HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.39551 Hwy 82.17A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3/16/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 3 ii SS 2735-122-00-002 17A-89
STAFF MEMBER: `T° `
PROJECT NAME: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD
Submission/GMOS Exemption
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group
Representative Address/Phone: 450 S. Galena, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611 5-6717
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: QXew.gk NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 21
10 plats
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: f
P&Z Meeting Date AQ^-7: vW PUBLIC HEARING: 0 (tiwrION'ArqL..,
VESTED RIGHTS: YES 11,
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
V// City Attorney / Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer V < Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
V Housing Dir. ✓ Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water ✓ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
✓ Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Console Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: 4.11?(0 INITIALS: _AL__
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: rt72T/Cc� INITIAL:
_ City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: L c u L- (C -i--
,. 0 ,5" ,41C,_
ORDINANCE NO. 3\
( Series of 1989 )
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION
HOUSING BONDS , SERIES 1989A IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF $4 , 600 , 000 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS
FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THAT PROPERTY
FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE "RED ROOF INN" LOCATED AT
22475 STATE HIGHWAY 82 IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND
FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
PREVIOUSLY INCURRED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT
THERETO, TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY INCIDENTAL AND
APPURTENANT COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF SAID
BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SAID BONDS;
ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FUNDS WITH RESPECT THERETO;
PROVIDING A PLEDGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF
THE CITY AS SECURITY FOR SAID BONDS; APPOINTING A
PAYING AGENT FOR SAID BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF
A LEASE WITH THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY AND THE FORMS OF A PAYING AGENCY
AGREEMENT AND BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; AND
PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID
BONDS .
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, in the County of Pitkin and
State of Colorado (the "City" ) , is a municipal corporation
duly organized and existing as a home rule city pursuant to
Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and
the Charter of the City (the "Charter" ) ; and
WHEREAS , Section 10 . 3 of the Charter provides in
pertinent part as follows :
No bonds or other evidence of indebtedness payable
in whole or in part from the proceeds of general
property taxes or to which the full faith and
credit of the City are pledged, shall be issued,
except in pursuance of an ordinance, nor until the
question of their issuance shall , at a special or
general election, be submitted to a vote of the
electors and approved by a majority of those voting
on the question; . . .
; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 . 4 of the Charter provides in
pertinent part as follows :
Council shall not sell , exchange or dispose of
public building, utilities or real property in use
for public purposes , including real property
acquired for open space purposes , without first
obtaining the approval of a majority of the
electors voting thereon . . .
and
WHEREAS, the following question regarding the issuance
of general obligation bonds and the leasing of City property
was submitted to the electors of the City at the May 2 , 1989
general election, and was approved by a majority of those
voting on the question :
QUESTION NO . 3 - ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL OBLIGATION
BOND NOT TO EXCEED $4 . 6 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RENOVATION/EXPANSION OF THAT PROPERTY FORMERLY
KNOWN AS THE RED ROOF INN FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING/MAA
HOUSING PURPOSES , AND REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR
PREVIOUS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES THEREFOR
"Shall the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, be authorized to issue general obligation
bonds , in an amount not to exceed Four Million Six
Hundred Thousand Dollars ( $4 , 600 , 000 . 00 ) , the term
not to exceed twenty ( 20 ) years , and the interest
rate not to exceed ten percent ( 10%) for the
renovation and expansion of that property formerly
known as the "Red Roof Inn" located at 22475 State
Highway 82 in the City of Aspen ( $3 , 600 , 000 . 00) ,
such facility to be leased to the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority, and for the reimbursement of
capital expenditures previously incurred by the
City with respect thereto ( $1 , 000 , 000 . 00 ) ?
Improvements shall not exceed seventy-five thousand
( 75 ,000) square feet in size, comprising not more
than an additional one hundred ( 100 ) rooms and
accessory facilities , including, but not limited
to , bathrooms , living rooms , laundry facility and
kitchens . Proceeds from the reimbursement of the
capital expenditures shall be deposited in the Land
Fund, subject to appropriation therefrom by the
City Council . Said parcel is also described as
Lot 2 , The Aspen Golf Course Subdivision, as shown
on plat thereof• recorded in Plat Book 7 at Page 34 ,
Pitkin County records . "
and
-2-
13621
WHEREAS , Section 10 . 4 of the Charter provides as follows :
The city shall not become indebted for any purpose
or in any manner in an amount which, including
existing indebtedness , shall exceed twenty ( 20)
percent of the assessed valuation of the taxable
property within the city, as shown by the last
preceding assessment for city purposes ; provided,
however , that in determining the limitation of the
City' s power to incur indebtedness there shall not
be included bonds issued for the acquisition or
extension of a water system or public utilities; or
bonds or other obligations issued for the
acquisition or extension of enterprises , works or
ways from which the City will derive a revenue in
accordance with Section 10 . 5 of this article .
and;
WHEREAS , the City Council (the "Council" ) of the City
hereby determines that it is in the best interest of the City
to issue the bonds hereinabove referred to in the question
submitted to the electors of the City; and
WHEREAS , the Council hereby determines to issue its
"City of Aspen, Colorado , General Obligation Housing Bonds ,
Series 1989A" (the "Bonds" ) in the aggregate . principal amount
of $4 , 600 , 000 , in order to provide the funds necessary for
the renovation and expansion (the "Project" ) of that property
formerly known as the "Red Roof Inn" located at 22475 State
Highway 82 in the City (the "Existing Facility" ) , including
payment of interest on the Bonds during renovation and
expansion of the Project , and for reimbursement of capital
expenditures previously incurred by the City with respect
thereto, together with all necessary incidental and
appurtenant costs and expenses incurred in connection
therewith, the Bonds to be general obligations of the City
and secured by the full faith and credit thereof; and
WHEREAS , the issuance of the Bonds will not exceed the
limitations provided in Section 10 . 4 of the Charter and will
be in pursuance of the election question set forth above; and
WHEREAS , the Council hereby determines to lease the
Existing Facility, as renovated and expanded by the Project ,
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (the
"Authority" ) pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated as of
August 1 , 1989 (the "Lease" ) between the City and the
Authority, pursuant to which the Authority will act as agent
for the City in carrying out the Project; and
-3-
1362I
WHEREAS , the Council hereby determines to sell the Bonds
to George K. Baum & Company and Kirchner Moore & Company (the
"Underwriters" ) pursuant to a Bond Purchase Agreement (the
"Bond Purchase Agreement" ) as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary by ordinance to authorize
the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds , and to provide
for the details of and the security for the Bonds , and to
authorize the execution and delivery of the Lease, the Bond
Purchase Agreement and the hereinafter defined Paying Agency
Agreement and related matters ;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO THAT :
Section 1 . Definitions . In this Ordinance, the
capitalized words and terms not otherwise defined herein
shall have the following meanings :
"Bond Fund" means the Bond Fund established pursuant to
Section 9 hereof .
"Bond Proceeds Fund" means the Bond Proceeds Fund
established pursuant to Section 9 hereof .
"Bond Year" means the one-year period beginning on the
date of delivery of the Bonds and ending the day before the
first anniversary date of the delivery date of the Bonds , and
each one-year period thereafter .
"Bondowner" or "Owner" or "Owner of Bonds" means the
person or persons in whose name or names a Bond shall be
registered on the registration books of the City maintained
by the Paying Agent .
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 , as
amended.
"Governmental Obligations" means direct general
obligations of , or obligations the payment of the principal
of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by,
the United States of America .
" Investment Instructions" means the letter of
instructions provided to the City on the date of issue of the
Bonds in accordance with Section 12 hereof .
"Ordinance" means this Ordinance and any supplements
hereto as may be adopted by the Council .
"Paying Agency Agreement" means the Paying Agency
Agreement dated as of August 1 , 1989 between the City and the
Paying Agent .
-4-
1362I
i "Paying Agent" means The Colorado National Bank of
Denver , Denver , Colorado, which financial institution has
been appointed by the City as Paying Agent for the Bonds , and
any successor or additional paying agents with respect
thereto .
"Rebate Fund" means the Rebate Fund established pursuant
to Section 12 hereof .
"Rebate Income Account" means the Rebate Income Account
established pursuant to Section 12 hereof .
"Rebate Principal Account" means the Rebate Principal
Account established pursuant to Section 12 hereof .
"Record Date" means the June 15 or December 15 preceding
each interest payment date with respect to the Bonds .
Section 2 . Authorization of Bonds . For the purpose of
providing funds for the Project , together with all necessary
incidental and appurtenant costs and expenses incurred in
connection therewith, the City shall issue the Bonds in the
aggregate principal amount of $4 , 600 , 000 . The principal of
and interest on the Bonds shall constitute general
obligations of the City and shall be payable from and secured
by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the City, as more
particularly hereinafter set forth .
Section 3 . Bond Details . The Bonds shall be issued as
fully registered bonds without coupons in the denomination of
$5 , 000 or any integral multiple thereof . The Bonds shall be
dated August 1 , 1989 , and shall bear interest payable from
their date as hereinafter provided; provided that Bonds
issued in exchange for Bonds surrendered for transfer or
exchange shall bear interest from the date to which interest
has been paid, or if no interest has been paid thereon, then
from August 1 , 1989 . Interest on the Bonds shall be payable
on each January 1 and July 1 , commencing on January 1 , 1990 .
The Bonds shall be numbered in such manner as the Paying
Agent shall determine, and shall bear interest at the rates
(per annum) and shall mature in the principal amounts and on
January 1 in the years as follows :
-5-
1362[
Maturity
(January 1 ) Principal Amount Interest Rate
1991 $ 120 , 000 6 . 40%
1992, 130 , 000 6 . 45
1993 135 , 000 6 . 50
1994 145 , 000 6 . 55
1995 160 , 000 6 . 60
1996 170 , 000 6 . 65
1997 180 , 000 6 . 70
1998 195 , 000 6 . 75
1999 210 , 000 6 . 80
2000 225 , 000 6 . 90
2001 240 , 000 7 . 00
2009 2 , 690 , 000 7 . 20
The principal of , premium, if any, and interest on the
Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States
of America . The principal of and premium, if any, on the
Bonds is payable at the principal corporate trust office of
the Paying Agent in Denver , Colorado . Interest on any Bond
is payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed on
the interest payment date to the Owner thereof at his or her
address as it appears on the registration books of the City
or at such other address as is furnished to the Paying Agent
in writing by such Owner as of the Record Date . if any Bond
( shall remain unpaid upon presentation at maturity, interest
shall continue to accrue until paid at the rate designated in
the Bond.
Section 4 . Paying Agent; Transfer and Exchange . The
Paying Agent is hereby appointed as paying agent , bond
registrar and authenticating agent for the City for purposes
of the Bonds . The Paying Agent shall maintain on behalf of
the City books for the purpose of registration and transfer
of Bonds, and such books shall specify the persons entitled
to the Bonds and the rights evidenced thereby, and all
transfers of Bonds and the rights evidenced thereby. Bonds
may be transferred or exchanged at the principal corporate
trust office of the Paying Agent upon payment by the Owner of
the Paying Agent ' s transfer fee, and any tax or governmental
charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or
exchange. Bonds may be exchanged for a like aggregate
principal amount of Bonds of other authorized denominations
of the same maturity and interest rate . Upon surrender for
transfer of any Bond, duly endorsed for transfer or
accompanied by an assignment duly executed by the Owner or
his or her attorneys duly authorized in writing, and upon
payment of the fees , taxes , charges and costs described
above, the City shall execute and the Paying Agent shall
authenticate and deliver in the name of the transferee or
-6-
13621:
transferees a new Bond or Bonds of the same maturity and
interest rate for a like aggregate principal amount . The
person in whose name any Bond shall be registered shall be
deemed and regarded as the absolute Owner thereof for all
purposes , whether or not payment on any Bond shall be
overdue, and neither the City nor the Paying Agent shall be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
Section 5 . Redemption . The Bonds maturing on and after
January 1 , 1996 are subject to prior redemption, at the
option of the City, in whole or in part , and if in part , in
inverse order of maturities and by lot within a maturity, on
January 1 , 1995 and on any interest payment date thereafter ,
at the redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of
principal amount) , plus accrued interest to the redemption
date as follows :
Redemption Date Redemption Price
January 1 , 1995 and July 1 , 1995 102 . 0%
January 1 , 1996 and July 1 , 1996 101 . 5
January 1 , 1997 and July 1 , 1997 101 . 0
January 1 , 1998 and July 1 , 1998 100 . 5
January 1 , 1999 and thereafter 100 . 0
The Bonds maturing on January 1 , 2009 shall be subject
to mandatory sinking fund redemption and shall be redeemed at
a price of par plus accrued interest to the redemption date
on January 1 of each of the following years , and in the
following amounts :
Redemption
Date Principal
(January 1 ) Amount
2002 $255 , 000
2003 275 , 000
2004 295 , 000
2005 320 , 000
2006 345 , 000
2007 370 , 000
2008 400 , 000
2009 (maturity) 430 , 000
Not more than forty-five days nor less than thirty days prior
to the sinking fund redemption date for the Bonds maturing on
January 1 , 2009 , the Paying Agent shall proceed to select for
redemption (by lot in such manner as the Paying Agent may
determine) , from all Bonds maturing on January 1 , 2009
outstanding, a principal amount of such Bonds equal to the
aggregate principal amount of such Bonds redeemable with the
-7-
1362I
required sinking fund payment , and shall call such Bonds for
redemption from the sinking fund on the next January 1 , and
give notice of such call . At the option of the City to be
exercised by delivery of a written certificate to the Paying
Agent not less than forty-five days next preceding any
sinking fund redemption date, it may ( i ) deliver to the
Paying Agent for cancellation Bonds maturing on January 1 ,
2009 in an aggregate principal amount desired by the City or ,
( ii ) specify a principal amount of such Bonds which prior to
said date have been redeemed (otherwise than through the
operation of the sinking fund) and cancelled by the Paying
Agent and not theretofore applied as a credit against any
sinking fund redemption obligation. Each Bond maturing on
January 1 , 2009 so delivered or previously redeemed shall be
credited by the Paying Agent at 100% of the principal amount
thereof against the obligation of the City on such sinking
fund redemption date and any excess shall be so credited
against future sinking fund redemption obligations in
chronological order . In the event the City shall avail
itself on the provisions of clause ( i ) above, the certificate
required above shall be accompanied by the Bonds to be
cancelled.
Notice of any redemption shall be given by the Paying
Agent in the name of the City by sending a copy of such
notice by certified or registered first-class , postage
prepaid mail , at least thirty (30 ) days prior to the
redemption date, to the Owners of each of the Bonds being
redeemed. Such notice shall specify the number or numbers of
the Bonds to be redeemed ( if redemption shall be in part) and
their redemption date . If any of the Bonds shall have been
duly called for redemption, then said Bonds shall become due
and payable at such redemption date, and from and after such
date ( if on or before the redemption date there shall have
been deposited with the Paying Agent funds sufficient to pay
the redemption price of such Bonds at the redemption date)
interest will cease to accrue thereon . Any Bonds redeemed
prior to their maturity shall not be reissued and shall be
cancelled.
Section 6 . Execution, Delivery and Replacement of
Bonds . The Bonds shall be executed in the name and on behalf
of the City with the manual or facsimile signature of the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, shall bear a manual or facsimile of
the seal of the City and shall be attested by the manual or
facsimile signature of the City Clerk or Deputy or Assistant
City Clerk . Should any officer whose manual or facsimile
signature appears on the Bonds cease to be such officer
before delivery of any Bond, such manual or facsimile
signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all
purposes . The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized
-8-
1362I
and directed to prepare and to execute the Bonds in
accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance . When the
Bonds have been duly executed, the officers of the City are
authorized to, and shall , deliver the Bonds to the Paying
Agent for authentication. No Bond shall be secured by this
Ordinance or entitled to the benefit hereof , or shall be
valid or obligatory for any purpose, unless the certificate
of authentication of the Paying Agent , in substantially the
form set forth in this Ordinance, has been duly executed by
the Paying Agent . Such certificate of the Paying Agent upon
any Bond shall be conclusive evidence and the only competent
evidence that such Bond has been authenticated and delivered
hereunder . The Paying Agent ' s certificate of authentication
shall be deemed to have been duly executed by it if manually
signed by an authorized officer of the Paying Agent , but it
shall not be necessary that the same signatory sign the
certificate of authentication on all of the Bonds issued
hereunder .
Upon the authentication of the Bonds , the Paying Agent
shall deliver the same to the Underwriters or their designees
as directed by the City as hereinafter provided . Prior to
the delivery by the Paying Agent of the Bonds , there shall be
filed with the Paying Agent the following :
(a) A certified copy of this Ordinance .
(b) A request and authorization to the Paying
Agent on behalf of the City and signed by the Mayor to
authenticate and deliver the Bonds to the Underwriters
upon payment to the City of a sum specified in such
request and authorization plus accrued interest thereon
to the date of delivery. The proceeds of such payment
shall be paid over to the City and deposited as provided
in this Ordinance .
(c) An executed copy of the Paying Agency
Agreement .
If any outstanding Bond shall become mutilated, lost ,
stolen or destroyed, the City shall execute and the Paying
Agent shall authenticate a new Bond of like maturity,
interest rate and denomination to that mutilated, lost ,
stolen or destroyed, provided that , in the case of any
mutilated Bond, such mutilated Bond shall first be
surrendered to the Paying Agent , and in the case of any lost ,
stolen or destroyed Bond, there shall be first furnished to
the City and the Paying Agent evidence of such loss , theft or
destruction satisfactory to the City and the Paying Agent ,
together with an indemnity satisfactory to the City and the
Paying Agent . In the event any such Bond shall have matured,
-9-
13621
instead of issuing a duplicate Bond, the Paying Agent may pay
the same without surrender thereof , making such requirements
as its deems fit for its protection, including a lost
instrument bond . The City and the Paying Agent may charge
the Owner of such Bond with its reasonable fees and expenses
in this connection.
Section 7 . Form of Bond. The Bonds shall be
substantially in the form hereinafter set forth, with such
variations , omissions and insertions as are permitted or
required by this Ordinance .
-10-
13621
(Form of Bond)
[FRONT OF BOND]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
CITY OF ASPEN
GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING BOND
SERIES 1989A
No . R $
INTEREST RATE : MATURITY DATE : ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE : CUSIP :
January 1 , August 1 , 1989
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL SUM: DOLLARS
The CITY OF ASPEN, in the County of Pitkin and State of
Colorado (the "City" ) , for value received, hereby promises to
pay to the order of the Registered Owner named above, or
registered assigns , on the Maturity Date stated above, the
Principal Sum stated above, with interest thereon from the
( Original Issue Date stated above, at the Interest Rate per
annum stated above, payable on January 1 , 1990 , and
semiannually thereafter on the 1st day of July and the 1st
day of January of each year , the principal of and premium, if
any, on this Bond being payable at the principal corporate
trust office of The Colorado National Bank of Denver , in
Denver , Colorado , as Paying Agent , or its successor (the
"Paying Agent" ) , and the interest hereon to be paid to such
person as is the Registered Owner hereof as of the close of
business at the principal corporate trust office of the
Paying Agent on the Record Date by check or draft of the
Paying Agent mailed on the interest payment date to said
Registered Owner . The Record Date is the June 15 or
December 15 (whether or not a business day) preceding any
interest payment date . All payment of the principal of ,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America .
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS BOND
SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE HEREOF WHICH SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES
HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all
conditions and acts required to be performed precedent to and
in the adoption of the Ordinance, and the issuance of this
-11-
1362I
Bond, have been performed in due time, form and manner as
required by law; and that the issuance of this Bond and the
series of which it forms a part does not exceed or violate
any constitutional , statutory or home rule charter limitation
or requirement applicable hereto .
This Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the
Ordinance, or become valid or obligatory for any purpose,
until the Paying Agent shall have signed the certificate of
authentication hereon .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Aspen, Colorado, has
caused this Bond to be signed with the manual or facsimile
signature of its Mayor , sealed with the impression of its
seal or a facsimile thereof , and attested with the manual or
facsimile signature of its City Clerk .
[SEAL] CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By —
Attest : Mayor
By
City Clerk
(Form of Paying Agent ' s Certificate of Authentication)
Date of Authentication :
This is one of the Bonds described in the Ordinance
described herein .
The Colorado National Bank of
Denver , as Paying Agent
By (Manual Signature)
Authorized Officer
(End of Form of Paying Agent ' s
Certificate of Authentication)
-12-
1362I
[ BACK OF BOND]
This Bond is one of a duly authorized series of Bonds
designated "City of Aspen, Colorado , General Obligation
Housing Bonds , Series 1989A" (the "Bonds" ) , limited in
aggregate principal amount to $4 , 600 , 000 , issued under and
pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of
Colorado , the home rule charter of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, and an ordinance duly adopted by the City Council
of the City (the "Ordinance" ) prior to the issuance hereof .
The Bonds are being issued by the City for the purpose of
providing funds for the renovation and expansion of a housing
facility to be owned by the City and leased to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the reimbursement
to the City of capital expenditures previously incurred by
the City with respect thereto, and for payment of all
necessary incidental and appurtenant costs and expenses
incurred in connection therewith.
The principal of and interest on the Bonds , including
this Bond, shall constitute general obligations of the City
and shall be payable from and secured by a pledge of the full
faith and credit of the City.
The Bonds are issuable solely in the form of fully
registered bonds , without coupons , in the denomination of
{ $5 , 000 or any integral multiple thereof . This Bond may be
transferred or exchanged at the principal corporate trust
office of the Paying Agent in Denver , Colorado, but only in
the manner , subject to the limitations and upon payment by
the Registered Owner of the fees and charges provided in the
Ordinance ( including any transfer fee of the Paying Agent and
any tax or governmental charge required to be paid with
respect thereto) , and upon surrender and cancellation of this
Bond . Upon surrender for any transfer , duly endorsed for
transfer or accompanied by an assignment duly executed by the
Registered Owner hereof or his or her attorneys duly
authorized in writing, a new registered Bond or Bonds of the
same maturity and interest rate and of authorized
denomination or denominations ( $5 , 000 and integral multiples
thereof) for the same aggregate principal amount will be
issued to the transferee in exchange therefor . In addition,
this Bond may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal
amount of Bonds of other authorized denominations of the same
maturity and interest rate . Any Bond issued upon transfer or
exchange shall bear interest from the last interest payment
date to which interest has been paid, or if no interest has
been paid, then from the original issue date . The City and
the Paying Agent may deem and treat the Registered Owner
hereof as the absolute owner hereof (whether or not payment
on this Bond shall be overdue) for the purpose of receiving
-13-
1362I
payment of or on account of principal hereof , premium, if
any, and interest due hereon and for all other purposes , and
neither the City nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by
any notice to the contrary.
