reduces its impact on public infrastructure. New heating/ventilation and lighting systems will improve energy consumption. Appropriate building insulation in the existing arched church and properly designed building enclosures in the new construction will achieve exceptional thermal performance. Fire suppression systems will provide a measure of safety that does not now exist for the church and its adjacent neighbors. ~~ Parking is addressed in more detail later in this application. CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT This proposal responds to Section 26.425.040 Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The conditional use of this property by the Christ Episcopal Church is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan as outlined in the Growth Management Quota System, Item c) above. Paragraph 26.710.040.0.1 lists "Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses" as permitted conditional uses for the Medium-Density (R-6) zone district. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel for the development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The conditional use of this property by Christ Episcopal Church is a tradition that dates back to the existing church's construction on the site in 1962. Similar uses are evident throughout the Medium-Density (R-6) zoning district that comprises this West End neighborhood. These include: The Aspen Community Church at 200 E. Sleeker, the First Baptist Church at 726 West Francis, and the Christian Science Society at 734 West Main. These organizations, like Christ Episcopal Church, are familiar, integral, and traditional components of their surrounding neighborhood. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking ,trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on the surrounding properties. Response: The Christ Episcopal Church has operated at this location for almost 45 years. The proposed development plan is intended to allow the church to continue its traditional role in serving its congregation and the Aspen community with facilities that minimize adverse effects on the neighboring properties. Since the original arched church building has only been modestly expanded (most recently 31 years ago in 1976), the existing building provides inadequately sized and inefficient spaces for the church's current needs. This application seeks the .-. :., City of Aspen's approval to increase the building area from 7,118 SF to 9,500 SF - an additiona12,382 SF. Dimensional requirements for the R-6 zone district permit up to 4,050 SF by right on the parcel. The attached drawings illustrate design concepts that minimize the impacts of this additional area. These include: o Separate buildings reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building area on the site. The existing rectory remains a separate, independent structure of 2,897 SF. It will continue to provide dedicated employee housing for the church, and it is not included in the scope of work of the proposed development plans. o Distinct modules reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building area on the site. The 6,603 SF intended for worship, fellowship & support spaces is divided among two distinct modules: the original arched church building and an adjacent sloped-roof support structure. These elements are joined by a glazed circulation spine. o The scale and rhythm of the adjacent neighborhood is reinforced. The distinct building components -original church, addition and rectory - reflect the traditional rhythm of the typica130' wide lots identified in Aspen's historic town plan. o The lower level building area is partially below grade. Approximately'/a of the volume of this level is below grade reducing the overall visual impact of this floor area. This was a design feature of the original arched church and is being incorporated in the new addition as well. o The sloped- roof of the new addition reduces the building height. The roof slopes from front to back resulting in a lower scale along the alley to minimize impacts on views & light for the neighbors. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools. Response: New efficiencies of the proposed development plans outlined in the Growth Management Quota System, Item ~ above will minimize impacts on available public utilities and services. Existing public facilities are adequate for the conditional use. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing 2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, fill part-time positions at the church. v .,+' SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF-STREET PARHING This proposal responds to Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards as follows: A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Response: Currently, 4 on-site parking spaces are provided in a stacked configuration behind the rectory. These are accessed from the alley. The church congregation and members of the community that use the existing facility park on the street, walk within the West End neighborhood or take advantage of the RFTA cross-town shuttle that serves the neighborhood. The design proposal increases the on-site parking to 5 spaces. (Only 2 of these spaces will be stacked parking.) Access will remain from the alley. The traditional use of street parking and transit routes will continue to be used by the church's members and the general public. Since the proposed developmeut plans do not anticipate expansions in church membership or programming, parking demands are not expected to increase beyond the current usage. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenazio. Response: In 1980, the City of Aspen approved a Special Review for Parking for the Christ Episcopal Church property that permitted 10 on-site parking spaces. This plan was never implemented. The requirement to satisfy the 1980 Special Review for Parking at this time would have the following undesirable results: o It would prevent the realization of the development plans outlined in this application; thereby reducing the viability of the church, its mission, and its contributions to our community. o It would result in the loss of open space on-site. o Increased building mass on North Street would be likely. The 1980 Special Review did not anticipate the current spatial needs of the Christ Episcopal Church. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Response: Existing off-site parking on adjacent streets bas proven to be satisfactory for the 45 years Christ Episcopal Church has been in this West End ~,_, , . ~,~ location. No additional demands are expected. Similar uses by the Aspen Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science Society are evidence that street parking is compatible with the neighborhood. A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: The requested variance is the minimum variance that would permit the plans outlined in this application to be realized, thus insuring the viability of the church, its mission, and its contributions to our community. The project would improve the availability of on-site parking with the addition of 1 space for a total of 5 spaces. A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan considers the role and contributions of Christ Episcopal Church to be desirable in sustaining a vibrant community. The West End neighborhood R-6 Zone District supports many similar uses. The Aspen Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science Society all enjoy relief from parking requirements of this area. VARIANCE FROM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT This proposal responds to Section 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances as follows: A1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title. Response: The grant of variance will permit the implementation of the development plans outlined in this application. This will allow the Christ Episcopal Church to continue its traditional role in the Aspen community, to maintain its West End identity, and to successfully minister to its congregation. It has been demonstrated above that the church's contributions are supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. r^ .., ~, A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: The grant of the requested variances to allow reduced setbacks at the west sideyard, the rear property line and increased site coverage will permit the Christ Episcopal Church to continue its traditional role in the Aspen community with improved, accessible, code-complying and energy efficient facilities. The variances allow the church to retain and enhance the signature 45 year old arched structure. The original siting of this building and subsequent development on the site has resulted in several dimensional non-conformities. These include west, east and combined sideyard setbacks as well as site coverage. The site is uniquely shaped. It is a trapezoid that results from the transition of the Aspen town grid to the neighboring Aspen Institute property. The skewed angle of the north alley property line minimizes the impact of the requested variance on the adjacent property. Only the northeast corners of the expanded original church building and the new support facilities will be 5' back from the property line. The rear facades recede up to 8'10" from the property line due to the angle of the lot lines. The impact of this variance is further mitigated by the relatively low scale of the building components. The arched expansion peaks at 28' above grade but drops quickly to reduce the building profile. The parapet of the new addition is 18'6" above grade and it reflects an appropriate residential scale at the alley property line. The existing non-conforming sideyard setbacks are a result of the original arched church building and the rectory built in 1981. Since these buildings are being retained in their current locations, this situation will remain unchanged. The grant of variance for site coverage is the minimum variance that will permit the church to realize appropriately sized facilities as proposed in this application. The careful control of mass, scale, building form and height results in sufficient open area to relate comfortably to the adjacent residential neighborhood. A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: c. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or d. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege r* "` denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other pazcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The original arched church has been on this site since 1962. The rectory is the most recent addition to the site built 26 years ago. These existing site conditions and the evolution of the dimensional requirements for the R-6 Zone District have created unique restrictions For this conditional use. The Aspen Area Community Plan supports the continued role and contributions of the Christ Episcopal Church. The granted variance would permit the church to maintain its traditional West End identity in appropriate, accessible, code-complying and energy efficient facilities into the future. ~l # ~ t.,, ~ -r D erg _.._. ~r q ~ ' ... 3 - 5~,,, t ' o ~ _ ~ ~ `• „d ~~ ~ ~ ~ , , _ , 4' .. _ x ~ a % 7 ~ ,~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ c < Ss~, P 4P'fun%3'} G~ G1 ~~.~ ~ +e1. ~IiP 1 5'~ a~ R fl ` ,1°x " rr ~. ~ r ~ 1 y ?~! pt ~ "F 1 ~ ~, ~. .~,..~ '~ a 1 '4 ~ ~ ~ i .~ f f1l ,~~._.. t ,_ ~ ~, .~ ~ $ _ PJ ~ ~ P yo . ~ ~ "• ~~t ~ 'F ~ ~ ~~s ~ 1~ ~^ ~ t i ~. ~ ~ .r r ,. -r ,, m ~~ .! r t~ ~~ ~ ~ as ~ ~. p~ ~,- N w Aa .. a 4'V y i ~ .~ tb G S` e ~ '`. t __ l .' i } °a ~ ,~~ ~ "y"~•~~ ~ ~f .. - ~ ~ 6 8 % t! ~ ` ,~ ',.} 8 %~ ~~ ~L - mA savbr~~~ "_ ,'. °~ ~ ~vd ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ t d f ~``~% r e ' ., f jr ~..~ ,~ .~ a ¢~ , ~ rt ~r a~,~r t' , ,, a`~ ~ ~s fi ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ F ,~ ~ Pd f ;~ , i t° ~ t + l . P E 7 `y ,? +`l t r' r ~y"j '+ ~ . . ~ r a ~ j {, a y ~ ~ ~&~ N~f'+5i Fs.._' tfd ~f ~ c +2 R~ v~ 16PSN 7 /. ~?'- ~ ~~ m drop .... ~ ¢ t NZ^0!Sr , '~ ~. ' 7 r ~ ~ ~ ~xta ~ ~ ~ . . J r i M , aj G' ty~Sr, r' ! s j s t r Ny ' °~ si ., ,'. x ... ~~ l ' , ~, ~a-0 '1 ~ .` it ~ ~ . f i r . s t , _ r , r $ a ~ { 4 Z 43x ^ t ~'. t i ~ r' r x r M ' ,.E°~t9.lr Va m S ~o ~~ . ~ ~' ~' ~ ,~ has ~. l~'Y ~ yea .. ~'z ri. Rtl ,~r~y Q~ , O . q~ . ~ o! ~ r O '~ D a . ~ O ~% ~ Z '~'o '.. \_ Z D Y r.~ PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273512111808 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 W. NORTH ST. .-. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): ~.~ ~..- 26.304.06061 Combined Reviews 26.314.040 Variances / 26.425.080 Conditional Use 26.430 Special Review 26.470.040D3 GMQS Review for Essential Public Facilities / 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) http:llwww.aspen pitkin.comldeptsl381citycode.cfm Review by: Planning and Zoning Commission. Major Land Use cases require a deposit of $2,820 for 612hours of staff time. Additional time is billed at a rate of $235 per hour. Referral Agencies: Parks, Engineering. Planning Fees: Major. $2,820. Referral Agency Fees: Parks. $391. Engineering. $391. Total Deposit: $3,602. To apply, submit the following information: ^ Proof of ownership with payment. ^ Signed fee agreement. ^ 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 authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ^ 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 agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owners right to apply for the Development Application. ^ Total deposit for review of the application. 7 ~ 18 0 ' s of the complete application packet and maps. C = 12' Z = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies =1/ea.; Planning Staff = 1 ^ An 81/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ^ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certifed by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ^ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ^ Copies of prior approvals. ^ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. ^ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. 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. ,~•. ,-~ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Paymen[ of City/~of~A~spen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Ci~l~! ~ ~~5~~'~-- C~~K (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and [he 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 CITY further agree that it is in the interest of [he parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and [o thereafter permit additional costs to be billed [o APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue 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 intoned. CITY agrees it 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 [o collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for _ 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 [he application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodicpayments shall be made within 30 days of the billing. date. APPLICANT further agrees [hat 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 Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director ~f/~i[J ~ ~/6// g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc /° ~ /~'~J 11/30/04 (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). billing Address and Telephone Number: Re uired36 /" ~2~ s~. C CHRIST j February 23, 2007 The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ,; CHURCH srrARrivc rrrs L o vE Re: 536 W. North St./Christ Episcopal Church To Whom It May Concern: As Owner of the property at 536 W. North St, Christ Episcopal Church authorizes Studio B Architects to represent them in all matters pertaining to the review and approvals of development plans by the City of Aspen. Gilbert Sanchez shall serve as the primary contact at Studio B Architects, 555 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611, 970-920-9428. Rev. Bruce McNab cc: Gilbert Sanchez James DeFrancia THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN ASPEN THE REV. BRUCE MCNAB, RECTOR 536 W. NORTH STREET ASPEN, CO 81611-1253 Office (970) 925-3278 Rectory (970) 925-5156 www. chrisich urchaspen.org .»