The Bonds maturing on and after January 1 , 1996 are
subject to prior redemption, at the option of the City, in
whole or in part , and if in part , in inverse order of
maturities and by lot within a maturity, on January 1 , 1995
and on any interest payment date thereafter , at redemption
prices (expressed as a percentage of principal amount ) , plus
accrued interest to the redemption date as follows :
Redemption Date Redemption Price
January 1 , 1995 and July 1 , 1995 102 . 0%
January 1 , 1996 and July 1 , 1996 101 . 5
January 1 , 1997 and July 1 , 1997 101 . 0
January 1 , 1998 and July 1 , 1998 100 . 5
January 1 , 1999 and thereafter 100 . 0
The Bonds maturing on January 1 , 2009 are also subject
to mandatory redemption at a price of par plus accrued
interest to the redemption date in the amounts and on the
dates set forth in the Ordinance .
Redemption shall be made upon not less than thirty (30 )
days prior notice by sending a copy of such notice by
certified or registered first-class , postage prepaid mail at
least thirty (30 ) days prior to the redemption date specified
in such notice to the Registered Owners of each of the Bonds
being redeemed . Such notice shall specify the number or
numbers of the Bonds so to be redeemed ( if redemption shall
be in part) and the redemption date . If this Bond shall have
been duly called for redemption, then this Bond shall become
due and payable at such redemption date, and from and after
such date ( if on or before the redemption date there shall
have been deposited with the Paying Agent funds sufficient to
pay the redemption price of such Bonds at the redemption
date) interest hereon shall cease to accrue .
-14-
1362I
[Form of Assignment ]
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned transfers unto
(Tax Identification or Social Security
No . ) this Bond of the City of Aspen, Colorado , and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
Attorney to transfer this Bond on the books kept for the
registration thereof , with full power of substitution in the
premises .
Dated :
NOTICE : The signature to this
assignment must correspond with
the name as it appears upon the
face of the within Bond in
every particular , without
alteration or enlargement or
any change whatever .
[Form of Bond Counsel Opinion to be inserted here]
(End of Form of Bond)
Section 8 . Sale; Official Statement . The Bonds , when
( executed as provided by law, shall be delivered to the
Underwriters in accordance with Section 6 hereof . The Bonds
shall be sold to the Underwriters for the price set forth in
the Bond Purchase Agreement , plus accrued interest from
August 1 , 1989 to the date of delivery thereof . Such sale of
the Bonds is hereby found to be to the best advantage of the
City and is hereby approved, subject to the Bond Purchase
Agreement .
The proceeds of the Bonds shall be used exclusively for
payment of the cost of the Project , reimbursing the City for
capital expenditures previously incurred with respect to the
Existing Facility, and all necessary incidental and
appurtenant costs and expenses incurred in connection
therewith and for payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds .
Neither the Underwriter nor the subsequent Owner or
Owners of any of the Bonds shall be responsible for the
application or disposal of the funds derived from the sale
thereof by the City or any of its officers . The issuance of
the Bonds by the City shall constitute a warranty by and on
behalf of the City, for the benefit of each and every Owner
of the Bonds , that the Bonds have been issued for a valuable
consideration in full conformity with law.
-15-
1362[
The Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds
is hereby approved and the use thereof by the Underwriter is
hereby approved . The Mayor is authorized and directed to
execute and deliver a final Official Statement in
substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement .
Section 9 . Funds . The "City of Aspen, Colorado,
General Obligation Housing Bonds , Series 1989A Bond Fund" and
the "City of Aspen, Colorado , General Obligation Housing
Bonds , Series 1989A Bond Proceeds Fund" are hereby created by
and established with the City.
Upon the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds , the
accrued interest on the Bonds from August 1 , 1989 to the date
of delivery of and payment for the Bonds shall be deposited
into the Bond Fund . The remaining proceeds from the sale of
the Bonds will be deposited into the Bond Proceeds Fund.
In addition, there shall be deposited by the City into
the Bond Fund at least three days prior to each principal and
interest payment date, sums sufficient to pay the principal
of , premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due .
Moneys in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Paying
Agent on each date on which the principal of , premium, if
any, or interest on the Bonds shall become due in amounts
sufficient to pay the same . Moneys in the Bond Fund shall be
( used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of ,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due . Moneys
on deposit in the Bond Proceeds Fund shall be used as
follows : (a) $1 , 000 , 000 shall be transferred on the date the
Bonds are issued to the City ' s Land Fund, to be used as
permitted by law, and (b) the remaining moneys shall be used
for payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds and for costs
of the Project ( including interest on the Bonds during
construction of the Project) in accordance with the Lease .
Section 10 . Security for the Bonds . The Bonds
constitute general obligations of the City. The full faith
and credit of the City are hereby pledged as security for the
payment of the principal of , premium, if any, and interest on
the Bonds . The Bonds are not secured by a pledge of any
payments received under the Lease.
Section 11 . Further Assurances . In furtherance of said
pledge of the full faith and credit of the City, it is hereby
irrevocably covenanted and agreed that if at any time while
any of the Bonds remain outstanding, the payments required to
be made into the Bond Fund pursuant to Section 9 hereof are
not made in strict accordance with the terms thereof , the
Council shall promptly pass and adopt supplementary or
emergency appropriation ordinances or resolutions and make
-16-
1362I
such allocations and deposits of moneys from general funds of
the City to the Bond Fund as are necessary to bring the
amount on deposit in the Bond Fund to the level at which it
would have been had the City strictly complied with the
provisions of said Section 9 . Said actions shall be
initiated at the first regular or earlier scheduled emergency
meeting of the Council subsequent to such event and completed
as promptly as possible . Thereafter , said appropriations ,
allocations and deposits shall continue to be made in such
amounts and with sufficient frequency to assure that the sums
of money required to be deposited into the Bond Fund,
together with other moneys on deposit in the Bond Fund, shall
be sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the
Bonds when due .
Section 12 . Rebate. There is hereby created and
established with the City a separate fund to be designated
the "City of Aspen, Colorado , General Obligation Housing
Bonds , Series 1989A Rebate Fund, " which shall be expended in
accordance with the provisions hereof and the Investment
Instructions , and there is further established within said
Rebate Fund the Rebate Principal Account and the Rebate
Income Account . The City shall make deposits and
disbursements from the Rebate Fund in accordance with the
Investment Instructions , shall invest the Rebate Fund
pursuant to said Investment Instructions and shall deposit
( income from said investments immediately upon receipt thereof
in the Rebate Income Account, all as set forth in the
Investment Instructions . The City shall employ, at its
expense, a person or firm with recognized expertise in the
area of rebate calculations , which person or firm shall make
the calculations , deposits , disbursements and investments as
may be required by the immediately preceding sentence . The
Investlient Instructions may be superseded or amended by new
Investment Instructions drafted by, and accompanied by an
opinion of , nationally recognized bond counsel addressed to
the City to the effect that the use of said new Investment
Instructions will not cause the interest on the Bonds to
become includible in gross income for the purposes of federal
income taxation.
The City shall annually make the rebate deposit
described in the Investment Instructions . Records of the
determinations required by this Section 12 and the Investment
Instructions shall be retained by the City until six ( 6 )
years after the final retirement of the Bonds .
Not later than thirty ( 30 ) days after the end of the
fifth Bond Year and every five ( 5 ) years thereafter , the City
shall pay to the United States of America ninety percent
( 90%) of the amount required to be on deposit in the Rebate
-17-
1362I
Principal Account as of such payment date and one hundred
percent ( 100%) of the amount on deposit in the Rebate Income
Account as of such payment date . Not later than sixty ( 60 )
days after the final retirement of the Bonds , the City shall
pay to the United States of America one hundred percent
( 100% ) of the balance remaining in the Rebate Principal
Account and the Rebate Income Account . Each payment required
to be paid to the United States of America pursuant to this
Section 12 shall be filed with the Internal Revenue Service
Center , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19255 . Each payment shall
be accompanied by a copy of the Internal Revenue Form 8038-G
originally filed with respect to the Bonds and a statement
summarizing the determination of the amount to be paid to the
United States of America .
Section 13 . Investments ; No Arbitrage; Tax Covenants .
Any moneys on deposit in the Bond Fund, the Bond Proceeds
Fund and the Rebate Fund shall be invested only in
obligations , securities or instruments which are legal
investments for funds of the City. All earnings , income,
profits and losses (other than on moneys in the Rebate Fund)
shall be credited to the Bond Proceeds Fund prior to
completion of the Project , and thereafter to the Bond Fund .
The City covenants that it shall not use or permit the
use of any proceeds of the Bonds or any other funds of the
City from whatever source derived, directly or indirectly, to
acquire any securities or obligations and shall not take or
permit to be taken any other action or actions , which would
cause any of the Bonds to be an "arbitrage bond" within the
meaning of Section 148 of the Code, or would otherwise cause
the interest on the Bonds to be includible in gross income
for federal income tax purposes . The City covenants that it
shall at all times do and perform all acts and things
permitted by law and which are necessary or desirable in
order to assure that interest paid by the City on the Bonds
shall , for purposes of federal income taxation, not be
includible in gross income under the Code or any other valid
provision of law.
In particular , but without limitation, the City further
represents , warrants and covenants to comply with the
following restrictions of the Code, unless it receives an
opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel stating that
such compliance is not necessary:
( a) Gross proceeds of the Bonds will not be used
in a manner which will cause the Bonds to be considered
"private activity bonds" within the meaning of the Code .
(b) The Bonds are not and shall not become
directly or indirectly "federally guaranteed . "
-18-
1362I
(c) The City shall timely file Internal Revenue
Form 8038-G which shall contain the information required
to be filed pursuant to Section 149 (e) of the Code .
(.d) The City shall comply with the Investment
Instructions delivered to it on the date of issue of the
Bonds with respect to the application and investment of
Bond proceeds , subject to Section 12 hereof .
Section 14 . Refundings and Defeasance . The Bonds may
be refunded at the discretion and by action of the Council ,
subject to provisions concerning their payment and any other
contractual limitations set forth in this Ordinance, as
authorized and permitted by the Charter . A Bond shall not be
deemed to be outstanding hereunder if it shall have been paid
and cancelled or if cash funds or Governmental Obligations
shall have been deposited in trust with an escrow agent for
the payment thereof (whether upon or prior to the maturity of
any such Bond) . In computing the amount of the deposit
described above, the City may include interest to be earned
on the Governmental Obligations .
Section 15 . Appointment of Paying Agent . The City
hereby appoints The Colorado National Bank of Denver , in
Denver , Colorado , as the Paying Agent .
( Section 16 . Approval of Lease, Bond Purchase Agreement
and Paying Agency Agreement . The Lease, the Bond Purchase
Agreement and the Paying Agency Agreement , in substantially
the forms presented to the Council , are hereby authorized and
approved, and the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem and the Clerk or any
Assistant Clerk are hereby directed to execute and deliver
the Lease, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Paying Agency
Agreement, in substantially the forms approved, but with such
changes therein as shall be deemed necessary or desirable by
the officers executing the same, their execution to be
conclusive evidence of the City' s approval of any changes
from the forms hereby approved .
Section 17 . Miscellaneous Documents . The officers of
the City are authorized and directed to take all action
necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this
Ordinance, including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the printing of the Bonds and the execution of
such certificates may be required by the Underwriters
relating to, but not limited to , the signing of the Bonds ,
the use of the proceeds thereof, the tenure and identity of
the municipal officials , the receipt of the Bonds ' purchase
price , the tax status of the Bonds , and the absence of
litigation, pending or threatened, if in accordance with the
facts , affecting the validity thereof .
-19-
1362I
Section 18 . Severability. If any provision of this
Ordinance shall be held or deemed to be or shall , in fact , be
illegal , inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not
affect any other provision or provisions hereof or render the
same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent
whatever .
Section 19 . Governing Law. This Ordinance will be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado .
Section 20 . Repeals . All ordinances or resolutions , or
parts thereof , in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed. This repealer shall not be construed to revive any
ordinance or part of any ordinance heretofore repealed.
After the Bonds have been issued, this Ordinance shall be and
remain irrepealable until the Bonds and the interest thereon
shall be fully paid, satisfied and discharged in the manner
herein provided, or sufficient provision shall have been made
for such payment , satisfaction and discharge such that no
Bonds are deemed to be outstanding hereunder .
Section 21 . Public Hearing . A public hearing on this
Ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of June 1989 , at 5 : 00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
Colorado .
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by
law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day
of June 1989 .
[ SEAL] By .21%��5
Mayor
r � VVV
Attest : ll
By A �C-Licl a 'C
City Cleft
-20-
1362[
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved and ordered
published as provided by law this 26th day of June 1989 .
[SEAL] BY �� /'
Mayor
Attest :
By SL ,J
City Clef
•
-21-
13621
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
May 8, 1989
Tom Stevens Group
450 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tom,
I will address the three conditions to be met by the applicant during
Conceptual review by the City of Aspen Leisure Services Agency. These
conditions were listed in the May 8, 1989 City Council packet.
1 . Staff has agreed verbally with Jim Adamski to lease 20 parking spots
for winter usage at the golf course in exchange for snow removal at the
parking lot. Except for special events, the lot is only utilized about 50%
of capacity in the winter.
2. The Golf Superintendent has reviewed the drainage design with Pat Doby
and is satisfied.
3. The berm along #9 is very compatible with the existing design. The
berm will actually improve the left side of the #9 fairway.
Leisure services will be working very close with the contractors to
ensure the best interest of the Aspen Golf Course is upheld.
Sincerely,
jf; j
Bill Efting
Director of Leisure Services
BE/pd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office F\R-
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning and Conceptual PUD Submission
DATE: May 3 , 1989
SUMMARY: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
that City Council approve with conditions the Conceptual PUD
Submission for the Aspen Greens, see attachment 1, Resolution 89-
9 .
PERVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In early 1989, City Council directed
staff to bring the Aspen Greens affordable housing development
through the four-step PUD review process rather than a compressed
two-step review. On April 17, subsequent to P&Z 's conceptual
review, the City Council, at the request of the Marolt-Thomas/Red
Roof Inn Steering Committee, directed the Housing Authority to
change the program on the Aspen Greens from seasonal resident
housing to a mix of permanent and seasonal resident housing.
More specifically, the existing units would remain seasonal
housing and the new units would be permanent housing.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Authority is requesting conditional use
approval, rezoning of the 154, 890 s. f. Aspen Greens parcel from
GCS to PUBLIC and Conceptual PUD approval . While conditional use
and rezoning will be addressed at Conceptual, formal action will
not be taken until Final Plan approval. Further, Special Use
review for off-street parking and GMQS Exemption will occur at
Final Development Plan stage.
On April 11, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of Conceptual PUD Submission for the Aspen Greens. That
approval was based on the application which was submitted on
March 15, 1989 . The following is a brief description of that
proposal .
Building Program - The Applicant proposes to construct low
income housing adjacent to the existing Red Roof Inn. This
development will consist of four (4) buildings with
identical footprints of 2, 818 s. f. each, (see the last
several pages of the application for site plan and
perspective drawings) . Each building has five (5) levels of
approximately 1, 400 s. f. per level and is 2 1/2 stories
above grade. Total floor area per building is 7, 112 s. f.
The buildings have been angled on the site to increase solar
exposure . Two tennis courts will be displaced to
accommodate this proposal.
Internally, the buildings are comprised of five (5) levels,
in general, two (2) levels for common areas and three (3)
levels for private bedrooms. The development will have 92
bedrooms which range in size from 169 s. f. to 182 s. f.
Bathrooms are clustered at the center of the building, two
per level for a total of 2 . 3 bedrooms/bathroom.
Occupancy and Rental Rates - Projected occupancy for winter
seasonal employees is approximately 92 persons with rental
rates approximately $275. 00/person. Summer occupancy will
be two (2) MAA students/bedroom and rental rates of
$200. 00/student. MAA students will be non-driving age.
Area and Bulk Calculations -
Parcel size 154 ,890 s. f.
Existing building footprint 31, 200 s. f.
Proposed building footprint 11, 272 s. f.
Proposed roads and parking 40, 038 s. f.
Proposed open space (47%) 72 , 380 s. f.
Existing floor area 36, 550 s. f.
Proposed floor area 28 ,498 s. f.
Proposed FAR . 42 : 1
Roads/Parking - The existing entrance to the site and the
golf course parking lot has not been changed. The road
along the north side of the existing Red Roof Inn is
realigned to accommodate the parking plan. In terms of
parking need, the plan proposes . 75 spaces per bedroom. The
proposed site has 92 bedrooms and the existing facility has
50 rooms. The application is unclear as to the exact number
of spaces being provided on-site, the application states 104
and the site plan shows 92 . The actual demand will depend
heavily on the winter and summer operating plans.
Transit - The Applicant indicates that existing RFTA service
will serve the residents of this site.
On May 17, 1989, after P&Z had acted on this proposal, the City
Council met with the Housing Authority to discuss the Marolt-
Thomas and Red Roof Inn affordable housing projects. At that
meeting the Housing Authority summarized the comments of the
Steering Committee regarding the housing program for these sites.
Briefly, the Committee suggested that the Marolt-Thomas property
be used to house 150 winter, seasonal employees and 300 summer
MAA students; that the existing Red Roof Inn facility be used for
seasonal housing; and the proposed expansion (Aspen Greens) be
used to house permanent residents.
Based upon those suggestions, the City Council directed the
2
Housing Authority to change the program for the Aspen Greens.
Since the program has changed to permanent resident housing the
applicant redesigned the buildings to work most effectively for
permanent residents. Due to the Community' s desire to keep the
review process moving, this redesign was presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for input at their May 2, regular
meeting. At that meeting the P&Z expressed support for Council 's
program change and found the Marolt-Thomas proposal a vital
component of this change. The P&Z indicated that permanent
residents use the automobile different than seasonal residents
and this would be an important aspect of Final Submission.
Attachment 2 is the applicant's summary of the changes to the
original proposal.
A site plan and perspective drawing of the new proposal are
included as attachment 3 .
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are
compiled as attachment 1.
Engineering -
A geotechnical study is needed to determine what effect the fill
material on the site has on this development.
A detailed study of the traffic impact that this development will
have on SH 82 is required. The traffic volume information which
is used by Banner is outdated.
The applicant must obtain an access permit from the Colorado
Department of Highways.
The proposed parking of 104 spaces on-site and the provision of
an additional 20 spaces in the golf course parking lot during the
winter is adequate for the needs of the development.
The proposed drainage plan is not acceptable. Automotive
pollutants cannot be drained into the irrigation ditch or onto
the golf course. Dry wells or retention ponds of adequate
capacity must be used.
The toe of the berm along the ninth fairway must be staked out
prior to final submission to determine whether it is acceptable
to the operation of the golf course.
Water - The Water Department assumes that water can be made
available to the site in sufficient quantity from extensions of
the existing utility line.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The ASCD has sufficient
line and treatment capacity to provide for this project at this
3
time. If the City would like the District to maintain the sewer
line then a bill of sale and grant of easement will be needed.
The existing line is not owned by the District.
Colorado Department of Highways - An access permit will be
required and a full traffic study should be made.
Parks - The parking demand for the existing golf course/nordic
skiing facilities: full use in the summer and 50% use in the
winter with full use during special events.
Fire Marshall - The structures shall be sprinkled with a
residential system. There shall be an automatic fire alarm
system capable of notifying all occupants of a pending problem.
A hydrant is needed at the turnaround.
STAFF COMMENTS: These comments were made prior to the program
change, but staff finds these comments still reflect our opinion
of the plan. Staff is aware that the Housing Authority has spent
a great deal of time and effort soliciting public input for this
proposal. Staff finds that the results of this public input
process are very positive. The conceptual site, architectural
and landscaping plans for the Aspen Greens demonstrates that a
design can be achieved which meets the Community's land use
needs, as well as the Community' s resident (affordable) housing
needs. In addition to being an attractive, well thought out
design, the Aspen Greens carries out the voter' s desire for
affordable housing on this site and begins to implement the
Affordable Housing Production Plan.
Staff has several areas of review for this application:
conditional use review for affordable housing in the PUB zone,
rezoning from GCS to PUBLIC, and review of Conceptual PUD. The
Applicant did not address the issue of rezoning or conditional
use. Staff finds that these are threshold issues which must be
addressed if the project is to proceed.
In order to address the issue of conditional use staff requests
that Council consider if this is an appropriate use of the site.
In staff's opinion affordable housing is an appropriate use for
the site and is reinforced by the Affordable Housing Production
Plan. If the Council agrees, then formal review for conditional
use will occur at Final Submission. If the Council does not
agree, then this issue should be dealt with at Conceptual
Submission. For Council 's information following are the review
standards for Conditional Use.
Sec. 7-304 .
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone
4
District in which it is proposed to be located; and
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 ac-
tivities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development; and
C. The location, size, design and operating characteris-
tics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse
effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes-
trian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash,
service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties; and
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
E. The proposed conditional use complies with all addi-
tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable require-
ments of this chapter.
In terms of rezoning, staff will address the review criteria at
conceptual and the formal action and public hearing process will
occur at final submission. Again, if the Council has significant
problems with rezoning, then we should address them at
conceptual. In the Land Use Code, Sec. 7-1102 lists the review
criteria for rezoning. The Council and Commission shall consider
(criteria A-I) :
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response - The proposed rezoning to PUB from GCS is not in
conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response - The Affordable Housing Production Plan identifies this
site as appropriate for affordable housing. The State Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan identifies this site as part of the Scenic
Foreground. The purpose of a Scenic Foreground is to steer
development away from highly visible sites and to minimize the
visual impacts of the limited development which may occur in the
foreground so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing rural
5
approach to Aspen. The proposed site is in the Scenic
Foreground, but it is screened from SH 82 by the existing Red
Roof Inn and a large stand of cottonwoods on the east side of the
site. This screening effectively minimizes the visual impact of
the development. The Applicant shall be required to demonstrate
that the proposed structures do not extend above the height of
the existing structure, as viewed from SH 82 .
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response - The zone districts which surround this site are Park
in the City and R-30, AF-2 in the County. The reason the PUB
zone district was selected is to ensure that the parcel remains
in the Community's control . Further, the PUB zone district is a
community facility related zone district which is compatible with
land uses in the area (golf course, affordable housing, pro shop,
residential uses across highway) .
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response - The applicant has not addressed this concern to
staff' s satisfaction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Response - The proposal 's impacts for water, sewer, parks,
schools and medical facilities do not seem to be issues; however,
the Applicant has not sufficiently address concerns about
traffic, transit and drainage.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response - The site is generally disturbed, therefore, this
proposal will have no adverse impact to the natural environment
provided there is an adequate drainage plan.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response - The existing 50 room facility is being used for
resident housing and this proposal will expand that use.
6
Further, the site is surrounded by a golf course which is
traditionally compatible with residential uses.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response - The primary change to the neighborhood over the last
three years is the establishment of resident (affordable) housing
in the existing lodge type facility.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response - Based upon the Community vote in August, 1988, the
proposal carries out the public's desire for resident housing on
this site. In terms of harmony, the MAA students will be as
harmonious as possible.
The PUBLIC zone requires mandatory PUD review. The reason for
this review is that community facility uses typically have
special area and bulk requirements which are related to that use
(water or sewer treatment plant, fire station, etc. ) . Further,
the PUD review is mandatory to ensure that public sector projects
are as rigorously reviewed as private sector projects. For
Council 's information the following (A-F) are listed in the Code
as the purpose of PUD.
A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and
layout of buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of develop-
ment.
C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities,
and governmental services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent prac-
ticable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and
layout of development encourages the preservation of
natural and scenic features.
Sec.7-903 (B) of the Aspen Land Use Code identifies 12 review
standards for Development Applications for PUD. Staff will
address these review standards and will indicate if they have
been addressed previously, will be addressed at Final PUD or do
not apply to this proposal because the PUBLIC zone sets all
7
dimensional requirements by Conceptual and Final Development
Plan. The following are the review standards set forth in the
Code.
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Addressed in
the rezoning section.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area. Addressed in the rezoning
section.
c. The proposed development shall not adversely
affect the future development of the surrounding
area. Addressed in the rezoning section.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the
development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant. GMQS Exemption
will occur at Final PUD.
2. Density. (DENSITY IS SET BY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE PUBLIC ZONE) . Based upon staff
calculations the original proposal is comprised of 30
units, and the existing facility is comprised of 50
units, this 80 unit total calculates to 22 . 5
units/acre. Staff arrived at this number by concluding
that of the new construction two buildings would be
comprised of two bedroom units, ten units in each
building. The other two buildings were comprised of
five units each. This conclusion was reached by
counting each level as one unit. The existing building
was counted as 50 units even though none of the units
has kitchens.
In order to compare this density to something tangible,
staff provides the following comparison. If we assume
RMF zoning, 1: 1 FAR, free market units, the existing 50
rooms will be considered studio units and the dormitory
units will be considered 5 bedroom units, then the lot
area requirements of this proposal would be:
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
UNITS LOT AREA/UNIT TOTAL LOT AREA
50 STUDIO 1, 000 S.F. 50, 000 S.F.
8
20 TWO BR 2, 100 S.F. 42 , 000 S.F.
10 FIVE BR 5, 600 S.F. 56, 000 S.F.
148, 000 S.F.
As you can see the proposal meets the lot area
requirements for the site, 154 ,890 s. f.
NEW PROPOSAL
UNITS LOT AREA/UNIT TOTAL LOT AREA
EXISTING 50 STUDIO 1, 000 S.F. 50, 000 S. F.
NEW
8 STUDIO 1, 000 S.F. 8 , 000 S.F.
38 TWO BR 2, 100 S.F. 79, 800 S.F.
137 , 800 S.F.
While the new proposal equals 27 units/acre the lot
area requirements for the site are met, 154, 890.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of
the underlying Zone District. Detached residential
units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot
line or row house configuration, but multi-family
dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by
the underlying Zone District. (AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PUBLIC ZONE) .
4. Dimensional Requirements. (DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE
SET BY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE
PUBLIC ZONE) .
ORIGINAL NEW
Parcel size 154 , 890 s. f.
Existing building footprint 31, 200 s. f.
Proposed building footprint 11, 272 s. f. 14, 532 sf
Proposed roads and parking 40, 038 s. f.
Proposed open space (47%) 72 , 380 s. f.
Existing floor area 36, 550 s. f.
Proposed floor area 28, 498 s. f. 28, 532
Proposed FAR . 42 : 1
Proposed Density 25/ac Max 27/ac
Proposed Dimensions
Minimum side yard 5 ft
Minimum front yard 15 ft
Minimum rear yard 5 ft
9
5. Off-street parking. OFF-STREET PARKING FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE PUBLIC ZONE IS SET BY SPECIAL REVIEW.
THE STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
ARE AS FOLLOWS.
Sec.7-404.B.2. In all other zone districts, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of
the residents, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests and employees.
Parking is an area of concern for staff and P&Z . The original
proposal addressed parking impacts by providing for winter
overflow in the golf course parking lot and committing to housing
non-driving age MAA students in the facility in the summer. The
applicants proposed to use a parking standard of . 75 sp/unit in
the original proposal.
The new proposal houses permanent residents in the expansion and
seasonal residents in the existing facility. Since permanent
residents can be expected to use the automobile more than
seasonal residents, the applicant has increased the number of
parking spaces on site to 114 . This will provide 1 sp/bedroom
for the permanent housing and . 68 sp/unit for seasonal. This
number is adequate for the facility in the winter because the
golf course parking lot has excess capacity, but may or may not
be adequate for summer use if the MAA houses staff and driving
students in the existing facility.
6. Open Space. The open space requirement shall be
that of the underlying Zone District.
This Application provides a significant amount of usable open
space.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part
of the Final Development Plan a landscape plan,
which exhibits a well designed treatment of
exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample
quantity and variety of ornamental plant species
that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area
climate.
An adequate landscape plan is provided for Conceptual Submission.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved
as part of the Final Development Plan an architec-
tural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency in the proposed development, architec-
10
tural character, building design, and the preser-
vation of the visual character of the City.
Staff's original review found that the Architectural Site Plan
met the standards of the Code and was a significant improvement
over the initial concepts that were developed prior to the series
of steering committee/public meetings. The current proposal was
briefly reviewed by the P&Z and found to be very attractive, both
from a design and livability viewpoint; staff concurs.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to
prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
The applicant has committed to low level incandescent lights with
down lit lenses.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is
encouraged.
This standard competes with other goals of the proposal and while
the buildings are not "clustered" the intent of this section is
realized.
11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall
be designed so that adequate public facilities
will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is con-
structed, and that there will be no net public
cost for the provision of these public facilities.
Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that
any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
In this section staff will address sewer, water, parks,
recreation, drainage, transit and accessways. In terms of sewer,
water and parks, the referral agencies have indicated the
proposed project can be adequately served, although the ACSD has
indicated that they do not own the line at the Aspen Greens. In
terms of recreation, it is unclear how the tennis and pool
facilities will be operated. The applicant should clarify this
issue. Additionally, the Golf Course Supervisor would like the
toe of the berm staked prior to approval so that he can determine
what impact it will have on the 9th fairway.
In terms of drainage, the Engineering Dept. has indicated that
the drainage plan is inadequate because it drains automotive
pollutants onto the golf course and into the irrigation ditch.
In terms of transit, the Applicant has indicated that they are
not directly responsible for the MAA's transit solution. Staff
finds that transit is a critical issue which needs to be
addressed in full if this project is to be approved. The
11
Applicant cannot shift this responsibility.
In terms of accessways, staff is aware that golf course staff
utilizes this area as a maintenance vehicle travel-way. What are
the implications of this project on maintenance vehicle travel?
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use
permitted in the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) shall have access to a public street
either directly or through an approved
private road, a pedestrian way, or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
This standard has been addressed.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be
designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum
hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by through traffic.
This standard has not been addressed adequately. Both the
Engineering Department and the CDOH request a detailed study of
the traffic impact this proposal will have on SH 82. The
Applicant needs to develop or utilize current traffic volume data
for SH 82 and develop traffic generation data based upon the
different operating scenarios for the site.
This is especially true now that the program for the site is a
mix of permanent and seasonal residents. Engineering and CDOH
made their initial review based upon seasonal resident occupancy.
The proposal indicated that these types of residents would use
the automobile less than permanent residents, especially in the
summer when non-driving age MAA students would be the predominant
users. This issue must be addressed adequately at Final.
c. The proposed development shall be designed so
that it will not create traffic congestion on
the arterial and collector roads surrounding
the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector or arterial roads shall be improved
so that they will not be adversely affected.
See above comments.
d. Every residential building shall not be
farther than sixty (60 ' ) feet from an access
12
roadway or drive providing vehicular access
to a public street.
This standard has been addressed.
e. All non-residential land uses within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have
direct access to a collector or arterial
street without creating traffic hazards or
congestion on any street.
This standard has been addressed.
f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
may be dedicated to public use or retained
under private ownership. Said streets and
associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent City regulations and ordinances.
The Applicant should clarify how this standard is being
addressed.
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reason-
ableness of the Development Application, and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this division and this
chapter.
CONCLUSION: This application presents a complex review process
because the Land Use Code requires that P&Z and Council apply
review standards from several sections of the Code: Sec. 7-1102,
Rezoning; Sec. 7-304 , Conditional Use; Sec. 7-404 (B) , Special
Review; and Sec. 7-903 (B) , Conceptual PUD. Many of these review
standards overlap or are cancelled by other standards. As a
result of addressing all these review standards, the memorandum
necessarily takes on somewhat of a negative tone. This is
necessary because the purpose of the review process is to point
out the deficiencies of the proposal. In order to off-set this
tone staff would like to make the following summary.
In general staff finds this proposal very creative and exciting.
The site plan, architectural plan and landscape plan are well
thought out and demonstrate the benefits of the extensive public
process which the Housing Authority has utilized for this project
prior to beginning the process with P&Z . This is true for both
the original and new proposals.
There are, however, some technical issues which need to be
addressed by the Applicant and a number of threshold issues which
the Council must address. In terms of the technical issues,
traffic, parking and transit are areas of focus due to the change
in program. Permanent residents use the automobile to a greater
degree than the seasonal residents were expected to do in this
13
proposal and as a result parking must be designed so that the
summer golf course parking is not compromised. The change in
program will also increase the number of turn movements onto and
off of SH 82 . This was a stated concern of the original proposal
and it is more of a concern now. This issue will be very
important at final review. On the positive side, the new
proposal will likely reduce the concern about safety in term of
transit access. P&Z identified safe crossing of SH 82 for the
young MAA students to board public transit as a primary concern
of the original proposal. This concern still exists, but is
lessened with the change in program, especially if MAA now houses
staff and older students and the existing facility.
The threshold issues which the Council must address in order for
this Application to proceed are rezoning and conditional use.
Staff and P&Z have found that both rezoning to PUB and affordable
housing as a conditional use are appropriate for this site. If
Council agrees with staff then formal action on rezoning and
conditional use can be taken at Final Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff
recommend approval of the Conceptual PUD Submission for the Aspen
Greens project with the following conditions stated in the
attached resolution. Following Council ' s review of these
conditions, we can determine whether action can be taken by
motion or resolution.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS: r -x .7
i�.
t_
14
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS THE CONCEPTUAL PUD SUBMISSION
FOR THE ASPEN GREENS
Resolution No. 89-
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter, "Commission") has reviewed the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority' s (hereinafter, "Housing Authority") Conceptual
PUD Submission for the Aspen Greens; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is aware of the extensive public
input process which the Housing Authority undertook as part of
the effort to develop this conceptual submission; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is aware of the changes which the
Housing Authority has made to the proposal due to input from the
public; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the Aspen Greens proposal
is one that balances the community concerns regarding land use
and providing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that changes made through the
public process are beneficial to the Community and that the
Commission supports these changes; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that both rezoning and
conditional use approval are generally acceptable and that formal
action on these items should be taken during Final Development
Plan Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
Resolution No. 89-
Page 2
recommends that City Council approve the Conceptual PUD
Submission for the Aspen Greens with the following conditions.
Conditions to be met by the Applicant during Conceptual Review.
1. Provide the Planning Office with a written commitment from
Bill Efting, Leisure Services Director, approving the use of
20 parking spaces in the existing golf course parking lot
for winter use by the Aspen Greens.
2 . Develop a drainage plan which is acceptable to both
Engineering and the Golf Course Superintendent.
3 . Provide the Planning Office with a memorandum from the Golf
Course Superintendent stating that the berm along the 9th
fairway is acceptable.
The following conditions shall be addressed in the Final
Development Plan Application.
1. Provide staff with a geotechnical study to determine the
impact of existing fill material on the proposed
development.
2 . Work with the CDOH and Engineering Department to develop a
detailed traffic study to determine the traffic impacts that
this proposal will have on SH 82 and develop an adequate
"interim" strategy until SH 82 is improved, (eg. traffic
light) .
3 . Provide a plan for plowing the trail along the golf course
in the winter to encourage winter bike riding as a way of
commuting into town.
4 . Develop a detailed Transit Plan in cooperation with MAA and
RFTA. Suggested elements of this plan include free transit,
safe crossing of SH 82 or a RFTA turn around on the site,
provision of a covered bike rack(s) and provision of a fleet
of bikes for use by MAA students and other residents.
5 . Comply with the ACSD standards for connecting to the
District system and providing for the ACSD to take over
ownership and maintenance of the sewer line at the Aspen
Greens.
6. Provide a fire hydrant at the turnaround as requested by the
Fire Marshal .
7. The structures shall be sprinkled with a residential system
Resolution No. 89-
Page 3
and be equipped with an automatic fire alarm system capable
of notifying all occupants of a pending problem, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8 . The Land Use Code allows for 8 people in a dormitory unit.
The Applicant should be aware that the current proposal does
not meet this requirement. Since this is only Conceptual
review staff has not taken issue with this design concern,
but the Applicant should make the appropriate design change
in the Final Application.
9 . Provide basketball and volleyball in conjunction with the
tennis facilities.
10. Change the name of the project to something which does not
use the word Aspen.
11. The Applicant shall undertake a wage survey to provide the
P&Z with information which will be used to determine whether
or not the proposed rents are affordable.
12 . The P&Z is aware that since P&Z ' s Conceptual review the City
Council has changed the program for this proposal from a mix
of seasonal and permanent housing to all permanent housing.
Therefore, the applicant must be prepared to address program
aspects of this proposal which the P&Z dealt with at
Conceptual during Final SPA, if the P&Z deems it necessary.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on May 2,
1989 .
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
ASPEN.GREENS.RESO. PZ
%.aor ATTACHMENT 2 'vest
May 1 , 1989
Tom Baker
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tom:
The following describes the reasons I am pursuing an
alternative design for the Aspen Greens project.
The Conceptual Submission, as submitted, envisioned an
expansion to the Red Roof Inn consisting of four buildings with a
total of 92 bedrooms. That design specifically contemplated floor
plan arrangements that could relatively easily be converted from
seasonal housing suites sharing common areas to two bedroom
apartments and vice versa, providing great flexibility in
addressing changing housing needs.
On Monday, April 17, the Housing Steering Committee met to
discuss the relationship between Red Roof and Marolt employee
housing projects. The Steering Committee of some fifty people
represents many facets of the Aspen community - MAA, Ski Company,
Restaurant Association, etc. - the employers.
The concensus developed in that meeting was that Marolt and
the existing Red Roof building should be used to satisfy housing
needs for MAA students in summer and seasonal employees in winter
and that the Red Roof expansion should be used for permanent,
year-round housing.
Further, at that meeting, and later in the day, the Marolt
Design Team and PCPA developed a compromise understanding that
seems capable of resolving differences that will allow development
of approximately 260 employee housing units on the Marolt
property.
Results of this meeting were presented to Aspen City Council
the same day. Council concurred with the suggestion that Red Roof
expansion be permanent housing.
�
|
i
S /| U
��//�! I
����� ��� ltd architects 'mmn :1w��� / '
����V��� � ��� ��� ����� ������
peter dobrovolny���� �m��w��� N�m�� �� '
box 1669 basalt CO 81621 927-3369
~~ �*
■ slo Page 2
The Conceptual Design as presented is a good design from the
standpoint of convertability and affordability on a seasonal
basis. It has some deficiencies as a permanent housing solution,
specifically:
- the five level , split level , design, developed to provide a
minimum half level access to common areas, is unnecessary - a
two level design would be simpler from a construction
standpoint,
- the lowest level of each building, facing the parking lot,
is half a level below grade, acceptable on a seasonal basis
but inadequate for long term housing - again, two levels would
be better,
- internal circulation, necessary for access to common areas
and as fire exits' is unnecessary - access could be provided
from the exterior to all units, reducing internal noise
impacts and the amount of internal space dedicated to
circulation,
- kitchen/living/dining areas in the two bedroom version are
too small to be comfortable on a long term basis,
- half of the dwelling units face north, benefitting little
from solar gain,
The alternative design resolves the above deficiencies as
follows:
- all dwelling units have direct, separateo south facing,
exterior access from the parking lot,
- the design is a conventional two storey design, still , and
probably more easily, adapted to modular construction,
- all units have a south facing patio or deck space,
- a mix is now shown, with 38 two bedroom apartments and 8
studios, for a total of 84 bedrooms,
- bedroom square footages are reduced slightly and net square
footage per two bedroom apartment on the ground floor is
increased by 30 sq^ ft. , making the living area more
comfortable,
- second floor two bedroom apartments are two feet shorter
than ground floor apartments to accomodate a deck that does
not shade lower level windows too much, however,
- roof slopes allow incorporation of a loft area of about 220
s" f , above bath and one bedroom in all two bedroom apartments
on the second floor - these are intended as studies, not
bedrppms/
- and, though not a primary design consideration, the
alternative design presents very few windows to errant golf
balls.
•
‘fer" ‘4*01 Page 3
The following are comparisons of the Conceptual submission and
the Altenative design:
Conceptual Alternative
2 BR apartments 20 38
Studios 8
1 room apartments 52
Total bedrooms 92 84
Building square footage 28, 448 28, 532
Loft areas 3,800
Enclosed storage under stairs 330
Ground coverage 11 ,379 14, 532
Parking spaces 105 114
It' s important to point out that, although open space around
the buildings has been reduced by 3, 153 s. f . , what before was ten
small areas of open space around and between buildings has been
concentrated into five areas, making each individually larger and
more useable.
I clearly understand the risk in losing our place in the
review process by redesigning the project and the risk of losing
this building season. This is/ however, a project that will be
here for a long time to come. It will house people who are
permanent citizens of our community.
Because the program for this project has changed, it would be
professionally irresponsible to continue with a design that is far
from being the best solution. I thank you and the Planning
Department for your assistance in keeping the project on schedule.
Sincerely,
^
Peter Dobrovolny
■
j '/, .p
cuZ
/ pIN rr Q
VN •lal L - - . L./n y I
■
7 ' '
f,�, i
// ;f I
SV pu
I
° it
, 1
co
■1�
— * 7
I g
NI
�fs t
•
9
-1(1\1,1
rt
I±�i o ,i s r , s
!; l' j n
is A6
�I- io
1
s ■
e
3
e -
J 5 n II
5
lt, -
I
/ .\VI'\\\ -c11,,\''''-.1. '.':::''''r\''1,.':',\'.',,\.
' '; ' ''''Y - ''''' '.,./0\''',,'. /
li,''' )./,..'/ /!,.. : '--
jrr
1
llltralt,��a,�ah,.A /
\'!�
`
�� /v r ,
! i fo � pn /
/7,04 ll
////r ■
j 51 ,, ,, 11 ,111!11\11\ "al /
f/ „ � �, 1 i
//—ff,S
Iw,r��m11A
Ia '/ , 1 %11
%
'! %/V//f 77 ]
// i ill/ii,
' ////' _/'r,
%, _4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1989
ASPEN GREENS REZONING AND CONCEPTUAL PUD SUBMISSION
Conditions for Conceptual PUD Approval.
Tom Baker: First condition talks about providing the P&Z with a
map showing the existing boundaries of the golf course support
zone and identifying what portion of that zone will be rezoned to
Public.
They have provided us with a presentation map. All I would
request is that for City Council we have a map by May 11 that can
be included in the packet so that they can see what is going on
at the site.
We are asking for an 8 and 1/2 X 11 for the Council packet for
conceptual review.
#2 to provide the Planning Office with a written commitment from
Bill Efting, proving the long term lease of 20 parking spaces in
the existing golf course parking lot for winter use by this
project.
Tom Stevens: That is in the works and we will have it for you by
Council meeting.
Tom: #3 is to develop a drainage plan which is acceptable to
both Engineering and the Golf Course Superintendent.
That revolves around trapping the oil and grease before the water
gets to the golf course or the irrigation ditch. They have
committed to provide drawings by Council time.
Tom: Yes.
Michael : #2 . I am concerned about a long term lease. I think
that parking lot has got a lot of potential as to whether it is
going to end up being an intercept lot some day or other things.
And I hate to see that that would stand in the way of something
else that would be of more beneficial use if there is a 20 space
lease over there for people to park cars.
Tom B: I guess the term lease was put in there for our comfort
level. If we don't need the term "lease" in there--just the
ability to utilize as necessary up to 20 spaces.
Michael: What I am concerned about is not what you call it but
what the commitment is.
PZM4 . 11.89
Tom B: The flip side to that is if the project requires 15
additional spaces to work, what kind of priority are we going to
need to overturn that. Are we going to displace people or how do
we deal with that?
Roger: Some form of agreement to allow the use up to--
Tom B: I will strike the "long term lease"
Tom S. ? : So that it would say Planning Office with written
commitment from Bill Efting, Leisure Services Director approving
up to 20 parking spaces for winter use by this project.
Tom B: #3 was the drainage plan.
#4 . Provide the Planning Office with a memorandum from the Golf
Course Superintendent stating that the berm along the 9th fairway
is acceptable.
Tom S: In fact that is why we are staking the berm.
Tom B: So that is going to happen between now and the end of the
month so that will be available for the Council packet as well.
#5. Apparently Tom already has a letter committing the MAA
indefinitely to use as many units for as how long. And the other
aspect--I think then we could strike this provision or this
condition #5 and just make sure everything works at final then
with the parking.
Bruce: Jim mentioned a while ago that MAA is talking about 3
months. Are they willing to pay rent for 3 months?
? Yea. In fact that is what they are doing. They really
only need it for 2 and 1/2 . But they are willing to pay for 3
months.
Tom B. So we strike #5.
#6. Strike 6 as well them.
#7 . Tom has identified how that access continues through that
donut area--the turn-around.
Tom S. : If that is what they want to do, that is easy enough to
do. I think the main thing is that turn-around is not going to
be curved prohibiting traffic. Whatever they want to pave
outside of that is fine.
Tom B. So #7 is struck as well.
2
PZM4. 11. 89
#8 . The Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that the
proposed structures do not extend above the height of the
existing structure, as viewed from Hwy. 82 .
Welton: They have already done that.
Tom S. : The other thing that we are going to do is on the 17th
we are going to have another meeting with the steering committee
and we are going to stake the buildings and also send a balloon
up to roof height so that we can brave standing in the oncoming
lane of 82 and see----(much hilarity)
Welton: You could just provide us with some photographs.
Tom B: These are conditions we want them to work on.
1. For application for final development plan staff is
requesting that there be geotechnical study to determine the
impact of existing fill material on the proposed development.
And at the their meeting today Tom agreed that they would be
doing that.
2 . To work with the Colorado Department of Highways and the
Engineering Department to develop a detailed traffic study to
determine the traffic impacts that this proposal will have on Hwy
82 . Both Engineering and CDOH have indicated that a left turn
lane may be required.
I guess based upon Peter' s comments and if the P&Z is inclined, I
would like to add to that that they try to resolve--that they
come up with an adequate resolution to the traffic problem of
that intersection if we strike the 3rd condition.
So P&Z wants me to work to add to #2 and strike #3?
Jasmine: Yes.
Welton: But to include investigation of these options but not
restrict you to using any one solution.
Roger: I think in that might be to try to come up with an
adequate interim solution before Hwy. 82 is set.
Tom B: #4 . Develop a detailed Transit Plan in cooperation with
MAA and RFTA.
And I will also beef that up with the information that we got on
the pedestrian crossing of Hwy. 82 and the free transit concerns.
3
PZM4 . 11. 89
#5. Comply with the ACSD standards for connecting to the
District system and providing for the ACSD to take over ownership
and maintenance of the sewer line at the project.
They have committed to do that. They are on record.