~, ,~ Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRD3UTION Land Title 4l1AFANiCC CeMYANT Date: 02-27-2007 Our Order Number: Q62000162 Property Address: 536 WEST NORTH STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 rf,,.,,, 6n„a nNV innuirin_r nr require further assistnnce, please contract one of the numbers Gelow: For Title Assistance: Aspen Title Dept. 533 E HOPHINS N102 ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone:970-925-1678 Fax: 970-925-6243 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 WEST NORTH STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 Attn: KELLY Phone: 925-3278 EXT. 10 Fnx: 920-4256 Copies: 1 EMuil: 1celly®christchurchaspen.org Sent Vie EMnil ~°"1 ~/ LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY PROPERTY REPORT Our Order No. Q62000162 Cust. Rei': This report is based on a search made of documents affecting the record title to the property described hereinafter, searched by legal description and by the names of the record owners. The information as to rernrd owner is taken from the most recent recorded Vesting Deed. No information is furnished relative to easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions. Liability of Land Title Guarantee Company under this Property Report is limited to the fee received. Prepared For: This Report is dated: February 15, 2007 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 536 WEST NORTH STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: LOTS 11,12, 13,14, AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION ADIACENT TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OP ASPEN. Record Owner: CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ASPEN, A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATION We End the following documents of record affecting subject property: DEED OF TRUST DATED MARCH 15, 1994, FROM TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITI{IN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST TO SECURE THE SUM OF $35,000.00 RECORDED APRIL 07, 1994, UNDER RECEPTION N0. 368698. RESERVATIONS AS CONTABVED IN PATENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:? 3 6 ~'~/~• Nei// ~! ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /"V~U~ ~ , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (-1 1 C 1'I G7 L ~ ~ C~ G ~ (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: 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 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 pri~~`e public hearing and was continuously visible from the~~ day of T~ , 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 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At ]east fifteen (15) 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 area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall lie available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifreen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature I The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled,Sed be re me this ~ day of F- , 200, by M ~~ u ` ~f c-~ e WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL O~P~y' P~e~i Z.,.•' '•. G' My commission expires: ?[7 o O ;. LOIS •c ~. FRAZIER :o No ary Public ~;•, :PO '~p'••......••'pQ OF C0~ My Comm. Exp. 2-20-20» ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 536 WEST NORTH STREET, CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURH- CONDITIONAL USE, SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 7, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Christ Episcopal Church, 536 W. North Street, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval to replace the 1980s addition with a new addition to the church. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Amendment to increase the FAR on site by approximately 2,000 square feet, and approval through Special Review to reduce the number of required pazking spaces from ten (10) to four (4). The applicant requests the following dimensional variances for the R-6 zone district: where ten (10) feet is required for the rearyazd setback, five (5) feet is provided and a variance of five (5) feet is requested; where a fifteen (15) feet west sideyazd setback is required, nine (9) feet four (4) inches is provided necessitating a variance for five (5) feet eight (8) inches; where fifteen (15) is required for the east sideyazd setback, thirteen (13) feet seven (7) inches is provided necessitating a one (1) foot five (5) inches variance; where forty-nine (49) feet is required for the combined sideyazd setback, about twenty-three (23) feet is provided necessitating a variance of up to twenty-seven (27) feet; and an increase of the percentage of site coverage to forty (40) percent where twenty-seven (27) percent is the maximum. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility. The subject property is described as Lots 11 thru I5, Block 99, Hallam's Addition adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Saza Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CQ (970) 429.2778, saraa@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Dylan Johns, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 22, 2007 City of Aspen Account ,~. U 4 y 51C ches )im quire `ve 3fas Easy Peel Labels ,.L~cry® TEMPLATE 5160® 533 W FRANCIS LLC 715 W MAIN ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 1000 N THIRD ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BURROWS ANNE W 505 N 5TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ~ ~ See Instruction Sheet ~ '~ ~ Paper for Easy Peel Feature°~ AVERY®5160® l I AMERY SALADIN ASPEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC ~. EBRAHIMI FRANCESCA ~. 8401 VISTA LN HOUSE 821 BURNSIDE, 9 S BAY RD ' pRESCOTT, AZ 86305 HONG KONG CHINA, DURAND LOYAL III DR & BERNICE BLACK 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 CROSS PLAINS, WI 53528 EARNER CHARLES F 617 FRANKLIN PL #200 PELLA,IA 50219 GOLDSMITH JOHN 8 BARBARA L 733 25TH ST SANTA MONICA,CA 90402-3143 KELLNER GEORGE A KELLNER MARTHA B 1 t 7 E 78TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 KOLBE EMILY E C/O HOOTENANNY LLC 205 S MILL ST #226 ASPEN, CO 81611 LUETKEMEYER JOHN A JR & SUZANNE F 50% 1427 CLARKVIEW ROAD -STE 500 BALTIMORE, MD 21209 MCLEAN CHARLES M PO BOX 11687 ASPEN, CO 81612 i BONE RANDALL 280 NEWPORT CENTER DR #240 J I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S PO BOX HH ASPEN, CO 81612 ELLIOTT ELYSE A 610 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 I FOX SAM 8 MARILYN 7701 FORSYTH BLVD CLAYTON, MO 63105 HARDER JAMES B & DELLA 1/2 INT 2001 KIRBY DR STE 1220 HOUSTON, TX 77019 KESSLER HOWARD 1453 FLAT ROCK RD ~I i NORBERTH, PA 19072 J I LEFEBER HOPE 1453 FLAT ROCK RD NORBERTH, PA 19072 MARGERUM AMY L 622 WEST SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611 MG HOMES LLC 825 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BREMER MALCOLM H & ANGELIKA S 18955 MEMORIAL N #550 HUMBLE, TX 77338 DALENSON THEODORE & ISABELLA C/O ALPINE VALLEY SERVICES 204 PARK AVE STE 1G BASALT. CO 81621 FALENDER STEVEN & DEBRA ' 603 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FRAZER W ILLIAM R R JANE Z TRST 1433 W GILLESPIE ASPEN, CO 81611 HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE i QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 4520 MAIN STE 1060 j '', KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 I KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST C/O WELLS FARGO BANK ATTN DEBBIE I BERG ' PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON, TX .76094 ' '. LEWIS ADAM J TRUST ' C/O THE LIPSON GROUP ~'.. 1422 EUCLID AVE #1500 CLEVELAND, OH 44115 I MARKALUNAS JAMES J & RAMONA I 624 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MILLER CYNTHIA L 534 GARFIELD ST DENVER, CO 80206 Etiquettes fettles a paler ~ ! Consultez la feuille www.averycom ', Utilisez le aabark AVERY® 5160® ''~ Sens de chamement ~i d'instrtittion 1-800-GO-AVERY', -,~ . ~.- . aDelc ,avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MUSGRAVE MARJORY M '. 629 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 i ~ wed Paper NITZE WILLIAM A ''.. 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20007 PETERSON JAMES D 8 HENSLEY R PO BOX 1714 ASPEN, CO 81612 SALTER JAMES 60% 500 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SMALL ALBERT H & SHIRLEY S 7116 GLENBROOK RD ', BETHESDA, MD 20814 '~ UHLFELDER NAOMf PO BOX 1165 ASPEN, CO 81.612 WEST SMUGGLER LLC 2318 SILVER PALM PL NAPLES, FL 34105-3043 ~ See Insirudion Sheet i ~j.~ for Easy Peel Feature ~~illfiVl MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD ASPEN, CO 81611-8500 j NORTH 4TH STREET ASSOC C/O MIKE CONVISOR ~~ PO BOX I I ASPEN, CO 81612 POPE WILLIAM H 540 W SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611 AVERY®s16o® L NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP '~. 2418 EMERALD TR MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1910 ODOM JOHN A JR TRUSTEE j 11490 W 38TH AVE WHEATRIDGE, CO 80033 RICHARDS ANN K 1537 28TH ST NW I WASHINGTON, DC 20007 SCHREIBER EUGENE H 8 STANFORD D I I SFP 1996 PERS RES TRST 1/2 INT 0 I' 17 /W PENNSYLVANIA AVE ! #2 PINE HILL LN ' HOUSTON, TX 77019 TOWSON, MD 21204 ~ i ~ SOLSTICE OWNERSHIP VI LLC I STUNDA STEVEN R ', ; PO BOX 65 ' ' 602 N 4TH ST TIBURON, CA 94920 ' ' ASPEN, CO 81611-1212 ' VANDERAA GILBERT T III ' WEISS JEFFREY L 8 JILL i C/O HOOTENANNY LLC I 205 S MILL ST #226 ASPEN, CO 81611 '~ 520 W SMUGGLER ST #1 ', ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ~tiquettes faciles a paler ' ~ I Consultez la feuille Utiliwn Iw nahar'rt AVFRV® 5160® Swnc dw tharewmwnt ~' rl'inctnlrtinn www.avery.com ~~ 1-RI1f4G0-AV FRY n .-. _F F ~ 1'~ a ~ e ii ! ~,ir ii ~l ~I_ ~I;i~'k , ;~.,It~,`.,~~~I ,a':ds,:S,~,, ~ ~~ cifi~'~~'!{~~; ~•' ~ a ~r mr° J r _ ~ ,~ . ~, ~ ~ , r K 1 U -`~ - ~ al ~ ~ ~ b ' ~- sr.-- - - - - - - <_ ' S r ~. ~,x' r.?• t (• ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i 4 ~C ~ ,ti ro n 3 m .Aa m ~ C ~ ~~_ ~~ D`. t , i~~ G~~ fa T W ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ D v i ~ ~' ~m 1 .v ~ ~ ~ ~ i. '' ~ r A ` J 0 7 ~ ~ ~ Q r p 6t n { ~ r. '~~~° ] to f`~ ~g ii ~ f' r ^ ~- - ~~ ,Y ~ ~