Provide a fire hydrant at the turn-around as request by the Fire
Marshal and to sprinkle with a residential system and equip with
an automatic fire alarm system capable of notifying all residents
of pending problem to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
I think both of those are a result of the recently adopted 1988
Fire Safety Code. And Wayne Vandemark can guide you on the
specifics of that.
Tom B: This last condition that Roger touched on with his
concerns and Peter was making changes already. But the
definition of dormitory 'calls it a dormitory unit can be shared
by up to 8 people. Technically this kind of design may have a
problem doing that. I think that the code is so unstructured in
terms of dormitory that we should remain as flexible as possible
and just keep in mind that that general technical definition of
dormitory and work within that--fine--if you can't maybe we need
to amend that definition.
Peter: I think one of the ways of solving that is by how we mix
units in here so that we have a mix of 2-bedroom units in each
one of the buildings which reduces the number of dormitory
bedroom sharing.
Roger: In other words you mix a 2-bedroom plan with a dormitory
plan.
Peter: Yes.
Tom B: And then what I am going to do is have the information
that Jasmine and Roger brought up about the free transit and the
safe crossing of Hwy. 82 to conditions that are already in here.
I will add a condition about the winter use of the bike path and
the recreational use for -basketball and tennis court.
Tom--this is off the record--but what about a volleyball court?
Basketball is OK for guys but girls are into volleyball. A lot
more people can have fun at volleyball than basketball and it is
inexpensive to put in a volleyball court.
Tom: The traffic light alternative will be incorporated into
that second condition under final.
4
PZM4 . 11. 89
Mickey, I have got notes here about the MAA providing a bicycle
fleet? Is that a condition that you would like to have the MAA
investigate the possibility of providing summer residents with a
bicycle?
Michael: I don't know that I intend that it goes so far as to be
a condition. But take a look at it.
Tom B: We can put it in as encouragement rather than an absolute
condition.
Roger: One thing that seemed to get missed is covered bicycle
racks in the project.
Tom B: I will add that with the bike path condition.
Michael : I can't imagine that you are going to get a very large
percent of these people who live there and work there to ride a
bike. I don't care what you do unless you give them a heated,
covered facility. Most people in the winter don't ride bicycles.
It is dangerous. It is cold. You go out in the morning and your
bike is frozen. Basically other than the guys who are looking to
ride in Alaska are not into things like that.
Tom B: I think the biggest problem with winter bike riding is if
you don't get off work when it is light or you are not going to
work when it is light it is really tricky.
Welton: I would entertain a motion for Tom to draft a resolution
approving the conceptual PUD for the former Red Roof Property
employee housing expansion with the additional conditions and
modifications to conditions as proposed in Planning Department's
memo of April 3, 1989 and to be elaborated on by Tom Baker.
(attached in record) And also to come up with an acceptable name
for the project--ie. something that does not say Aspen and is not
confusing to other similar names in Aspen.
Roger: I so move.
Michael seconded the motion with all in favor.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton: The last item is affordable Housing Zone District. I
reopen the public hearing and continue the hearing to June 6,
1989 .
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6: 50.
5
PZM4 . 11. 89
Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S . Anderson, Jr. , City Manager--
FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner
RE: Consent Agenda Item: The PUD Process for the Red Roof
Inn Expansion Project
DATE: January 9, 1989
SUMMARY: On December 20th the Housing Authority and their
consultants held a pre-application conference with the Planning
Commission regarding plans for the expansion of the Red Roof site
for employee housing. This application will be coming before the
Planning Commission and City Council in the next several months.
At the meeting, staff and P&Z concurred that the PUD review
process for the project should be consolidated from 4 to 2 steps.
Staff requests that Council consent in this decision.
ISSUE: At a pre-application conference meeting with the Planning
Commission on December 20, the staff requested that P&Z consider
a compressed review process for this public project. Currently,
staff finds that the Public zone is the most appropriate zone for
this parcel due to the variety of potential community uses which
can be located on this site. This means that the applicant will
be requesting an Exemption from Growth Management for Affordable
Housing and a rezoning from Park with Golf Course Support Overlay
to Public (PUD) . Currently, the Planning Office is processing a
code amendment to allow employee housing in the Public zone. The
Public zone is a mandatory PUD which is a four step process.
Staff and P&Z would like the City Council to consider
consolidating the four-step PUD process into two steps, thereby,
making the entire process a two-step review, with public hearings
occurring before both P&Z and City Council.
Staff finds that this consolidation is appropriate due to the
pressing need for affordable housing for seasonal employees and
MAA students. Sec. 6-205 (B) of the Municipal Code states:
Modification of Review Procedures. In the event that
an applicant believes that the previously listed review
procedures do not directly address the development
being contemplated, or that there are other unusual
circumstances, the applicant may, pursuant to Article
11 of this chapter, request an interpretation by the
Planning Director as to the appropriate review
procedures for the proposed development.
The following are discussion points which the City Council should
consider when deciding whether or not to apply this section of
the code and compress the review process.
o The voters approved the expansion of the Red Roof Inn
for affordable housing in August, 1988 .
o Due to litigation on the Marolt-Thomas parcel, the Red
Roof Inn is the only City affordable housing project
likely to be undertaken in 1989 .
o The Golf Course was purchased to avoid residential
development of this parcel and any development of this
parcel has always been controversial.
o The Snowbunny neighborhood, golf course users and open
space activists will be concerned that the City
adequately review this proposal and any change in the
review process not expressly authorized by the Code
may result in legal action which could delay the
project through the next construction season.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend approval of a reduced PUD process for the Red Roof Inn
employee housing project due to the pressing community need for
housing units and request that Council consent to this decision.
hous. red.roof.cc.meeting
tb
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office jei
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning and Conceptual PUD Submission
DATE: April 3, 1989
APPLICANT: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) .
REQUEST: Rezoning of the 154,890 s.f. Aspen Greens parcel from
GCS to PUB, Conditional Use approval for affordable housing in
the PUB zone, Special Use Review for off-street parking and
Conceptual PUD Review for expansion of the affordable housing use
on the site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Building Program - The Applicant proposes to construct low income
housing adjacent to the existing Red Roof Inn. This development
will consist of four (4) buildings with identical footprints of
2,818 s. f. each. Each building has five (5) levels of
approximately 1,400 s.f. per level and is 2 1/2 stories above
grade. Total floor area per building is 7, 112 s.f. The
buildings have been angled on the site to increase solar
exposure. Two tennis courts will be displaced to accommodate
this proposal.
Internally, the buildings are comprised of five (5) levels, in
general, two (2) levels for common areas and three (3) levels for
private bedrooms. The development will have 92 bedrooms which
range in size from 169 s.f. to 182 s.f. Bathrooms are clustered
at the center of the building, two per level for a total of 2.3
bedrooms/bathroom.
Occupancy and Rental Rates . - Projected occupancy for winter
seasonal employees is approximately 92 persons with rental rates
approximately $275.00/person. Summer occupancy will be two (2)
MAA students/bedroom and rental rates of $200.00/student. MAA
students will be non-driving age.
Area and Bulk Calculations -
Parcel size 154,890 s. f.
Existing building footprint 31,200 s.f.
Proposed building footprint 11,272 s.f.
Proposed roads and parking 40,038 s.f.
Proposed open space (47%) 72,380 s.f.
Existing floor area 36,550 s.f.
Proposed floor area 28,498 s.f.
Proposed FAR .42:1
Roads/Parking - The existing entrance to the site and the golf
course parking lot has not been changed. The road along the
north side of the existing Red, Roof Inn is realigned to
accommodate the parking plan. In terms of parking need, the plan
proposes .75 spaces per bedroom. The proposed site has 92
bedrooms and the existing facility has 50 rooms. The application
is unclear as to the exact number of spaces being provided on-
site, the application states 104 and the site plan shows 92. The
actual demand will depend heavily on the winter and summer
operating plans.
Transit - The Applicant indicates that existing RFTA service will
serve the residents of this site.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are
compiled as attachment 1.
Engineering -
A geotechnical study is needed to determine what effect the fill
material on the site has on this development.
A detailed study of the traffic impact that this development will
have on SH 82 is required. The traffic volume information which
is used by Banner is outdated.
The applicant must obtain an access permit from the Colorado
Department of Highways.
The proposed.. parking of 104 spaces on-site and the provision of
an additional 20 spaces in the golf course parking lot during the
winter is adequate for the needs of the development.
The proposed drainage plan is not acceptable. Automotive
pollutants cannot be drained into the irrigation ditch or onto
the golf course. Dry wells or retention ponds of adequate
capacity must be used:
The toe of the berm along the ninth fairway must be staked out
prior to final submission to determine whether it is acceptable
to the operation of the golf course.
Water - The Water Department assumes that water can be made
available to the site in sufficient quantity from extensions of
the existing utility line.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The ASCD has sufficient
line and treatment capacity to provide for this project at this
time. If the City would like the District to maintain the sewer
line then a_ bill of sale and grant of easement will be needed.
The existing line is not owned by the District.
2
3
? Colorado Department of Highways - An access permit will be
• required and a full traffic study should be made.
Parks - The parking demand for the existing golf course/nordic
skiing facilities: full use in the summer and 50% use in the
winter with full use during special events.
Fire Marshall - The structures shall be sprinkled with a
residential system. There shall be an automatic fire alarm
system capable of notifying all occupants of a pending problem.
A hydrant is needed at the turnaround.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is aware that the Housing Authority has
spent a great deal of time and effort soliciting public input for
this proposal. Staff finds that the results of this public input
process are very positive. The conceptual site, architectural
and landscaping plans for the Aspen Greens demonstrates that I
design can be achieved which meets the Community's land us
'3wee1•s, as well as the Community's resident (affordable) housin ill
Cr,- needs. In addition to being an attractive, well thought out
• design, the Aspen Greens carries out the voter's desire for
affordable housing on this site and begins to implement the
Affordable Housing Production Plan.
Staff has several areas of review for this application:
conditional use review for affordable housing in the PUB zone,
rezoning from GCS to PUBLIC, and review of Conceptual PUD. The
Applicant did not address the issue of rezoning or conditional
use. Staff finds that these are threshold issues which must be -
addressed if the project is to proceed. .,t „ • ;�<; n.
•
In order to address the issue of conditional use staff requests
that P&Z consider if this is an appropriate use of the site. In
staff's opinion affordable housing is an appropriate use for the
site and is reinforced by the Affordable Housing Production Plan.
If the P&Z agrees, then formal review for conditional use will
occur at Final Submission. If the P&Z does not agree, then this
issue should be dealt with at Conceptual Submission. For P&Z 's
information following are the review standards for Conditional
Use.
Sec. 7-304.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
s. Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone
District in which it is proposed to be located; and
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
3
enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and ac-
tivities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development; and
C. The location, size, design and operating characteris-
tics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse
effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes-
trian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash,
service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties; and
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
E. The proposed conditional use complies with all addi-
tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable require-
ments of this chapter.
In terms of rezoning, staff will address the review criteria at
conceptual and the formal action and public hearing process will
occur at final submission. Again, if the P&Z has significant
problems with rezoning, then we should address them at
conceptual. In the Land Use Code, Sec. 7-1102 lists the review
criteria for rezoning. The Council and Commission shall consider
(criteria A-I) :
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response - The proposed rezoning to PUB from GCS is not in
conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan.
Response - The Affordable Housing Production Plan identifies this
site as appropriate for affordable housing. The State Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan identifies this site as part of the Scenic
Foreground. The purpose of a Scenic Foreground is to steer
development away from highly visible sites and to minimize the
visual impacts of the limited development which may occur in the
foreground so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing rural
approach to Aspen. The proposed site is in the Scenic
Foreground, but it is screened from SH 82 by the existing Red
Roof Inn and a large stand of cottonwoods on the east side of the
site. This _screening effectively minimizes the visual impact of
the development. The Applicant shall be required to demonstrate
4
that the proposed structures do not extend above the height of
the existing structure, as viewed from SH 82.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response - The zone districts which surround this site are Park
in the City and R-30, AF-2 in the County. The reason the PUB
zone district was selected is to ensure that the parcel remains
in the Community's control. Further, the PUB zone district is a
community facility related zone district which is compatible with
land uses in the area (golf course, affordable housing, pro shop,
residential uses across highway) .
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response - The applicant has not addressed this concern to
staff's satisfaction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Response - The proposal's impacts for water, sewer, parks,
schools and medical facilities do not seem to be issues; however,
the Applicant has not sufficiently address concerns about
traffic, transit and drainage.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response - The site is generally disturbed, therefore, this .
proposal will have no adverse impact to the natural environment
provided there is an adequate drainage plan.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response - The existing 50 room facility is being used for
resident housing and this proposal will expand that use.
Further, the site is surrounded by a golf course which is
traditionally compatible with residential uses.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
5
the proposed amendment.
Response - The primary change to the neighborhood over the last
three years is the establishment of resident (affordable) housing
in the existing lodge type facility.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response - Based upon the Community vote in August, 1988, the
proposal carries out the public's desire for resident housing on
this site. In terms of harmony, the MAA students will be as
harmonious as possible.
The PUBLIC zone requires mandatory PUD review. The reason for
this review is that community facility uses typically have
special area and bulk requirements which are related to that use
(water or sewer treatment plant, fire station, etc. ) . Further,
the PUD review is mandatory because to ensure that public sector
projects are as rigorously reviewed as private sector projects.
For P&Z 's information the following (A-F) are listed in the Code
as the purpose of PUD.
A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and
layout of buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of develop-
ment.
C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities,
and governmental services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent prac-
ticable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and
layout of development encourages the preservation of
natural and scenic features.
Sec.7-903 (B) of the Aspen Land Use Code identifies 12 review
standards for Development Applications for PUD. Staff will
address these review standards and will indicate if they have
been addressed previously, will be addressed at Final PUD or do
not apply to this proposal because the PUBLIC zone sets all
dimensional requirements by Conceptual and Final Development
Plan. The following are the review standards set forth in the
Code.
6
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Addressed in
the rezoning section.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area. Addressed in the rezoning
section.
c. The proposed development shall not adversely
affect the future development of the surrounding
area. Addressed in the rezoning section.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the
development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant. GMQS Exemption
will occur at Final PUD.
2. Density. (DENSITY IS SET BY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE PUBLIC. ZONE) . Based upon staff
calculations the proposal is comprised of 30 units, and
the existing facility is comprised of 250 units. this
80 unit total calculates to 22.5 units/acre. Staff
arrived at this number by concluding that of the new
construction two buildings would be comprised of two
bedroom units, ten units in each building. The other
two buildings were comprised of five units each. This
conclusion was reached by counting each level as one
unit. The existing building was counted as 50 units
even though none of the units has kitchens.
In order to compare this density to something tangible,
staff provides the following comparison. If we assume
RMF zoning, 1:1 FAR, free market units, the existing 50
rooms will be considered studio units and the dormitory
units will be considered 5 bedroom units, then the lot
area requirements of this proposal would be:
UNITS LOT AREA/UNIT TOTAL LOT AREA
50 STUDIO 1,000 S.F. 50,000 S.F.
20 TWO BR 2,100 S.F. 42,000 S.F.
10 FIVE BR 5,600 S.F. 56.000 S.F.
148,000 S.F.
As. you can see the proposal is below the allowable
floor area for the site, 154,890 s.f.
7
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of
the underlying Zone District. Detached residential
units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot
line or row house configuration, but multi-family
dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by
the underlying Zone District. (AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PUBLIC ZONE) .
4. Dimensional Reauirements. (DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE
SET BY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE
PUBLIC ZONE) .
Parcel size 154,890 s.f.
Existing building footprint 31,200 s. f.
Proposed building footprint 11,272 s.f.
Proposed roads and parking 40,038 s.f.
Proposed open space (47%) 72,380 s.f.
Existing floor area 36,550 s.f.
Proposed floor area 28,498 s.f.
Proposed FAR .42:1
Proposed Density 25/ac Maximum
Proposed Dimensions
Minimum side yard ? 5 ft
Minimum front yard 15 ft
Minimum rear yard 5 ft
5. Off-street parking. OFF-STREET PARKING FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE PUBLIC ZONE IS SET BY SPECIAL REVIEW.
THE STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
ARE AS FOLLOWS.. .
Sec.7-404.B.2. In all other zone districts, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of
the residents, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests and employees.
Staff finds that the application is inadequate in its approach to
off-street parking for the following reasons.
1. What is the expected occupancy and program for the
existing and proposed facility (summer and winter)?
This information is essential to determine the
appropriate number of off-street parking spaces needed
for the entire proposal.
2. Does the MAA have a long-term commitment to the Aspen -
.Greens? A change in the summer operation of this
facility from non-driving age MAA students to employees
8
or students of driving age will have an adverse effect
on the adequacy of off-street parking. If the MAA
cannot give the Community a long-term commitment, then
this application needs to address the possibility of a
changed summer operation and address the off-street
parking impacts of that operation or agree to further
review to permit a change in operations.
3. One of the positive attributes of this concept is its
flexibility; the applicant should demonstrate how off-
street parking works for other future options.
6. Open Space. The open space requirement shall be
that of the underlying Zone District.
This Application provides a significant amount of usable open
space.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part
of the Final Development Plan a landscape plan,
which exhibits a well designed treatment of
exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample
quantity and variety of ornamenta3 plant species
that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area
climate.
An adequate landscape plan is provided for Conceptual Submission.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved
as.part of the Final Development Plan .an architec-
tural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency in the proposed development, architec-
tural character, building design, and the preser-
vation of the visual character of the City.
Staff finds .that the Architectural Site Plan meets the standards
of the Code and is a significant improvement over the initial
concepts that were developed prior to the series of steering
committee/public meetings. The current proposal minimizes the
mass of the structures and provides usable open space on the
site.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to
prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
The applicant has committed to low level incandescent lights with
down lit lenses.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is
encouraged. £,
9
This standard competes with other goals of the proposal and while
the buildings are not "clustered" the intent of this section is
realized.
11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall
be designed so that adequate public facilities
will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is con-
structed, and that there will be no net public
cost for the provision of these public facilities.
Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that
any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
In this section staff will address sewer, water, parks,
recreation, drainage, transit and accessways. In terms of sewer,
water and parks, the referral agencies have indicated the
proposed project can be adequately served, although the ACSD has
indicated that they do not own the line at the Aspen Greens. In
terms of recreation, it is _ unclear how the tennis and pool
facilities will be operated. The applicant should clarify this
issue. Additionally, the Golf Course Supervisor would like the
toe of the berm staked prior to approval so that he can determine
what impact it will have on the 9th fairway.
In terms of drainage, the Engineering Dept. has indicated that
the drainage plan is inadequate because it drains automotive
pollutants onto the golf course and into the irrigation ditch.
In terms of transit, the Applicant has indicated that they are
not: directly5.responsible for the MA's transit solution. Staff
finds that transit is a critical issue which needs to be
addressed in full if this project is to be approved. The
Applicant cannot shift this responsibility.
In terms of accessways, staff is aware that golf course staff
utilizes this area as a maintenance vehicle travel-way. What are
the implications of this project on maintenance vehicle travel?
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use
permitted in the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) shall have access to a public street
either directly or through an approved
private road, a pedestrian way, or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
This standard has been addressed. •
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be
designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
10 •
•
a"`
controlled turning movement and minimum
hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by through traffic.
This standard has not been addressed adequately. Both the
Engineering Department and the CDOH request a detailed study of
the traffic impact this proposal will have on SH 82. The
Applicant needs to develop or utilize current traffic volume data
for SH 82 and develop traffic generation data based upon the
different operating scenarios for the site. Further, the
Applicant must apply for an access permit from CDOH.
c. The proposed development shall be designed so
that it will not create traffic congestion on
the arterial and collector roads surrounding
the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector or arterial roads shall be improved
so that they will not be adversely affected.
See above comments.
d. Every residential building shall not be
farther than sixty (60' ) feet from an access
roadway or drive providing vehicular access
to a public street.
This standard has been addressed.
e. All non-residential land uses within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have
direct access to a collector or arterial
street without creating traffic hazards or
congestion on any street.
This standard has been addressed.
f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
may be dedicated to public use or retained
under private ownership. Said streets and
associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent City regulations and ordinances.
The Applicant should clarify how this standard is being
addressed.
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reason-
ableness of the Development Application, and its conformity -
to the:.standards and procedures of this division and this
chapter.
11
CONCLUSION: This application presents a complex review process
because the Land Use Code requires that P&Z apply review
standards from several sections; of the Code: Sec. 7-1102,
Rezoning; Sec. 7-304, Conditional Use; Sec. 7-404 (B) , Special
Review; and Sec. 7-903(B) , Conceptual PUD. Many of these review
standards overlap or are cancelled by other standards. As a
result of addressing all these review standards, the memorandum
necessarily takes on somewhat of a negative tone. This is
necessary because the purpose of the review process is to point
out the deficiencies of the proposal. In order to off-set this
tone staff would like to make the following summary.
In general staff finds this proposal very creative and exciting.
The site plan, architectural plan and landscape plan are well
thought out and demonstrate the benefits of the extensive public
process which the Housing Authority has utilized for this project
prior to beginning the process with P&Z.
There are, however, some technical issues which need to be
addressed by the Applicant and a number of threshold issues which
the P&Z address. The threshold issues which the P&Z must address
in order for this Application to proceed are rezoning and
conditional use. Staff has found that both rezoning to PUB and
affordable housing as a conditional use are appropriate for this
site. If P&Z agrees with staff then formal action on rezoning
and conditional use can be taken at Final Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conceptual PUD
Submission for the Aspen Greens project with the following
conditions. ,:
Threshold Issues - P&Z finds that both rezoning and conditional
use approval are generally acceptable and that formal action
should be taken during Final Development Plan Review.
Conditions to be met by the Applicant during Conceptual Review
with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I1 Provide the .P&Z with a map showing the existing boundaries
1/ of the GCS zone, identifying what portion of that zone will
be rezoned to Public.
2 . Provide the Planning Office with a written commitment from in
Bill Efting, Leisure Services Director, approving a }engT'7
Haase 4em. 20 parking spaces in the existing golf course
parking lot for winter use by the Aspen Greens.
3. Develop a drainage plan which is acceptable to both
Engineering and the Golf Course Superintendent.
4. Provide the Planning Office with a memorandum from the Golf
12
Course Superintendent stating that the berm along the 9th
fairway is acceptable.
5 Provide e P&Z with oc pansy and pr••ram information for
the e. st g and p - •ose• facilit• -s ( inter, _ .. er and
off-= -ason) in wr' ing. T is s • ld ins ude . y 1• . .- -rm
o. ,itments .y e MAA as o . •w they p op• e to use this
.cility.
II. -n•' fy ow cha ••-es ,n the occ,pancy - • pro• th:
-xist and • o•osed fa i • ies w ll -ddre - p. ki • .
. I.e tify 'at c :nge , if -n , w' .e m. .e . o o„ . .• -t-
•ol ' ma•nte -anc vehi e raf - 'c
■
8. The App icant - a . be re• ire• - demo- r-te at •h
pr-• •osed -tru• ures . - - • e -nd abo - the he' . t of the
■
existing structure, as viewed from SH 82.
The following conditions shall be addressed in the Final
Development Plan Application.
1. Provide staff with a geotechnical study to determine the
impact of existing fill material on the proposed
development.
2. Work with the CDOH and Engineering Department to develop a
detailed.traffic study to determine the traffic impacts that
lFcAt this proposal will have on SH 82. Both Engineering and CDOH
have=indicated<,that a left turn lane may be required.
6t,
4 3. CE.
4. Develop a detailed Transit Plan in cooperation with MAA and
RFTA.
5. C. ply wi the AC b standards . connecting to
Di-trict -y-tem an. pro iding fo th, ACSD - to ove
o ershi. an• mai. enance of th• sewe 1 - - at e Aspen
Gr=ens.
6. Provide a fire hydrant at the turnaround as requested by the
Fire Marshal.
7. The structures shall be sprinkled with a residential system
and be equipped with an automatic fire alarm system capable
of notifying all occupants of a pending problem, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8. The Land Use Code allows for 8 people in a dormitory unit.
The Applicant should be aware that the current proposal does
13
not meet this requirement. Since this is only Conceptual
review staff has not taken issue with this design concern,
but the Applicant should make the appropriate design change
in the Final Application.
tb
aspen.green - °
14
•
r
ATTACHMENT 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: THE ASPEN GREENS (FORMERLY THE RED ROOF INN) CONCEPTUAL
PUD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
May 8 , 1989 at a meeting to begin at 5: 30 P.M. before the Aspen
City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Co 81611 to consider an application submitted by the
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority requesting Conceptual Development
approval in order to construct affordable housing. The applicant
is also requesting rezoning of the 154, 890 square foot parcel
from Golf Course Support zone to Public zone, Conditional Use
approval for affordable housing in the PUD zone and Special Use
Review for off-street parking. The applicant proposes to
construct low income housing, consisting of 92 bedrooms located
in 4 buildings containing 7 , 112 square feet of floor area each,
adjacent to the existing Red Roof Inn on Highway 82 on the Aspen
Golf Course.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5090.
s/William Stirling, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on April 20, 1989.
City of Aspen Account.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
April 12 , 1989
Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group
450 South Galena, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: The Aspen Greens Affordable Housing
Dear Tom,
This application has been scheduled for review by the City
Council at a public hearing on May 8, 1989 at a meeting to begin
at 5: 00 P.M. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to
inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application
is available at the Planning Office.
•
This public hearing requires notice pursuant to Section 6-205.E.
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Enclosed is a copy of Public
Hearing Notice Requirements which summarizes this section.
If you have any questions, please call Tom Baker, the planner
assigned to this case.
Sincerely,
- o 0 t
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
cc: Jim Adamski
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
4fTO: . . ialgtae�..r.'.';.''.:
FROM: Jim Markalunas
SUBJECT: ,The Aspen Greens
DATE: 3- 3-89
Regarding water, se see exhibit 6 with our letter of 3-9-89.
The outline submitted by Banner Assoc. proposes a main extension with
fire hydrant from an existing distribution main in the area. At this time,
we are assuming that water can be made available in sufficient quantity to
the project from extensions of the existing utility line. However, we
request to view and approve all project site utility drawings prior to final
approval and construction.
cc: The Stevens Group
Banner Assoc. ;
k(i s. .;.
ril
I
�A r u �`� [ a
r' ap � a.
♦ •
� i
In:" a :f 651 X11 ��' i$f,1C1 r , �mryd'Olf hi lr kMry Y!„.f
" `.' '�!r •'in1 11'.,5111
Md CcI t-: 'r.l..-: p,, flit I •,;:,r'
l .rrl . ,I 1 = P.!1.l.
•!f , C -14+ J •
14 - ■ I
:1r0. r - ! ,::;a. .n •'�•)IF l •I'4 '
°tg1.4Jq rvIY r' I II..I I I .tr • ^v
I I1- 1 `. .. I I ABM-. 15Iltl ..M '.f .•
e sic ' .I Lili E. P..I
I TI- ., , , ■ . :itf I.4-1 t "i - .. _.:I I. v E Dl j r L
•
-_ ,. ,,, S Y x. .I fI ➢.I a I SJF, I A'. I.- _ r c
u ,
e P n , .._ , � :. . .. � . s ,4 e{u e 6 I 1 1(- ;f u e l , .Y.l u' .ai i
4
... , • • d r u .,..j.1 1 III . • .I e. k Y,,;
' 0. 4 • pled , q :l t• 2 :19 i.t l :: !' :v II , : .', to , I }Ip.7-p
I I ;IL ■Y•• I _a,; : cn.,._.�.I .I :4 x:
.. rvl,r i • 11■ .;', y.1.. .4.• FI.I-. d1 i. el
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Holy Cross Electric Association
Fire Marshall
State Highway Department
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD
Submission/GMQS Exemption
DATE: March 17, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application from The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting approvals for
The Aspen Greens Employee Housing Project (formerly The Red
Roof) .
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than April 5, 1989. We realize that this is a short review time,
however, the City Manager has instructed us to give this an early
agenda date. Thanks for your cooperation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Holy Cross Electric Association
Fire Marshall
e State Highway Department
Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD
'Submission/GMQS Exemption -
DATE: March 17, 1989
==
Attached for your review and comments is an application from The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting approvals for
The Aspen Greens Employee Housing Project (formerly The Red
Roof) .
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than April 5, 1989. We realize that this is a short review time,
however, the City Manager has instructed us to give this an early
agenda date. Thanks for your cooperation.
./ March 21, 1989
An access permit from the Colorado Department of Highways will be required.
A traffic study should be made for the full usage. -
Refer questions to Charles Dunn, District ROW Engineer, 243-7232 in Grand
Junction. _ ,
rb
021/2Z??4,r„
re
Rcs,co
D 0O`N•
ter) J.,
MAR 22 . ,
i� �i
I1E170RAIYDUPi
TO: Tom Baker
Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Parks Department
DATE: March 30,1989
RE: The Aspen Greens P.U.D.
The proposed access easement, turnaround that will extend east 58', where
the Golf Course/Parks Dept. stock pile sand, top soil, road base, etc.. This
area could easily be moved east to accomodate the needed turnaround.
Exhibit *5 Banner's summary of findings, in reference to parking capacity of
the Golf Course support area, to lease the off season Golf Course spaces for
winter residential parking, Banner estimated winter Golf parking demand as
zero, maybe so,'but not for the much needed Nordic Skiing Trail parking,
about half of,the parking loc will_be needed'daily. The Nordic Ski Race held
here last February used all parking available.
NA434 +
jl)
1
xttI fi� t 'r r
@Aelen, Q?;u7ee _ - Shed 4"X>
WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-2690
TO: Tom Baker, Assistan Planning Director
FROM: Wayne Vandemark` Fire Marshal
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD Submission/
GMQS Exemption
DATE: March 20, 1989
I have reviewed the Aspen Greens Rezoning conceptual. This
project is approximately five minutes from the Fire Department.
Nowhere in the specs does it mention fire protection. These
structures Shall be sprinklered with a residential system.
There also shall be installed an automatic fire alarm system
capable of notifying all occupants of a pending problem. The
existing fire hydrant at the pro shop is 678 feet from the
project so it is evident that another hydrant is needed at
the turnaround.
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Officer
Date: April 5, 1989
Re: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD Submission/GMQS
Exemption, Parcel ID# 2735-123-00-011
___________________ _ ==
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above referenced project and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The project is proposed to be served by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District. We will defer to the districts comments.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
Water service is currently provided by the City Water Department.
The applicant must contact the Water Department concerning their
ability to serve any future expansion.
AIR QUALITY:
The proposal does not appear to include any wood burning devices,
but any installed must comply with applicable regulations.
NOISE: Section 2-23
No adverse noise impacts are anticipated from this proposal.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: Section 2-2
This proposal is not anticipated to violate any other laws which
fall under this departments authority.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 1311311 30$I1112O-6070
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Affordable Housing Zone District
DATE: April 11, 1989
The public hearing for the Affordable Housing Zone District was
continued to this meeting. Staff will bring information to the
meeting to be discussed if time permits.
•
•
s / e
(/(l /A, e tc4c a rt 4 2 c -14 occerluti
LIG 15 JL �vvkr� r l(� 7141 /t �- we-, a..,
l tl u 6-6/ ✓-e-ce-a-er r EA) ItAi uo 1^ (-tn.
,46
c,_ c 'l
1r ) //Lab 9
_ w
A icy', , . .. g ;21- u,r
1- r uu Y r wr 11 r,GIJI- 4n 0 H - r�a4/
/ * Z '� 4 t � 0
limo ! , I kao ,e.UOh, 7 • ,Q,� . /
Q
Acd
t0 { GVOX.(J OGLve A-
ei, " _ (�tro , w Lit 1-1A,-- elf it:ed Al r 71
rotes--p
41- e t‘iiii °14tt 16/19
-' / Jam- oft" Cou, 4 in
r
Gt`-`"- Yt.y L.p 4- f iry .,e ms C.r-,.r.u.., J c N` .
- /2-rai ;LA-6/5 4ty_zo_v , enteg_ne.
CcritaP irkati
, o,;.ws 4444
ip .�,
Luc.
v1-Jr`G����`` 'Le ✓ cam{ w c 7—� f-pp s art
- ii - 89 7 tz 4/2-cc-Li ft,* -6r, pas
8r � ,��,� eat t/ r ,
�!No ew�itr,� ra a rK ek".'4
J(.4@uaa 4-11 44lwed i,4414-44 /GPu) Cam' r± if Z Cc ✓u
<J �
virGJ - a- ,'u6
tneyk)
/�e� u STF9•moo v�a .
rii<j>"
E . �ru j,/ l ro 11 ,
ecte
f.
1. X - 1 -24x-
1. 9 - 4-y s f -. ‘444A-dA -,,.f ,�a�.eP
LO-K-c- yr o�-e.c or - 4 L L
�-� , . � .
49. Jo - AA. fat. -
P . 11 - /aim cfiw Pr"va.tc- F .
ry - // — $y Fit z mi.
M 19-( far Clrtco e���� Fab 2 J
P%rte.[ f eA44..7,'- o-tdt. r,y,,.., TA P r°ye°S-.P/ at, on
54..4,— , O ao k a..., P A. at.:-. __e J.,., ..,, w g,,...k.. 6-1>,
°d f-G•t- P6.._- 0_4._12-" rn..._. -rCu.,._ 1«.(... -F-G..., c.._d :.,eg
A ttibi -g--el i-
z.0 Pki (1140 a -ejo�LnH ( /S`1, ?go sf) fr og+ 465 I-Jo Poo
i ,ft p co Ce n GYM�EZOKa as e.. aura d c C — �o-yetf4. Asp-o,..�y Partm..
nt 44.4..c..J 44...._ z.,..4.,(..c....) - ,-sited /9 es-rie:47
Z5* ea-to PO/) ,CA/ JO - n :.y 4.,.. Av 3ch,c.
j. * Pk 0 (41.41-P CO F l
(i . yo,-R- o a - / iu.af
U.4-c-
4. (bv� 4. P°A
as..., weof G� ,� 0,4-4w—
C. FtnaQ SPA. �/a� dt o cl.,... a--c
r'ei:ci-r 7`o r-e-44,).(_ ,G Cep(/! 4;+<-.A-1
p( - ,C/O -0 la S',41 ?
\tub & 4 / uu'� off' et'�il`ucdoon rk a .l
/ � J
Zetc 6044-ALc.,
z__ .vico d • itfrterThr
b_A_cee
itd-c_ &AA__ 7ro c 3 _
ca
f TOOK t
• -Se-- ssr' 3g d11PT,4
, u .
?trio ; mow, uj
I \ s, c
&.� /loll
VAirvM114 . 7 dc-
k(aor
<`
,,i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Baker, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 94
DATE: March 31, 1989
RE: The Aspen Greens Rezoning/Conceptual PUD Submission/GMQS
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The application needs to include the following as required by
section 6-204 of Municipal Code:
a. A legal description.
b. A disclosure of ownership.
c. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map.
2. Because the location of this development has been used as an
area for dumping fill for many years, the Engineering Department
recommends that a geotechnical study be done to assess the impact
that this will have on the development.
3. The submitted, 'report on the impact of traffic generated by,
this development on the access from Highway 82 is not conclusive.
The Engineering Department recommends that a more detailed study
be done using more recent traffic volume data.
The State Highway Department has determined that this
development is a change of use and therefore requires that the
access permit be subject to review.
4 . Discussion with Bill Efting indicated there will be 20
additional parking spaces located in the golf course parking lot
available to this development in the winter time in return for
snowplowing. These additional spaces added to the 104 spaces
proposed in this application would be adequate number for this
development.
5. The proposed drainage-plan is not acceptable. Rich Coulombe
has indicated that he does not want any automotive pollutants to
be drained into the golf course area. He was particularly.
concerned about the drainage that has been proposed to go
directly°into the ditch on the east side of the project.
Drainage from the parking lots must either be directed to- dry
wells or retention ponds both of which must be engineered for
adequate capacity.
•
l
r
6. Rich Coulombe is also concerned that the proposed berm on the •
noith side of the project will encroach onto the 9th fairway. We
recommend that the toe of the proposed berm be staked out before
final submission so Rich will be able to determine whether or not
there will be any impact.
jg/greens
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
•
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
March 17, 1989
Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group
450 South Galena, Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: The Aspen Greens Employee Housing Project
Dear Tom,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application IS complete.
We have scheduled your application for review at a public hearing
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 18,
1989 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 PM. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to your application is available at the Planning
Office.
The public hearing requires Posting of notice and Mailing of
notice as provided in Section 6-205.
If you have any questions please call, Tom Baker, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
- - 4'.". .r - -
t
1 12e...17 �PINN
M.- P Z
=
ft t : l toMm ter" it Co eX t
a� ' �_ _.____ __—_-. /a'r�._rri/?t Y. ---nt_—Z n _ aP
- _ I. I Nrrwucrl orJ• / rit? .4 vi`hori fry fa /dui/d 4w 4n rrte,
fv rruot ru€-d' ( -> antics
,.:. _ • 92 roosr�t ( viot to e'c /o)
-. • ,ft ex/tl / kyn fl.t.c,
_. 2. WHY
j Nuts Axes A-r7 Mat / itf i ' .
. Pa �✓��i�:f1 L 95 / priori tzr vY1 au.
�y✓odtit�Jd)'7 f ! at' U�/ 7s .
l Th 7 /GOr /6 /tlltfleGl
� a44-t 9�r� _• r2r2(hou e, ‘i,4 onaf riYl It- /41 srfrnn sr
How
• /Lott _G(y )eefer = /ection _ a /.
i/itt lag/ _1107 Mara I74..47 (Loo coarnt
• 87. 5 (/Otle1 fz, a5E e/X/ h l / wl Mr I
P/ll11/ / eo fin
1*✓! rivr4e,ef
4. Paeyc /Npur ,
• rh/ plif rrsra4ri f/ at ha6 hor hr--(714
a de-tented 'r Yrr rite s/
rrrt� 71-ce 1177.5frn _ cic 9k-�. Gam-
.4A , //AA , A6.G , re5Ir(x,4 a. GtT eta,
• Pvbbc opal ha' L. -Aar-al to
• /2 S 'Lrz
/'2 darn/
/2 Z hedrvm -
- ----------- ------&/- 7 iale o'er7 t%o to ‘e-yidr�fiarol -
.A. -.yq- < i J ! 4.
& S" v' ,7,71-.:::
£ y t :-
', 4 t 1 e a su:x .:-° -,y,xv i z a� =F A+ 'A-1,' a- .a"a.' c ;;;,*,,74..-:x& - `=ara,'t_� # ,#-
:t
trt.t::np-
.
'Itt.p,
444
9-5c::::•?, —
•e«.•,.:...-.
":4,-;:::1,:., 5. //•-./A'<Ica 4°,-,,-.4:,.
t•g--74.:-.÷ .•
.c,,„- -,„„ • ,72-kii -•--:hvf-Mriy 7t 1-prevele.c.. with a --r,i;
.04
,7.-- --/-ied - 771...ii -2-/ P---- //or
:ire:Ts.;
i.-4;',4; • ASk--e-i- s., 1-:::,V a iialt al -11, o, m/tlierii . ...kzt•,
nzor-e- biz mi/1/..rn
r
,-... C.Ix.;,.: • kfy hq 7" rli'I 13,/,„4"./ /t / X n 1 I I kfl;) (Vie-
•CL-tiv:r.
/2 1 ril / I )‘9 r rel?Za I r 74 0
• /
,c7C/ 7' -757,12t7o71 •e'-' il-
I / ' .
/0,0 14 /1-2 cl, (4-2-1-244-17-1-41 /Carre,
::::‘,),•.a.v- • prole-at kic=s- fr,:e..(4-7 /etrinneci 7-70 /2c /007) • i7
•••sttki-.• i •..
cee.:147.--• . ' . "-' , ..'-
, /2 e-, q -egr kx-yid cc-dery c., -lontect ceyz.,/ .
t727'-'14
t7.4-`;',4; der tt"" PA-•----1-74r (7)--
•,:m'-- G. or-011e,ANcy
•
• 7 ki-Arn ii . ced-rn-no riz-frnter c'' .0"-?e-11
4":17&7 / 2,7ii
—.-=
., -.
S Mf4741it rpfrnmer- (t?- 44+4:
!...:1:1;4.•
P.:Vrit Or /a-..70 , 'C'47-1.,///a//74G/
• /zeta/a-7- zpa.cezilr
i
• , •......K t.
1-,it%;
• -Ale ,,
71/4,.
/r----1,-/t/i/r9 4,07' ,,..i..c ne14-75116 2657; ic nr.--„77- - -s4 =-•
/ / • 'all""11.2.
S-/
7.2,-r r„2,."--,-44-7-,..epo7 efoi A-54,--a t ecs ,4',,,/,--it xarig
-Oa. /,•=e-- /i .n.{-77 s a to?, ,.6,7,-_-.-4..-ei-arpricv
. ..
fri n-27,-/ heip to er-c/e In ic, eviadel
7/
r....:*
14,e ic,;P-t---.,t,r , e,r ive- m vetr Friao r..t-
cy) frilOro7 Gr:7t-e_.'.
:,Actic'y
10,,, ',..,:„.;•
t/140.
• . .
— — -----
1, :711,2:4:1
''' ''- -' E.-''' -11- Re•i,* 4.:..':tt::41WrarrIRC9V1,4.-.% ,--T,
' - t"'Akr7-1:,:7,,r474.‘a-..GR.711.,,,--,,c..‘„„4f .. i..:49-,, , ,...400.-V-..,,..,'..-r.3idg; '1*, - -.64: ,ett' ' :\ - ..: %:"--'a,.•4_ '''-"Vi- ‘It"-ett-,IP----:'' -4-
,-...■ .."..A,. -'. 13-Z4,7:;;;74Cr,t14,1- 'M!*. 'I-Intl°4.' 'IA-,tt!'Pl; ;d , : 7:t,-.- r-...:.-' 4.- - "' n,:- ;.,,,,- '',' ,'->-'...1-7:,"!., •-::.et,/-'''''ak ,
.
QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS
ASPEN GREENS EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT
Prepared By :
Banner Associates , Inc .
605 E. Main St . Suite 6
Aspen , CO. 81611
April 5, 1989
RED RL, INN EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXPANSION
EMPLOYEE OUESTIONAIRE RESULTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
APRIL 3, 1989
NO. AMENITY 1-EXTREMELY 2-VERY 3-SOMEWHAT 4-NOT VERY 5-NOT AT ALL WEIGHTED
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT AVERAGE
1 PRIV. BEDROOM 37 6 3 , 1 4 224
2 FULL KITCHEN 31 11 5 1 3 219
3 ON-SITE LAUNDRY 27 16 3.., 1 4 214
4 SOUNDPROOFING 18 12 16 2, 1 191
5 PRIV. BATH 17 9 17 4 3 183
6 LIVING ROOM 16 9 16 6 2 L 178
7 ON-SITE STORAGE 11 15 14 7 2 173
8 PARTIAL KITCHEN 17 9 7 7 9 165
9 PARKING SPACE 9 12 15 8 5 159
10 OUTDOOR SPACE 10 9 13 16 1. 158
11 SWIMMING POOL 6 4 7 11 22 111
12 TENNIS COURTS 4 4 4 11 27 Le 07
a;
13 RESTAURANT 3 3. 11 29 90
14 CU/DEL. LAUNDRY 3 4 I 11 ..., 01
tat.
OTHER: PETS; GOOD MAINTENANCE; QUALITY FURNISHINGS; LANDSCAPING; HUE
rm El ' mn ; ry: 1 k 4 Di-.1 I::m/ ! II—. 1:- .T, IIT AMLNJHLE
..,
I 1
' r"-C-• --L, I: .!, t '. : I ' 1/ -- ---1 --• /.1 1 -- . -.11
1 - 7/ i - ' 3 I - - di 1.. - --, i r - ..- 1 ,------
-1 ,--1 [- / I [ i- / ,- , i i . I ..- _- I -
'. 4-) 1 t c 11 1,1/ 't 1 - ' • 1-' - 1 1-///1 I /d-r) f---- --- I 1- - 'r-j 1.- .- - : 1-
-, _r.-*.-../I j•-/- f'! 1.1 - --.„ ...- ..-,I, 1 - -... 1 /. J 1 - .1 ( - .1 ' - - /-1
1 /----j 1/-1 L -...,-.1 Li-i 1----TJH L--.- -1 [ -s-.1 ,---.-.... 1.-7/-1
/1 1-'7/ j ' - . - J i.- - 1 I. . "..i 1 - j, 1 - : 1 - ..--
•• . . . —1- H ,.., i i .- 1 I z...-.1 1._- „.-j ././
r ,, /i, I . - ..1 r . --, F - i . [ ...- 1
:. 1 -, li 1 II [ - 1. :. • • [ Th
n - I ' l • ' '-it /. 1 If ' .. 1 I / i ' I - 1 I. - - H . - ...-I 1r .
1 / i i; i I 1 1 -. . -4 ii. . 1 I .- -- I 1 1 - - I - I ■
l • —1 ' I - - ' ' 1 - ii - - j ' ' I - I - - 1 1 .
fl V / i I, ." - 1 . t 11 1
r - ... r, - , - ) - 1 - - i 1 - i . ., H 1 1/ -
n- .1 . , 1 ' li „ 1 ' - I ,--' , j ./ i i 1 r -,, i - .. , r -' -"I
-..! . ” I ' ' . - -1 I, 't• - 1 ' i -i • " .1
i- /-*/-1 ji -- -1 - -- [-. - -i ' ' 1 • -' "i . 1 i - -' ' -1 : c ' ' - 1
1 •-.1
7 5 q 1 1
,':/'EF:' :1:= E F'ENT.A,L ??,M0UNJT`_
EMPU EEB ,!S E V.11.1_111 5: Tv P. '
$4118
$"u -
a I
tI
$
$
S I`
1 9 4 5 - 7 0 G ID j i
NO. HOUSING TYPE/ 0-£200-LESS 112550-£350 2-1300-4350 3-$350-$400 4-£400-OVER WEIGHTED AVERAGE
BORM. SITUATION AVERAGE
1 1 BDRM.APT.,/PRIV. 1 4 12 17 15 188 $359
2 2 BDRM.APT./PRIV.RN. 7 5 19 14 4 150 4322
3 3 BDRM.APT./PRIV.RM. 11 11 17 8 2 126 1297
4 PRIV.STUDIO/LIM.KIT. 8 11 16 11 2 124 $268
5 DORM/PRIV.BDP,M. 13 17 10 B 0 109 $276
, 6 1 BDRM.APT./SHRD. 20 10 14 4 1 103 £269
7 5 BDRM.APT./PRIV.RM. 17 18 • 10 4 0 99 £267
8 SHRD.STUDIO/LIM.KIT. 24 14 8 1 2 90 $254
9 PRIV.STUDIO/NO KIT. 25 12 8 4 0 89 $253
10 SHRD.STUDIO/NO KIT. 40 6 2 0 1 63 $218
11 DORM/BDRM,SHRD. 36 13 0 0 0 62 $220
N:. .
HOI IS!F1G SITi IAT IOt• PRFFEF?ENGEl
0{'{II•IITI,N,, (1_q 1,I.
LN DECIDEO (15.4%). _:_._-....- i I _-._-_
1
01'1101C- ,S.li,i
' ,'
_ ii
I
; ;
•
I
b{ L
PREFERENCES DORMITORY APARTMENTS STUDIOS UNDECIDED
FIRST CHOICE I 40 8
SECOND CHOICE 4 23 . 17 8 •
THIRD CHOICE 20 12 . -- S 11
•
. .
. . .
. .
• RENTAL TIME PERIOD
. , .
.--- .....„
.-•
. -.„.
..,...., .._..
.,„
/ . .....
:11.11•4,4E1P. C•11LX(13.01C1-
1 ..
•--.. ,
..,....N
•
i I
1 1
.
.
YMMTERCALY(15.-Ctk I -......
., III
-...,
•-
i I
_--------- 1
il
; 11
i 1
,•
. ,
, •
.. .
„.,
• .•
.., .
., .:•". 1 •?'!"-.7-P C..P. 1.: 7RE (71.2X}
..... .
.. ,
. .
. .
--,.... ,
.. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
....
....----
_....„_.
------- _............----
...
RENTAL PERIOD NO. OF RESPONDANTS
1 YEAR OR MORE 37
WINTER ONLY 0
SUMMER ONLY 0
UNDECIDED 7
COMMENTS:
Landscaping, open space, community feeling are important.
Kitchens are important for long term residency.
Responsive, on-site maintenance is a necessity.
We need affordable housing that is not just dorm space!!
Apartment housing on the way downvalley would be helpful.
Employee housing is totally inadequate for people who wish to live as a family.
Privacy is essential!
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office V6
RE: Aspen Greens Conceptual PUD Resolution
DATE: April 24 , 1989
PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to adopt Resolution :Jo. _-
89 recommending that City Council approve the Conceptual PUD
Submission for the Aspen Greens. Staff will be prepared to
identify conditions which have been changed at the meeting.
aspen.greens .memo. reso.pz
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS THE CONCEPTUAL PUD SUBMISSION
FOR THE ASPEN GREENS
Resolution No. -89
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning r_nd Zoning Commission
(hereinafter, "Commission") has reviewed the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority' s (hereinafter, "Housing Authority") Conceptual
PUD Submission for the Aspen Greens; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is aware of the extensive public
input process which the Housing Authority undertook as part of
the effort to develop this conceptual submission; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is aware of the changes which the
Housing Authority has made to the proposal due to input from the
public; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the Aspen Greens proposal
is one that balances the community concerns regarding land use
and providing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that changes made through the
public process are beneficial to the Community and that the
Commission supports these changes; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that both rezoning and
conditional use approval are generally acceptable and that formal
action on these items should be taken during Final Development
Plan Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
recommends that City Council approve the Conceptual PUD
Submission for the Aspen Greens with the following conditions.
Conditions to be met by the Applicant during Conceptual Review.
1. Provide the Planning Office with a written commitment from
Bill Efting, Leisure Services Director, approving the use of
20 parking spaces in the existing golf course parking lot
for winter use by the Aspen Greens.
2 . . Develop a drainage plan which is acceptable to both
Engineering and the Golf Course Superintendent.
3 . Provide the Planning Office with a memorandum from the Golf
Course Superintendent stating that the berm along the 9th
fairway is acceptable.
The following conditions shall be addressed in the Final
Development Plan Application.
1. Provide staff with a geotechnical study to determine the
impact of existing fill material on the proposed
development.
2 . Work with the CDOH and Engineering Department to develop a
detailed traffic study to determine the traffic impacts that
this proposal will have on SH 82 and develop an adequate
"interim" strategy until SH 82 is improved, (eg. traffic
light) .
3 . Provide a plan for plowing the trail along the golf course
in the winter to encourage winter bike riding as a way of
commuting into town.
4 . Develop a detailed Transit Plan in cooperation with MAA and
RFTA. Suggested elements of this plan include free transit,
safe crossing of SH 82 or a RFTA turn around on the site,
provision of a covered bike rack(s) and provision of a fleet
of bikes for use by MAA students and other residents .
5 . Comply with the ACSD standards for connecting to the
District system and providing for the ACSD to take over
ownership and maintenance of the sewer line at the Aspen
Greens.
6. Provide a fire hydrant at the turnaround as requested by the
Fire Marshal .
7 . The structures shall be sprinkled with a residential system
and be equipped with an automatic fire alarm system capable
of notifying all occupants of a pending problem, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal .
8 . The Land Use Code allows for 8 people in a dormitory unit.
The Applicant should be aware that the current proposal does
not meet this requirement. Since this is only Conceptual
r>r..
review staff has not taken issue with this design concern,
but the Applicant should make the appropriate design change
in the Final Application.
9 . Provide basketball and volleyball in conjunction with the
tennis facilities.
10 . Change the name of the project to something which does not
use the word Aspen.
11. The P&Z is au-re that since P&Z ' s Conceptual review the City
Council has changed the program for this proposal from a mix
of seasonal and permanent housing to all permanent housing.
Therefore, the applicant must be prepared to address program
aspects of this proposal which the P&Z dealt with at
Conceptual during Final SPA, if the P&Z deems it necessary.
/02
ASPEN.GREENS.RESO. PZ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office J/3
RE: Zoning of Centennial and Hunter Creek Area
DATE: April 25, 1989
SUMMARY: The City of Aspen has recently annexed the Lower
Smuggler area. This annexation includes the Lone Pine area which
the P&Z addressed in terms of zoning in February, 1989 , and the
Centennial and Hunter Creek area which the P&Z will address
tonight in terms of zoning. Attachment 1 identifies the Lower
Smuggler annexation area, (staff will bri:.g map to the meeting) .
According to State law, the City must zone these areas within a
90 day period after annexation or development can occur without
limit. The Planning Office held a neighborhood meeting on
Thursday, April 27, for the Centennial/Hunter Creek area in order
to determine the goals of the residents. At that meeting, which
was attended by five people, two questions were asked first,
would this zoning effect Centennial or Hunter Creek in any
positive or negative way? Staff answered that it was the City's
intention to zone the annexed areas in a manner which made them
conforming and did not effect their development potential.
Although the new R/MFA zone district shows an increase in FAR for
the Centennial project it is not staff' s intention that
Centennial should increase in FAR. This was done only to ensure
that Hunter Creek remain conforming. The second question was
asked by Mr. James Moran. Why was his parcel zoned R-15A and not
a higher zone? The neighborhood has changed significantly
because of Centennial and the proposed Mountain View
Condominiums. Staff ' s intention was to zone the Moran parcel in
a manner comparable to what the zoning is in the County, which is
R-15 . The R-15A zone allows duplex units but requires 50o to be
deed restricted. The County ' s R-15 zone allows only single-
family dwellings. Given the Community ' s affordable housing
problem staff finds this appropriate. In terms of the upzoning
issue, staff finds that in the absence of a development plan any
upzoning will not be in the City' s best interest.
The City Annexation Element of the Comprehensive Plan outlines
guidelines for annexing new areas into the City. These
guidelines are as follows:
1. Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area
addressing land use and capital facilities improvements
should be a pre-requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been
Master Planned. The Master Plans establish guidelines
for zoning decisions and capital facilities
improvements. The Marter Plan, in combination with
general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should
be a basic consideration in the land use decision
making process.
2 . Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains
the same development rights within the City as within
unincorporated areas.
Explanatory Comments
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexa-
tion and subsequent zoning should not create a change
in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City
land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining
the "character of the neighborhood. "
3 . Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform-
ing land uses and structures nonconforming.
4. Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area
Ratios comparable to the County' s for annexed proper-
ties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably
high or low.
CENTENNIAL AND HUNTER CREEK AREA
Description: The Centennial/Hunter Creek area is located at the
base of Smuggler Mountain and consists of the Centennial
affordable housing project, the Hunter Creek condominium project,
the Mountain View condominium project and the Moran parcel. All
of these areas are zoned AR-2 except for the Moran parcel which
is zoned R-15 and the Centennial development which is zoned PMH.
The AR-2 zone district allows single-family, two-family and
multi-family structures with a . 36 : 1 FAR. The R-15 zone district
allows single-family; FAR in this zone district is . 16 : 1.
2
Centennial -
17 . 012 AC. (DEVELOPMENT)
240 D.U.
51 STUDIOS
86 1 BR
83 2BR
20 3BR
177, 000 s f floor area
. 24 : 1 FAR
Hunter Creek
18 . 4 AC.
295 D.U.
26 STUDIOS
75 1BR
135 2BR
59 3BR
238 , 000 sf floor area
. 30: 1 FAR
Mountain View (Proposed)
1 AC.
8 D.U. Two-family
8 3BR
15, 010 sf floor area
. 34 : 1 FAR
Moran Parcel
1. 2 AC.
1 single-family unit
Staff Comments: During P&Z discussions of zoning for the Lone
Pine area staff developed the R/MFA zone district, (attachment 2)
so that Hunter Long House and Lone Pine could be zoned in a
manner which made them conforming, but did not give them
excessive buildout potential . This concept is consistent with
Guidelines 2 and 3 which appear at the beginning of this
memorandum.
3
An Ilk
The problem which P&Z faces is that the R/MFA zone district works
for Cr-ntennial and Mountain View, but makes Hunter Creek
noncom orming with respect to FAR. This nonconformity is
significant because it affects approximately 300 dwelling units.
The dilemma P&Z faces is if we amend the R/MFA zone district to
make Hunter Creek conforming, tl _n Centennial has a significant
buildout potential . In staff ' s opinion, we find it inappropriate
to make a large development, such as Hunter Creek nonconforming.
Therefore, staff needs to address the issue of buildout potential
for Centennial .
The issue of buildout potential for Centennial may be a moot
point. Centennial was developed in the County as a PUD with an
agreed upon square footage limitation of 177 , 000 . Currently,
Centennial is within 2000 square feet of this number. Therefore,
regardless of the zone district' s FAR, Centennial is essentially
builtout, pursuant to the PUD agreement, unless this agreement is
amended by the P&Z and Council.
The other parcels involved in this zoning effort are Mountain
View Condominiums and the Moran parcel . Mountain View
Condominiums would have essentially the same development
potential under R/MFA as with their current County zoning.
The Moran parcel which is zoned R-15 in the County can be zoned
R-15 in the City' which slightly decreases the parcels FAR, but
increases the parcel ' s density potential, since duplex units are
allowed in the City R-15 zone. In a phone conservation with Mr.
Moran, staff learned that Mr. Moran intends to reside in his
residence for the foreseeable future. However, Mr. Moran feels
that eventually his parcel must be rezoned to reflect the
development which has occurred around him. Staff agrees that the
neighborhood around Mr. Moran' s property has changed dramatically
over the last ten years, but in the absence of a development
proposal, upzoning beyond R-15 would be inappropriate. Staff
finds that upzoning of the Moran parcel should only occur in the
context of a development proposal , if that development is found
to be reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Multi-family FAR
section of the R/MFA zone district be amended as follows:
MULTI-FAMILY
Applicant' s are discouraged from proposing to subdivide to take
advantage of the FAR which applies to smaller lots.
Allowable
Lot Size Sq.Ft.
0-27 , 000 s. f 1: 1
4
27 , 000 s. f- 3 acres . 36: 1
over 3 acres . 33 : 1
This amendment is included in attachment 2 of this memorandum.
Further, staff recommends that Hunter Creek and Mountain View be
zoned R/MFA, that Centennial be zoned R/MFA (PUD) and that the
Moran parcel be zoned R-15A.
5
ATTACHMENT 2
Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF(A) ) .
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential/Multi-Family
(R/MF) Zone District is to provide for the use of land
for intensive long-term residential purposes, with
customary accessory uses. Recreational and institu-
tional uses customarily found in proximity to residen-
tial uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in
the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF (A) ) Zone District
are typically newly annexed areas, within walking
distance of the center of the City, or include lands on
transit routes , and other lands with existing
concentrations of attached residential dwellings and
mixed attached and detached residential dwellings.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of
right in the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF(A) ) Zone
District.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2 . Multi-family dwellings;
3 . Home occupations; and
4 . Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Residential/Multi-Family
(R/MF(A) ) Zone District, subject to the standards and
procedures established in Art. 7, Div. 3 .
1. Open use recreation site;
2 . Public and private academic school ;
3 . Church;
4 . Group home;
5. Day care center;
6. Satellite dish antennae; and
7 . Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit
shall be restricted as affordable housing to the
middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The
affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum
of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the
duplex. In the alternative, both may be free
market units if an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall
be provided for each unit.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and condi-
6
tional uses in the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF(A) )
Zone District.
1. Minimum lot size (sq. ft. ) : 6, 000
2 . Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq. ft. ) :
Detached residential dwelling: 6, 000
Duplex: 3 , 000
For multi-family dwellings on lot between
6 , 000 and 9 , 000 sq. ft . , the following
requirements apply:
studio: 1, 000
1 bedroom: 1, 200
2 bedroom: 2 , 000
3 bedroom: 3 , 000
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one
(1) bedroom per one thousand (1, 000)
square feet of lot area.
For multi-family dwellings on lot of more
than 9, 000 sq. ft. , the following requirements
apply:
studio: 1, 000
1 bedroom: 1, 250
2 bedroom: 2 , 100
3 bedroom: 3 , 630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one
(1) bedroom per one thousand (1, 000)
square feet of lot area.
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000
sq. ft. or less, when at least fifty percent
(50%) of the units built on-site are
restricted as affordable housing, the
following sq. ft. requirements apply:
studio: 500
1 bedroom: 600
2 bedroom: 1, 000
3 bedroom: 1, 500
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1)
bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area.
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27 , 000
sq. ft. or less, when one-hundred percent
( 100%) of the units built on-site are
restricted as affordable housing, the
following sq. ft. requirements apply:
studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1, 200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
7
bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: no
requirement.
3 . Minimum lot width (ft. ) : 60
4 . Minimum front yard (ft. ) :
principal building: 10
accessory building: 15
5 . Minimum side yard (ft. ) : The following side yard
requirements apply to detached residential
and duplex dwellings only:
Minimum Size for Total of both
Lot Size each side yard side yards
(sq.ft) (ft. ) (ft. )
0-4500 5 10 ft.
4500-6000 5 10 ft. , plus 1 foot
for each additional
300 sq. ft. of lot
area, to a maximum
of 15 feet cf total
side yard.
6000+ 5 15 ft. , plus 1 foot
for each additional
200 sq. ft. of lot
area, to a maximum
of 20 feet of total
side yard.
The minimum side yard for multi-family dwellings shall
be 5 feet.
6. Minimum rear yard (ft. ) :
principal building: 10
accessory building: 5
7 . Maximum height (ft. ) : 25
8 . Minimum distance between buildings on the lot
(ft. ) : 10
9 . Percent of open space required for building site:
35
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming
and nonconforming lots of record) :
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
Lot Size Allowable
(Sq.Ft. ) Sq. Ft.
0- 3 , 000 80 sq. ft. of floor area for
each 100 sq. ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of 2 , 400
sq. ft. of floor area.
8
3 , 000- 9, 000 2 , 400 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 28 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area, up to a maximum
of 4 , 080 sq. ft. of floor area.
9 , 000- 15, 000 4 , 080 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 7 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq.
ft. in lot area, up to a
maximum of 4 , 500 sq. ft. of
floor area.
15, 000- 50, 000 4 , 500 sq. ft. of floor area
plus 6 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area, up to a maximum
of 6, 600 sq. ft. of floor
area.
50, 000+ 6, 600 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft
in lot area.
DUPLEX
Lot Size Allowable
(Sq.Ft. ) Sq.Ft.
0- 3 , 000 90 sq. ft. of floor area for
each 100 sq. ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of 2 , 700
sq. ft. of floor area.
3 , 000- 9, 000 2 , 700 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 30 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area, up to a maximum
of 4 , 500 sq. ft. of floor area.
9 , 000- 15, 000 4 , 500 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 7 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area, up to a maximum
of 4 , 920 sq. ft. of floor area.
15, 000- 50, 000 4 , 920 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 6 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area, up to a maximum
9
0
of 7 , 020 sq. ft. of floor area.
50, 000+ 7, 020 sq. ft. of floor area,
plus 3 sq. ft. of floor area
for each additional 100 sq. ft
in lot area.
MULTI-FAMILY
Applicant' s are discouraged from proposing to subdivide to
take advantage of the FAR which applies to smaller lots.
Allowable
Lot Size Sq.Ft.
0-27 , 000 s . f 1: 1
27 , 000 s. f- 3 acres . 36 : 1
over 3 acres . 33 : 1
11. Internal floor area ratio: no requirement
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following
off-street parking spaces shall be provided for
each use in the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF(A) )
Zone District, subject to the provisions of Art.
5, Div. 3 .
1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom, fewer
spaces may be provided by special review
pursuant to Art. 7 , Div. 4 , for historic
landmarks only.
2 . Lodge uses: requires special review pursuant
to Art. 7, Div. 4 .
3 . All other uses: Requires Special Review
pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4 .
annex. zone. cen.hunter. ck.pz
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
Jim Adamski, Housing Director
FROM: Debbie Skehan, Administrative Assistant
RE: The Aspen Greens Conceptual PUD
DATE: April 11, 1989
The Aspen Greens is scheduled for review by the City Council at a
public hearing on May 8. The following is a list of dates which
must be met for this meeting.
April 18th - Publication of Public Notice in The Aspen Times.
April 28th - Last date for Public Notice to be mailed to
adjacent property owners by the Housing Authority (applicant) .
May 3rd - Staff memo for City Council due.
•
n , '`�ti i 2,
•
I,..
•
S SF Los
_ .
= ���
�
f
T. t
44,4
d&hLcM.. t t 5 i 144 p r e d a r-'44,,om. s# (e)vnith. inssu L a,
+
?cb. 3 ma c.-&.
L
r
r
rR
r
r
L
r
r
C
RED ROOF INN EXPANSION
Final PU.D. Submission
r
L
h
r
71e &!/Ftfb- U/e--_
I N C O R P O R A T E D
May 18 , 1989
Mr. Tom Baker
Aspen/Pitkin Co. Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Red Roof Inn Expansion Final PUD,Submiss pn
Dear Tom,
Attached for the Planning Office 's review are twenty copies of
the referenced application.
Don ' t hesitate to call with any questions you may have with
regards to this application. On behalf of The Stevens Group Inc.
and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, thank you for your
assistance in the preparation of this application.
Sincerely,
Thoma Stevens ASLA
President
TGS/lls
Attachments
230 E Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 8 1511 iC3 925 o
RED ROOF INN EXPANSION
FINAL P.U.D. SUBMISSION
MAY 18, 1989
SUBMITTED BY:
THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
130 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
303-920-5050
PREPARED BY:
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT/
SITE PLANNING
THE STEVENS GROUP, INC.
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
303-925-6717
ARCHITECTURE
SUN-UP ARCHITECTS, LTD.
P .O. Box 1669
Basalt , CO 81621
303-927-3369
ENGINEERING
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
605 E. Main
ASPEN, CO 81611
303-925-5857
RED ROOF INN EXPANSION
FINAL P.U.D. SUBMISSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
NUMBER
I . INTRODUCTION 1
II . PROJECT SITE 3
III . REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION 3
A. Applicable Sections of the Code
Sec. 7-1102 , Rezoning
Sec . 7-304 , Conditional Use
Sec . 7-404 , Special Review
Sec . 7-903 , Conceptual PUD
B . Conditions of Conceptual Approval
IV. SECTION 7-903 : FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11
A. Program Description/Rental Rates
Table 1 : Program Description/Rental Rates 13
B . Architectural Description:
1 . Design
2 . Area and Bulk
3 . Materials
4 . Energy Conservation
C . Site Improvements :
1 . Public facilities
a. sewer
b. water
c. gas , telephone, electric
d. transportation - RFTA, S .H. 82
access
2 . Site Development
a. landscape plan
b. parking
c. fire access
d. drainage/grading
e. pedestrian circulation
f . site storage - bicycles etc .
3 . Development Schedule
4 . Finance and Economic Modeling
V. SECTION 7-1102, 7-1104: REZONING 27
VI . SECTION 7-304, 7-306: CONDITIONAL USE 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTINUED:
VII . SECTION 7-404(B) , 7-406: SPECIAL REVIEW 33
VIII . SECTION 8-104(C) GMQS EXEMPTION 35
IX. CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION 36
Response to Conditions
X. APPENDIX 42
RED ROOF INN EXPANSION
FINAL P.U.D. SUBMISSION
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
1 . Existing Conditions (Conceptual Submission) FS1
2 . Site Development Plan FS2
3 . Detailed Grading and Drainage FS3
4 . Landscape Plan FS4
5 . Plat Map FS5
6 . Architectural Floor Plans And Elevations FB1 - FB9
RED ROOF INN EXPANSION
FINAL P.U.D. SUBMISSION
APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
1989
Monday, May 8 - City Council review of Conceptual submission
Tuesday, May 9 - Public Notice
Monday, May 18 - Submit Final
Friday, May 19 - Post and mail Notices
Tuesday, June 20 - City P&Z review of Final Submission
Monday, June 26 - City Council review of Final Submission
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) 'eat Name Red Roof Inn Expansion
2) Project Location
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descriptionwhere
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning Golf Course Support 4) Lot Size 154,890
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authroity, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 925-5280
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group.
Inc., 230 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Co 81611 925-6717
7) Type of Application (please deck all that apply) :
X conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev.
X Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev.
8040 GYeenline ____ Conceptual POD _ Minor Historic Dev.
•
Stream Margin X Final PUD _ Historic Demolition
)tnntain View Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic Designation
C'lordani iumizatian _ Te /NTp jmendmgit _ 01 $ Allotment
Lot Split/Lot Line X 01$ In)tirn
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (nnber and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bdroams; any previous approvals granted to the
prtper ) -
Existing Red Roof Inn - Seasonal housing, 50 rooms, 86 residents,
36,500 square feet
9) Description of Development Application
Addition of 28,500 square feet of permanent resident housing under
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
10) Havre you attached the foliating?
_ _ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
_ Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sutrnissien Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
I . INTRODUCTION
The following application for the development of the Red
Roof Expansion, formerly known as The Red Roof Inn and The
Aspen Greens , hereinafter referred to as the "Project" , as
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority,
hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" , requests Final
Submission approval for the development of a portion of the
existing Red Roof Inn parcel located on State Highway 82
within the City of Aspen. Specifically this application
requests formal action for the rezone of the parcel from
Golf Course Support to Public and Conditional Use under the
PUB zone , both of which were initiated at Conceptual
Submission. In addition, this application requests approval
of Final PUD, Special Use review for off-street parking and
GMQS Exemption.
The Applicant has continued to work closely with the
Planning Department, the Red Roof/Marolt Steering Committee
and City Council . The result of this ongoing input has
brought about a program change for this project . Originally
envisioned as seasonal housing ( as submitted in the
Conceptual Submission) , both the Steering Committee and the
City Council , in an April 17th public work session,
1
recommended changing the program to permanent housing for
the expansion and for the existing facility to remain as
seasonal housing . This application shall reflect that
program change .
While this application does not include the existing Red
Roof Inn facility, reference to that facility is made
throughout this application as the two are integral .
While this application has attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Land Use Regulations , and to provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of
this application, questions may arise which may result in
the staffs request for additional information and/or
clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide
such additional information as may be required in the
course of the application's review.
2
II . PROJECT SITE
The description of the site and the existing improvements as
presented in the Conceptual Submission remains valid. Any
questions regarding the project site should be directed to
Section II , Project Site of the Conceptual Submission.
III . REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
A. Applicable Sections of the Code :
Section 7-1102 , Rezoning: At the public hearing for
Conceptual review of the project , City Council approved
the initiation of rezoning for this parcel from its
current Golf Course Support to Public . Although the
review criteria was addressed at Conceptual Submission,
this application will request formal action during this
Final Submission phase . The review criteria and
responses as stated in the Conceptual Submission are as
follows :
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with
any applicable portions of this chapter .
3
RESPONSE: The proposed rezoning to PUB from GCS
is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of this chapter .
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with
all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Affordable Housing Production Plan
identifies this site as appropriate for affordable
housing . The State Highway 82 Corridor Master
Plan identifies this site as part of the Scenic
Foreground. The purpose of a Scenic Foreground is
to steer development away from highly visible
sites and to minimize the visual impacts of the
limited development which may occur in the
foreground so as to obtain an aesthetically
pleasing rural approach to Aspen. The proposed
site is in the Scenic Foreground , but it is
screened from State Highway 82 by the existing Red
Roof Inn and a large stand of cottonwoods on the
east side of the site . This screening effectively
minimizes the visual impact of the development .
This screening effectively minimizes the visual
impact of the development . The Applicant shall be
required to demonstrate that the proposed
structures do not extend above the height of the
4
existing structure , as viewed from State Highway
82 .
c . Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses ,
considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics .
RESPONSE: The zone districts which surround this
site are Park in the City; and R-30 , AF-2 in the
County. The reason the PUB zone district was
selected is to ensure that the parcel remains in
the Community' s control . Further, the PUB zone
district is a community facility related zone
district which is compatible with land uses in the
area (golf course, affordable housing, pro shop,
residential uses across highway) .
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
RESPONSE : The applicant has not addressed this
concern to staff ' s satisfaction.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public
5
facilities , and whether and the extent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity
of such public facilities , including but not
limited to transportation facilities , sewage
facilities , water supply , parks , drainage ,
schools and emergency medical facilities .
RESPONSE : The proposal ' s impacts for water ,
sewer , parks , schools and medical facilities do
not seem to be issues ; however , the Applicant has
not sufficiently addressed concerns about traffic,
transit and drainage.
f . Whether , and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment .
RESPONSE : The site is generally disturbed,
therefore , this proposal will have no adverse
impact to the natural environment provided there
is an adequate drainage plan.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the
City of Aspen.
6
RESPONSE: The existing 50 room facility is being
used for resident housing and this proposal will
expand that use . Further , the site is surrounded
by a golf course which is traditionally compatible
with residential uses .
h. Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment .
RESPONSE: The primary change to the neighborhood
over the last three years is the establishment of
resident ( affordable ) housing in the existing
lodge type facility.
i . Whether the proposed amendment would be in
conflict with the public interest , and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
RESPONSE : Based upon the community vote in
August , 1988 , the proposal carries out the
public ' s desire for resident housing on this site.
In terms of harmony, the MAA students will be as
harmonious as possible.
7
Section 7-304 , Conditional Use : At the public hearing
for Conceptual review of the project , City Council
approved the initiation of the Conditional Use review,
although the review standards were not addressed at
Conceptual , this application requests formal review for
conditional use during this Final Submission phase.
The review standards and responses are stated in
Section VI , Conditional Use of this application.
Section 7-404 , Special Review : Not addressed at
Conceptual Submission.
For Applicant response to special review, see Section
VII of this application.
Section 7-903 , Conceptual PUD : At the public hearing
of the Conceptual review of the project , the City
Council approved with conditions , the Conceptual
application. This submission is referenced as The
Aspen Greens Employee Housing Expansion, Conceptual PUD
Submission, and dated March 15 , 1989 . Section IV of
this application addresses the Final PUD review
criteria as well as describes the proposed project in
depth. It should be noted that the program has changed
from seasonal to permanent residency in the period
between the Conceptual Submission and this Final
8
Submission . The details of the revised program are
included in Section IV of this proposal . Once this
program change had been finalized, the applicant went
before City Planning and Zoning Commission to review
the change . The purpose of this presentation was to
receive input from P&Z in order to keep the project
from beginning the approval from the beginning. At
this meeting, P&Z stated support for the program change
and directed the Applicant to proceed to City Council
Public Hearing with the revisions . The original
conditions of approval remained.
B. Conditions of Conceptual Approval :
1 . "Provide the Planning Department with a written
commitment from Bill Efting , Leisure Services
Director, approving the use of 20 parking spaces
in the existing golf course parking lot for winter
use by The Aspen Greens" .
2 . "Develop a drainage plan which is acceptable to
both engineering and the Golf Course
Superintendent" .
3 . "Provide the Planning Office with a memorandum
from the Golf Course Superintendent stating that
the berm along the 9th fairway is acceptable" .
9
In response to these three conditions , see Exhibit 1 ,
a letter form Bill Efting stating that all three
conditions have been adequately met by the Applicant .
10
IV. FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SECTION 7-903)
A. Program Description/Rental Rates :
As previously stated , the program has been revised
from seasonal to permanent residency at the request of
City Council . The seasonal program for this project
provided for 92 bedrooms in dorm style configuration
and a project size of 28 , 448 s . f . The current proposal
for permanent housing provides 38 two bedroom
apartments and 8 studio apartments (a total of 84
bedrooms) and a project size of 28 , 532 s . f . Table 1
represents number of units , unit size and rental
rates .
The Applicant realizes the need for senior housing in
addition to The Assisted Living Facility and in
addition to employee housing. In response to this , the
Applicant will work with fixed income, Pitkin County
seniors desiring housing , to make available rental
apartments within this project . Built into the
economic model , is an internal subsidy for units which
may be occupied by seniors . These units will be
available if necessary and will otherwise be rented
without subsidy to qualifying employees .
11
The Applicant proposes to renovate the existing
structure immediately to the south of the tennis courts
to accommodate management personnel . It is envisioned
that two to a maximum of three Housing Authority
employees will occupy this structure . Their purpose
will be on-site property management and maintenance.
The extent of renovation will be minimal and involve no
structural work. Work will be limited primarily to- -
paint and floor covering and interior furnishings .
12
TABLE 1
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/RENTAL RATES
SQUARE MONTHLY RENT/
QUANTITY UNIT TYPE FEET RENT SF
4 Studio 308 $275 . 89
4 Studio 413 369 . 89
17 2 BR 694 619 . 89
2 2 BR 700 625 . 89
2 2 BR 854 780 . 89
17 2 BR 897 801 . 89
13
B . Architectural Description:
This project has been redesigned from the previous
Conceptual Submission of seasonal housing to permanent ,
long term housing for employees . It consists of two
( 2 ) , two ( 2 ) story with loft, buildings that are near
mirror images of each other .
A major programmatic requirement for the redesigned
permanent housing was to provide each apartment with a
separate entry, located on the south side of the
project , for solar gain and parking lot access. As the
site is linear , a narrow apartment profile is
necessary to achieve south access.
A number of different one story apartment floor plans
were investigated. The L-shaped apartment floor plan
developed from the narrow profile required, from the
need for a compact floor plan with little floor area
dedicated just to circulation, and from the need to
provide light and ventilation to the bedroom in the
middle of the apartment .
The L-shaped apartments link together to form the
undulating building plan . Besides satisfying
programmatic requirements for interior living space ,
14
the resulting undulating building plan provides
concentrated and usable exterior spaces for outdoor
living.
In contrast to the linear , monolithic character of the
existing building, the articulated undulating building
plan will provide greater visual interest , a much more
varied appearance from both parking lot and golf course
side, and greater apartment unit identity.
As the roof the existing building needs to be replaced
along with other remodelling , there will be good
opportunity to use similar exterior materials and
colors on both the existing and new building to develop
architectural compatibility and strengthen the sense of
community.
1 . Area And Bulk:
The project consists of 38 two bedroom apartments
and 8 studio apartments , with a total of 84
bedrooms .
Building One, the west building, contains 20 two
bedroom apartments and four studio apartments .
Building Two, the east building, contains 18 two
15
bedroom apartments and four studio apartments .
Floor areas are as follows :
BUILDING ONE - FIRST FLOOR:
SQUARE FEET
1 A-1 apt . at 700 SF = 700
9 B-1 apt. at 694 SF = 6 , 246
2 Studios at 308 SF = 616
Storage = 144
Total 7 , 706
BUILDING ONE - SECOND FLOOR, INCLUDING LOFT AREAS :
1 A-2 apt . at 854 SF = 854
9 B-2 apt . at 897 SF = 8 , 073
2 Studios at 414 SF = 826
Total 9 , 753
Total Floor Area - Building One $17, 459
BUILDING TWO - FIRST FLOOR:
1 A-1 apt . at 700 SF = 700
8 B-1 apt . at 694 SF = 5 , 552
2 Studios at 308 SF = 616
Storage = 132
Total 7 , 000
BUILDING TWO - SECOND FLOOR, INCLUDING LOFT AREAS :
1 A-2 apt . at 854 SF = 854
8 B-2 apt . at 897 SF = 7 , 176
2 Studios at 414 SF = 826
Total 8 , 856
Total Floor Area - Building Two 15 , 856
The loft areas are "captured" space , that is ,
attic space that would have existed in the roof
construction in truss space or roof framing space,
16
that has been converted into living space without
increasing building mass or height . Likewise,
storage areas are areas under stairs that have
been enclosed for tenant use . Total project
square footages are as follows :
SQUARE FEET
Building footprint - two buildings 14 , 706
Total project SF w/o loft areas 28 , 328
Total project SF with lofts 33 , 039
Total project SF with storage 33 , 315
2 . Materials :
The buildings are designed to be either stick
built on site or factory built in modular segments
that can be erected on site. Construction will
be wood frame . Modular construction provides some
significant soundproofing opportunities as common
walls and floor/ ceiling assemblies will be
doubled . Even if stick built , these same
soundproofing techniques , with others , will be
used to achieve optimum sound reduction between
apartments and between floors .
17
The apartments will be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system as per the requirements of
National Fire Protection Regulation NFPA 13R.
Exterior wall finish materials will be stained
wood siding or smooth, lapped, painted compressed
fiber siding (masonite) , each with wood trim. The
long term appearance will be nearly identical .
The compressed fiber siding provides some long
term maintenance benefits .
Mentioned above, the roof of the existing building
needs to be replaced. Roofing for both new and
existing building will likely be asphalt shingles ,
the best compromise of durability, long life and
low initial cost .
Windows will be wood clad , with Low-E glass .
Exterior doors will be insulated metal . Second
level decking will be concrete. A combination of
roof design as presented and gutters will be used
to divert water from roofs and decks away from
stairs and entries .
18
3 . Energy Conservation:
Building orientation is some 31 degrees west of
due south. Additionally, the undulating building
design will result in sidewall shading of
apartments in morning and afternoon. The building
design does , however , give each apartment a
southerly exposure .
With increasing concern with global warming and
the use of building materials that contribute
chloro-fluoro-carbons to the atmosphere, urethane;
isocyanurate and extruded polystryene insulation
materials will not be used for exterior
sheathing/insulation or perimeter insulation .
Instead , a mix of conventional insulation
materials ( fiberglass batt ) and reflective, low
emissivity insulation materials will be used to
achieve insulation levels of R-28 for walls and R-
40 for roofs will be used.
Windows throughout will use Low-E glass .
Apartment units will be weatherized with the use
of a blower door to achieve defendable and
definable low infiltration rates.
19
Apartment units will be individually metered, both
to simplify management and to put the burden of
energy conservation on the one who pays the
utility bill - the tenant . Though not yet
performed , apartment units will be computer
modelled to estimate energy consumption and to
define the most cost effective insulation systems .
C . Site Improvements :
1 . Public Facilities :
a. Sewer - For Sewer Service Plan see Exhibit 7
b. Water - This application formally requests
the City Council and Aspen Water Department
to defer the cost of water tap fees until
this projects fifth year of operation at
which point the calculated amount of water
tap fee will be paid . In working this into
the economic model for this project the
Applicant is able to reduce rents for
employees by an estimated amount of $25 . 00
per month.
For Water Service Plan see Exhibit 8 .
c . Transportation - See Exhibit 6
20
2 . Site Development :
a. Landscape plan - The Conceptual Submission
represented building configuration in four
identical buildings and several resulting
small landscaped areas . With the change in
program , the plan now represents two
buildings and larger, more usable landscaped
areas . With the current provision for larger
landscaped areas , came more actual
landscaping . In addition , the Conceptual
Submission represented small , informal
seating areas within the landscape for use by
MAA students . Since the project is now for
permanent residency, these seating areas have
been eliminated and replaced with a
children ' s play area and a barbecue/picnic
area . Planting has remained consistent with
the original plan in that primarily native
material is used such as Blue Spruce, Aspen
and Cottonwood trees , oak, sage, dogwood and
lilac shrubs , and native grass seed mix and
blue grass sod ( see Sheet FS-4 , Landscape
Plan) . Irrigation for the landscape will be
a permanent , underground system utilizing an
automatic clock and valves , pop-up spray and
21
rotary impact heads . The heads will be low
water volume heads to conserve water . In
addition, the system will be clocked to not
interfere with resident water consumption ie;
zones will run late night and early morning
which also increases plant water consumption
efficiency.
b. Parking - See section VII , Special Review
c . Fire Access - The entry road to the north of
the existing building has been realigned to
accommodate the proposed parking . This
access road will also serve as fire access;
Pavement width is 22 feet and a 75 foot
diameter cul-de-sac has been provided at the
end of the road for turnaround . A fire
hydrant has been provided at the center of
the two proposed buildings to most
efficiently serve either building in the case
of fire.
d. Grading and Drainage - In concept the grading
and drainage plan is similar to that
presented at Conceptual Submission. All
parking areas area sheet drained , however
area now designed to enter a drain fitted
with a grease trap and piped to either a dry
well or to the existing drainage ditch to the
22
east side of the project . By the addition of
the drain inlet , grease trap combination,
automobile pollutants will be trapped prior
to releasing them to historic drainage
courses .
For Detailed Drainage Study see Exhibit 9 .
e . Pedestrian Circulation - In contrast to the
plan presented at Conceptual Submission, all
pedestrian circulation is now on the exterior
of the buildings to private unit entries .
Walkways from unit entries join common
walkways which lead to the parking and
recreation areas . Access to off-site
pedestrian circulation is provided by means
of a walk which joins internal project
c i r c u l a t i o n w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g
bicycle/pedestrian path which parallels
Highway 82 . Concern was presented at the
conceptual level about pedestrians crossing
Highway 82 to pickup inbound RFTA service.
In response to this concern, the Applicant
plans to assess the actual needs once under
operation and then provide a van pool to
shuttle residents to town which would pick-up
and drop-off in the parking lot of the
project thus minimizing the pedestrian
23
traffic across Highway 82 . This van service
will be provided in conjunction with RFTA who
will provide the van or vans to the Applicant
under a lease arrangement with the Applicant
providing the driver. The schedule as well
as the routes will be determined by the
Applicant .
f . Site Storage/Laundry - The units have been
designed with interior storage for personal
items , skis etc . Bicycle racks have been
provided on site at various locations . In
addition, lockable storage bins are available
in the basement/crawl space of the existing
building.
Laundry facilities are currently in the
existing building. These facilities will be
expanded to meet the needs of the proposed
expansion
24
3 . Development Schedule :
As originally presented, the development schedule
calls for beginning site construction July 11 ,
1989 with building construction beginning July 18 ,
1989 and a completion date of December 15 , 1989
(see Exhibit 2 for detailed schedule) .
4 . Financing/Economic Model
As stated in the Conceptual Submission, the
financing for this project will be accomplished by
means of a General Obligation Bond with a topset
amount of $4 , 600, 000 . This amount will cover the
construction of the proposed expansion as well as
the renovation of the existing structure in
addition to the purchase of the land from the City
of Aspen . For detailed timetable of bond time
schedule see Exhibit 3 .
An economic model of the development plan has been
included in this application. The purpose of its
inclusion is to verify the resulting rents since
the overall costs of the project as well as
financing are what ultimately dictate the rent
levels if the project is to be self sufficient as
25
this project . For a review of the detailed
economic model for both the addition and the
existing structure, see Exhibit 4 .
26
V. SECTION 7-1102 , 7-1104 . REZONING
Section 7-1102 . Standards of Review:
This section has been addressed at Conceptual Review and has
been included in this submission in Section III , A.
Section 7-1104 . Application:
The Applicants name , address, and telephone number has been
listed in the Title sheet of this application. A copy of
the letter from the Applicant authorizing The Stevens Group
Inc. to represent can be found in the Conceptual Submission,
Exhibit 3 .
The legal description of the development parcel is shown on
the Development Plat, see Sheet S-5 of the Final Development
Plan drawings .
Disclosure of ownership has not been finalized as of this
date. Once the Applicant has secured the G . O. bond required
for this project , payment will be made to the City to the
sum of one million dollars for the purchase of the land.
Once completed, the Applicant will provide the executed deed
for record with this document .
For vicinity map see Index Sheet of the Final Development
Plan drawings .
27
As stated in this application , all development review
standards have been addressed.
This application requests amendment to the Official Zone
District Map. Currently, the development parcel is zoned
Golf Course Support . This application requests rezoning
154 , 890 S . F . ( the parcel represented on the Development
Plat ) to Public .
28
VI . SECTION 7-304 , 7-306. CONDITIONAL USE
Section 7-304 . Standards Applicable To All Conditional Uses :
A. "The conditional use is consistent with the purposes ,
goals , objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and the intent of the Zone District
in which it is proposed to be located" .
RESPONSE : The Affordable Housing Production Plan
identifies this site as appropriate for affordable
housing . The State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan
identifies this site as part of the Scenic Foreground.
The purpose of the Scenic Foreground is to steer
development away from highly visible sites and to
minimize the impacts of the limited development which
may occur in the foreground so as to obtain an
aesthetically pleasing rural approach to Aspen. The
proposed site is in the Scenic Foreground , but it is
screened from Highway 82 by the existing Red Roof Inn
structure as well as a mature stand of cottonwood on
the east side of the site. At Conceptual review it was
demonstrated that the proposed 2 1/2 story building was
entirely screened by the existing structure. The
29
revised program calls for a 2 story building which
further reinforces the ability of the existing
structure to screen the proposed development .
B. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with
the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and surrounding land uses , or
enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and
activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development" .
RESPONSE: The existing Red Roof Inn was converted to
affordable housing in 1988 . The proposal of additional
affordable housing is therefore compatible with this
existing use . The parcel is surrounded by golf course ,
golf course support , pro shop and residential housing
across the highway . Historically , housing is an
acceptable as well as preferred land use adjacent to
golf courses .
C . " The location , size , design and operating
characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects , including visual impacts ,
impacts on vehicular circulation , parking , trash ,
service delivery , noise , vibrations and odor on
surrounding projects" .
30
RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier , the location, size
and design are screened from Highway 82 by the existing
Red Roof Inn. From the golf course side , a berm will
be built to minimize the effect of the building in
addition to planting of cottonwood, aspen and native
shrubs . Pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well
as parking are addressed in section IV of this
application. Trash service will be contracted by the
Applicant for both the existing Red Roof Inn and the
proposed development . Dumpsters will be located on
site.
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: Public facilities have been addressed in
Section IV of this application.
E . " The proposed conditional use complies with all
additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable
requirements of this chapter" .
31
RESPONSE: This application complies with all standards
imposed by code as well as all conditions imposed by
Commission and Council (see Section III . B, Section IV,
and Section IX of this application) .
32
VII . SECTION 7-404(B) , 7-406 SPECIAL REVIEW
Off-Street Parking Requirements :
Section 7-404 (B) . The Public Zone District has no specific
parking ratio requirements . For this reason , this
development proposal requests Special Review approval for
the parking ratios presented. These ratios are as follows ;
1 space per bedroom for the permanent residency ( the
proposed development ) and . 6 per bedroom for the existing
seasonal residency.
As an alternative to the parking ratios above , this
application proposes an auto-disincentive plan which calls
for reduced parking, a priority rental to non-drivers , and a
shuttle service.
Reduced Parking: This alternative proposes to reduce the
required on site parking from 114 cars to 86 cars with the
deletion of the parking lot to the west of building one. In
it ' s place will be basketball , volleyball and additional
landscaping.
Priority Rental To Non-Drivers : This plan takes a
management approach to limiting the number of cars in use
for this project . Residents requiring a parking space will
33
be issued a permit for display in the window of their
vehicle , and will be charged a monthly fee , yet to be
determined , in addition to their rent . Priority will be
given to those potential residents applying for leases who
do not own a car and subsequently would be using RFTA or
shuttle service .
Shuttle Service: The applicant will provide van shuttle
service in cooperation with RFTA for use specific to this
project . The actual schedule and routes will be determined
by the actual needs of residents of this project and set by
the Applicant . Since this service is offered by the
Applicant it can be flexible to the specific needs of the
residents. The van(s) will be owned by RFTA and leased to
the Applicant . This lease will include the vehicle , gas ,
maintenance and insurance while the Applicant will provide a
driver of their choice, trained by RFTA. It should be noted
that existing RFTA service will continue . This existing
service was deemed adequate for the needs of this project ,
however, the issue of pedestrians crossing Highway 82 to use
existing RFTA service in conjunction with a true auto-
disincentive plan presented herein, justifies the need for
alternative transit .
Section 7-406 : All information specific to Special Review
requirements are contained in this section or other sections
of this application.
34
VIII .SECTION 8-104(C) GMQS EXEMPTION
This application requests exemption from GMQS by City
Council pursuant to section 8-104 ( C ) subsection ( c )
Affordable Housing. The need for affordable housing has
been determined by the Housing Needs Assessment as well as
by the public vote to use this parcel for affordable
housing and supported by the City Council request for the
Applicant to pursue housing on this parcel . All other
information required for GMQS exemption is contained in
Section IV of this application.
35
IX. CONDITIONS OF FINAL SUBMISSION
Pursuant to City Council Resolution approving Conceptual
Submission , the following conditions have been placed on
Final Review:
1 . "Provide staff with a geotechnical study to determine
the impact of existing fill material on the proposed
development . "
See Banner Engineering letter ( Exhibit 5) for response
to geotechnical study.
2 . "Work with CDOH and Engineering Department to develop
a detailed traffic study to determine the traffic
impacts that this proposal will have on State Highway
82 and develop an adequate "interim" strategy until
State Highway 82 is improved, ( eg. traffic light ) . "
At Conceptual Review by City Council it was determined
by Council not to involve CDOH unless absolutely
necessary . Instead, it was the preferred course of
action to see if the Applicant could develop a
satisfactory solution preferably involving auto-
disincentive. In response to this the Applicant has
developed a parking management plan as well as a van
36
pool service to implemented as an alternative for this
project (see Section VII of this application) .
For a detailed traffic analysis see Exhibit 6 .
3 . "Provide a plan for plowing the trail along the golf
course in the winter to encourage winter bike riding as
a way of commuting into town. "
The Applicant requests Commission and Council to
reconsider this condition and waive it as a condition
of approval . This trail is used in the winter by
cross-country skiers and plowing the trail will
eliminate this use . Not presented at Conceptual .
Submission , but a part of this application is the
shuttle service to be provided by the Applicant . While
the Applicant encourages all means of non-auto access
to town , we feel the number of winter hearty
individuals which choose to mountain bike to town will
be minimal in comparison to shuttle riders .
4 . "Develop a detailed Transit Plan in cooperation with
MAA and RfTA. Suggested elements of this plan include
free transit , safe crossing at SH 82 or a RFTA
37
turnaround on site , provision for a covered bike
rack(s ) and provision of a fleet of bikes for use by
MAA students or other residents . "
RFTA has determined that existing service will be
adequate to meet the needs of this project . In
addition , the Applicant has worked with RFTA to
develop a van pool shuttle service available to
residents of this project . The details of this service
has been outlined in this application.
5 . "Comply with the ACSD standards for connecting to the
District system and providing for the ACSD to take over
ownership and maintenance of the sewer line at the
Aspen Greens . "
Banner engineering has provided a sewer service plan
for this project . For review of this plan see Exhibit
7 .
6 . "Provide a fire hydrant at the turnaround as requested
by the Fire Marshal . "
38
A fire hydrant has been provided at the center of the
two buildings ( see Site Development Plan, Sheet FS 2 )
as this was the most efficient location for servicing
the new building configuration.
7 . "The structures shall be sprinkled with a residential
sprinkler system and be equipped with an automatic fire
alarm system capable of notifying all occupants of a
pending problem, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshal . "
All buildings have been sprinkled and equipped with an
automatic alarm system.
8 . "The Land Use Code allows for 8 people in a dormitory
unit . "
This condition is no longer applicable in that the
project is no longer seasonal .
9 . "Provide basketball and volleyball in conjunction with
the tennis facilities . "
With the proposed alternative of less parking, the area
occupied by the west parking lot becomes basketball ,
volleyball and additional landscaping.
39
10 . "Change the name of the project to something that does
not use the word Aspen. "
This application has been filed under the name of Red
Roof Employee Housing Expansion. The Applicant is in
the process of renaming the project , however, no name
has been chosen to date .
11 . "The Applicant shall undertake a wage survey to provide
P&Z with information which will be used to determine
whether or not the proposed rents are affordable. "
The Applicant has conducted a survey prior to
Conceptual Submission and is included in the Conceptual
Submission. A part of that survey was to ask employees
what was an acceptable rent for different types of
units with different amenities . The majority of
respondents indicated that a rental range of $300 . 00 to
$400 . 00 per person in a two bedroom configuration was
acceptable. The proposed rents for this project fall
within this range . In addition , the Applicant has
provided a current survey of employee housing rental
rates for the Aspen area (see Exhibit 10) .
40
It should also be noted that rental rates fall within
the Affordable Housing Guidelines for Moderates income
which dictates a rental rate of no more than $ . 89 per
square foot . The rents for this project are $ . 89 per
square foot .
41
EXHIBIT 1
CITY- OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
May 8, 1989
Tom Stevens Grc ;p
450 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tom,
I will address the three conditions to be met by the applicant during
Conceptual review by the City of Aspen Leisure Services Agency. These
conditions were listed in the May 8, 1989 City Council packet.
1 . Staff has agreed verbally with Jim Adamski to lease 20 parking spots
for winter usage at the golf course in exchange for snow removal at the
parking lot. Except for special events, the lot is only utilized about 50%
of capacity in the winter.
2. The Golf Superintendent has reviewed the drainage design with Pat Doby
and is satisfied.
3. The berm along #9 is very compatible with the existing design. The
berm will actually improve the left side of the #9 fairway.
Leisure services will be working very close with the contractors to
ensure the best interest of the Aspen Golf Course is upheld.
Sincerely,
/J(, (4‘1".14-1--'IV/.-.r'!i
Bill Efting
Director of Leisure Services
BE/pd
EXHIBIT 2
J Colorado First
Construction Co.
RED ROOF INN PRE-CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
MAY 11, 1989
ACTIVITY START FINISH DURATION
DESCRIPTION DATE DATE
SCHEMATIC MODULAR PACKAGE ONGOING MAY 12
SCHEMATIC STICK FRAME PACKAGE ONGOING MAY 19
SCHEMATIC SITE PACKAGE ONGOING MAY 19
SCHEMATIC MODULAR PRICE MAY 12 MAY 19 1 WEEK
SCHEMATIC STICK FRAME PRICE MAY 12 MAY 19 1 WEEK
FULL SCHEMATIC PRICE MAY 12 MY 26 2 WEEKS
SUBMIT TD P&Z MAY 19 ---- 2 WEEKS
P&Z APPROVAL ----- JUNE 13 CE 20
W)RKING DRAWINGS ONGOING JUNE 26
TOt4 COUNCIL JUNE 26
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE JUNE 26 JULY 10 2 WEEKS
FULL PERMIT JUNE 26 JULY 17 3 WEEKS
NOTICE TO PROCEED JULY 11 JULY 11 1 DAY
MOBILIZE JULY 11 JULY 12 2 DAYS
SITENORK JULY 11 JULY 24 2 WEEKS
SUBMITTALS JULY 11 JULY 17 1 WEEK
SHOPS JULY 11 JULY 17 1 WEEK
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION JULY 18 DECEMBER 15 5 MONTHS
Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstBank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468-6760 • FAX(303)468-8488
MAY 16 '89 08: 12 BAUM DENVER.
P.S
. t
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF ASPEN,
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SERIES 1989
(RED ROOF PROJECT)
WORKING GROUP DISTRIBUTION LIST
ISSUER NO USING AUTHORITY
Aspen As en/Pitkin County Housing Authority
City of Aspen
City 130 South Galena
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611
James L. Adamski
Ronald Mitchell, Deputy City Manager Executive Director
(303) 920-5205 (303) 920-5052
Fred W. Gannet, City Attorney F (303) 920-5198
303) 920-5055 James L. Curtis, Chairman
FAX: (303) 920.5198 (303) 920-1395
Harry MANAGING UNDERWRITER (303) 923-3910 PE Housing Rep.
George K. Baum& Company
555 Seventeenth Street BOND COUNSEL
Suite 3440
Denver, Colorado 80202 Kutak, Rock & Campbell
707 Seventeenth Street
Connie C.Jungbluth Suite 2400
(303) 295-2700 Denver, Colorado 80202
FAX: 303-295-4260
Robert D. Irvin, Esquire
REGISTRAR/PAYING AGENT FAX?(303) 292-7799
To be determined
UNDERWRITER'S COUNSEL
Becker Stowe Partners, P.C.
1120 Lincoln Street
Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80203-2138
Georgeann Becker, Esquire
(303) 830-0101
• FAX (303) 860-9306
• Amount subject to change
GKB 5/15/89
Note: In order to save on multiple delivery and overnight mail
charges - separate packages to all panes in Aspen can be
combined in one mailing to the attention of the Housing
Authority for distribution.
MAY 16 '39 03: 11 EAUM DENVER P.4
July 17-31 Pre-closing signatures obtained in preparation for Irvin
closing.
July 19 Invoices for costs of issuance to be provided to Jungbluth Jungbluth
so that arrangements can be finalized for closing.
July 21 Registrar to receive bonds. Jungbluth
monitor
July 24 Distribution of Financial Closing Memorandum with wire Jungbluth/
instructions and other instructions for sources and Adamski
application of funds.
July 27 DTC to receive bonds from registrar Jungbluth
monitor
August 2, Closing, Funds available for project. All
9:00 a.m. (If we make it through this point, let's have a nice
at KTRC closing dinner in Denver!)
cc: Gary Crabtree, George K. Baum& Company
Russ Jansky, George K. Baum & Company
" Amount subject to change
•
f
GKB 5/15/89
MAY 16 '89 08: 11 EAuN :ENVER
P.3
June 2 Receive bids from bond and official statement printers and Jungbluth/
10:00 a.m. paying agents/registrars. Adamski
June 2 Preliminary Official Statement copy to printer. Becker
by noon
June 6 Receive Preliminary Official Statements from printer. Copies Jungbluth
to prospective investors from George K. Baum& Company's and
Kirchner Moore's lists and distribution group.
June 6 Preliminary blue sky survey to underwriter from underwriter's Becker
counsel.
June 12 City receives rating. Jungbluth
monitor
June 12 Aspen City Council first reading of Bond Ordinance. Mitchell/Irvin
June 13 Begin marketing of bonds. Russ Jansky of George K. Baum & Jungbluth/Jansky/
Company will direct the marketing of the bonds. Adamski/Mitchell
June 26 Aspen City Council second reading of Bond Ordinance. Mitchell/Irvin
June 29 Publication date for second reading of Bond Ordinance. Mitchell
June 30 Changes to printer for final Official Statement. Becker
July 6 Receive final Official Statements from printers. Distribute. Jungbluth
July 7 _ _ Bond form to printer including facsimile signatures and seal Irvin
impression.
July 10 Guaranteed maximum construction fee obtained from Adamski
cost estimator.
July 14 Bond proof received from printer (Irvin, Jungbluth, Gannet). Jungbluth
monitor
July 16 Final bond form comments to printer (Jungbluth and Gannet Irvin
comments to Irvin).
July 16 Bond details to printer and registrar. Jungbluth
July 17 Detailed construction costs obtained from cost estimator. Adamski
July 18 Bond proof changes to Irvin from printer via facsimile or Irvin
overnight mail for final review and approval.
NAY 16 '99 09: 10 BauM DENVER
1 P.
George K. Baum & Company
tNV(sTM(NT BANKHRS
MEMOIR OF BUSTS 3440
NEW•OAR STOCK EXCHANGE.INC MI SEVENTEENTH STREET
MIDWEST •
STOCK E%[MANO(
$4,600,000* DENVER. COLORADO 80802
CITY OF ASPEN , COLORADO TELEPHONE 19031 ISO•2700
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SERIES 1989
(RED ROOF PROJECT)
PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE
PRIMARY
DATE RESPONSIBLE
(1989) ACTIVITY PARTY
May 16 Prepare and distribute distribution list, preliminary Jungbluth
timetable and other organizational information via
facsimile and mail.
May 22 Distribution list to receive first drafts of financing Irvin/Becker
documents (bond ordinance, bond opinion,bond form) from
bond counsel and disclosure document (preliminary
official statement) from underwriter's counsel.
May 23 Review of estimated costs of construction, sizing of bond Jungbluth/
issue, construction drawdown schedule and project revenue Adamski
and expense projections.
May 25 Document drafting session and general meeting to review All
10:30 a.m. . documents and all components of the Project pertinent to
@ GKB the financing.
May 31 Second drafts of prior documents to distribution list. Irvin/Becker/
First draft of closing memorandum and remaining documents Gannet
for` closing from bond counsel, first draft of bond
purchase agreement from underwriter's counsel and first
draft of City/Housing Authority documents (lease, etc)
from Issuer's Counsel.
• May 31 Send bid requests via facsimile to printers for Jungbluth/
preliminary and final official statements, printers for Adamski
bonds and paying agents/registrars.
June 1 Moody's Investor's Service is to receive rating packet. Jungbluth/
:Mitchell/Adamski
June 1 Order CUSIP numbers. Jungbluth
RED ROOF INN ADDITION E X H WIT 4
CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,266,240
LAND COSTS $250,000
TOTAL COSTS $2,516,240
RENTAL SQUARE FEET 33039
MANAGEMENT/UTILITY COSTS PER S.F. $2.50
RENTAL RATE PCR SQUARE FOOT $0.89
INTEREST RATE 7.750%
RESERVE FUNDS EARN RATE 7.000%
INFLATION RATE 104.000%
OCCUPANCY RATE 0.97
FINANCE TERM 20
HOUSING AUTHORITY RESERVE FUND $300,000
PROJECTION OF BOND/FUND REQUIREMENTS
Total Project Costs $2,516,240
Net Financed 2,516,240
Bonding Costs 139,791
Capitalized Interest 139,791
Bond Total $2,795,822
Bond Payment $279,484
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
CASH ON HAND
Construction Fund $2,266,240 $200,000 $0 $0 $0
Housing Authority Reserve Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Operation Fund $139,742 $77,527 $23,095 $25,962 $22,589
Total Cash On Hand $2,705,982 $577,527 $323,095 $325,962 $322,589
Ratio of Year End Cash to Bond Pmt. 19.36 2.07 1.16 1.17 1.15
EXPENSES
Bond Payment $139,742 $279,484 $279,484 $279,484 $279,484
Management Utility Costs 6,883 85,901 89,337 92,911 96,627
Tap Fee Payment 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
Total Expenses $149,625 $368,385 $371,821 $375,395 $379,111
REVENUE SUMMARY
Project Rental Revenue $28,523 $342,271 $359,384 $359,384 $359,384
Laundry 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Interest
Construction Fund 32,996 7,000 0 0 0
Bond Payment 4891 9782 9782 9782 9782
Operations Fund 0 5,427 1,617 1,817 1,581
Housing Authority Reserve Fund 21000 21000 21000 21000 21000
Total Interest 58,887 43,209 32,399 32,599 32,363
Operation Fund 139742
Revenue Total $227,152 $391,480 $397,783 $397,984 $397,748
OPERATING MARGIN
Total Margin $77,527 $23,095 $25,962 $22,589 $18,637
Percentage of Bond Payment 55.48% 8.26% 9.29% 8.08% 6.67%
Average 17.56%
RENTAL RATES - --
CATAGORY AVG. S.F S.F RATE '89-90 RATE '91-'93 RATE
Studio 308 0.89 $274 $288
Studio Loft 413 0.89 4368 $386
Two Bedroom 697 0.89 $620 $651
Two Bedroom Loft 836 0.89 $789 $828
RED ROOF INN EXISTING UNITS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS $400,000
LAND COSTS & BUILDING COSTS $750,000.00
TOTAL COSTS $1,150,000
TOTAL SCJARE FEET 20000
MANAGEMENT/UTILITY COSTS PER S.F. $3.50
NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS 100
INTEREST RATE 7.750%
RESERVE FUNDS EARN RATE 7.000%
INFLATION RATE 104.000%
OCCUPANT MONTHS - MAA 3
OCCUPANT MONTH - SEASONAL 6
OCCUPANT MONTHS TOTAL PROJECT 900
RENTAL RATE PER OCCUPANT $200
FINANCE TERM 20
EQUITY - MAA $0
EQUITY - CASH-IN-LIEU FUND $50,007
PROJECTION OF BOND/FUND REQUIREMENTS
Total Project Costs $1,150,000
Equity 0
Net Financed 1,150,000
Bonding Costs 63,889
Capitalized Interest 63,889
Bond Total $1,277,778
Bond Payment $127,733
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
CASH ON HAND
Renewal Fund $400,000 $200,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000
Housing Authority Reserve Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Operation Fund $63,866 $88,045 $7,468 $2,890 $5,565
Total Cash On Hand $513,866 $338,045 $157,468 $102,890 $105,565
Ratio of Year End Cash to Bond Pmt. 8.05 2.65 1.23 0.81 0.83
EXPENSES
Bond Payment $63,866 $127,733 $127,733 $127,733 $127,733
Management Utility Costs 70,000 72,800 75,712 78,740 81,890
Payment-in-lieu Reimbursement 0 0
Total Expenses $133,866 $200,533 $203,445 $206,473 $209,623
REVENUE SUMMARY
Project Rental Revenue $120,060 $166,067 $172,710 $179,618 $186,803
Space Lease 20,000 20,800 21,632 22,497 23,397
Interest
Renewal 14,000 7,000 3,500 1,750
1,750
Bond Payment 0 4471 4471 4471 4471
Operations Fund 2,235 6,163 523 202 390
Housing Authority Reserve Fund 1750 3500 3500 3500 3500
Total Interest 17,985 21,134 11,993 9,923 10,110
Operation Fund 63866
Revenue Total $221,912 $208,001 $206,335 $212,038 $220,310
OPERATING MARGIN
Total Margin $88,045 $7,468 $2,890 $F,565 $10,687
Percentage of Bond Payment 137.86% 5.85% 2.26% 4.36%
Average 8.37'X
31.74%
EXHIBIT 5
BANNER
May 16, 1989
Mr . Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group, Inc .
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen , CO. 81611
RE: Aspen Greens Soils Investigation
Dear Tom:
This report presents the results of a geotechnical soils
investigation for the Aspen Greens Housing Project. This
investigation was conducted on May 12, 1989. The site is located
between the Aspen Public Golf Course and Highway 82.
Most of the site is covered by fill from nearby construction
projects. The fill will be removed and used to construct a berm
on the site. The area is underlain by poorly sorted glacial
outwash gravels. The depth of the deposits is likely in excess
of 100 feet.
The Soil Conservation Service classifies the soil underlying the
site as an Aridic Argiboroll. It is a moderately deep, dark
colored, well drained stony or cobbly loam with 35 to 75 percent
course fragments. The gradation and engineering classifications
for the major horizons are given below.
GRAIN SIZE
Major Soil Percentage less than 3
Horizon Course Fraction inches passing Sieve IF
( inches) % > 3 inches 4 10 40 200
0-26 25 50-60 40-50 30-40 15-25
26-48 35 55-65 45-55 35-45 20-30
48-60 70 --- --- --- ---
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS &ARCHITECTS
SURE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 «(303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506. (303) 243-2242
Mr. Tom Stevens
BANNER
Aspen Greens Soils Investigation
May 16, 1989
Page Two
ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION
Major Soil USDA AASHO Unified
Horizon Texture
(inches )
0-26 Stony Loam A-4 GM
26-48 Stony Clay Loam A-2 GC
48-60 Stony Loam A-1 GW
The percolation rate of the soil varies from 0.6 to 6.0 inches
per hour. The water table is deep.
Cobbles and boulders in the soil could be a minor hindrance in
excavating and road construction.
Shrink/swell and potential frost action are low. Corrosivity for
concrete and unprotected steel is low.
Based upon our review of the soil conditions on site, it appears
that a soil bearing capacity of 3500 to 4000 lbs. per square foot
seems appropriate and no special engineering considerations are
warranted for the foundation design. In summary, there should be
little problem with the soils on site.
Sincerely,
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Aspen Project Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BAI #8168 ; F: J4, 8168-9
PD/clk
EXHIBIT 6
BANNER
ASPEN GREENS EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the transportation
system and parking capacities at the existing Red Roof Inn
employee housing complex and the proposed addition to it, the
Aspen Greens, and including the planned expansion to the parking
facilities at the Golf Course support area. This report has been
prepared in conjunction with the Detailed Submission for the
Aspen Greens housing project.
In preparing this analysis , we evaluated :
1 ) Existing parking at the Red Roof Inn
2) Parking requirements for both the new and existing
housing units
3) Parking capacity of the planned improvements to the golf
course support area
4) The capacity of the entrance at State Highway 82
5) The RFTA mass transit facilities.
6) Auto disincentives and auto control policies
7) Transportation improvements
ASPEN GREENS EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
INTRODUCTION (Continued)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1) An annual average of 114 on-site parking spaces are needed to
satisfy the land use requirements of the Code. The Housing
Authority should pursue a joint agreement with the City of Aspen
to lease the off-season golf course spaces for winter residential
parking and decrease the number of on-site spaces to 87.
2) Increased traffic does appear to warrant the installation of
a traffic right turn lane at State Highway 82.
3) RFTA provides frequent service with surplus capacity to serve
the expanded project. Continued operation of the Airport Shuttle
through the summer months would be a benefit to the project and.
encourage the use of mass transit as an alternative to
automobiles.
4) An on-site program should be developed to regulate and
control the use of parking spaces. A sticker and/or fee system
should be initiated .
5) A program should be developed to provide bicycles for the use
of the residents. The program could even be expanded to a
community wide basis .
BANNER
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
GOLF COURSE/EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMPLEX PROGRAM
Table 1 below illustrates the existing and proposed development
plans for the golf course parking, the existing Red Roof employee
housing and the proposed Aspen Green housing.
TABLE 1
Golf Course Parking Area
Existing Proposed Total
Conditions Addition Program
Gross Square Footage 4000 0 4000
Parking Stalls 130 26 156
Red Roof Housing
Existing Proposed Total
Conditions Addition Program
Number of Rooms 50 0 50
Gross Square Footage 0 26, 500 26, 500
Employees 4 -1 3
Parking Stalls 52 -22 30
Aspen Code Requirements 30
Aspen Green Housing
Existing Proposed Total
Conditions Addition Program
Number of Beds 0 84 84
Gross Square Footage 0 28, 500 26, 500
Employees 0 3 3
Parking Stalls 0 84 84
Aspen Code Requirements 84
Total Required Residential Parking Stalls -- 114
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
GOLF COURSE/EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMPLEX PROGRAM ( Continued )
Upon consideration of historic local needs together with the
specific requirements of this project, it appears that the
following parking facilities are required.
TABLE 2
AVAILABLE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
LAND USE SPACES SUMMER DEMAND WINTER DEMAND
Red Roof 30 35 75
Aspen Green 84 65 65
TOTAL 114 100 140
Table 2 indicates that 114 spaces are available for the
residential needs of the project, and that 100 spaces are
required during the summer season and 140 spaces are required
during the winter months.
To supplement the projected winter shortfall, an agreement was
negotiated with the Golf Course management whereby 20 of their
spaces could be used for the project during the winter months in
exchange for seasonal maintenance responsibilities.
During the Public Hearings, several suggestions were made to
explore the auto disincentives and auto control measures to help
reduce the site-generated traffic impacts on State Highway 82.
One strong auto disincentive previously suggested in the Halprin
Study for State Highway 82 was to reduce the number of available
parking spaces and locate spaces in inconvenient locations. An
implementation strategy for this approach could involve the
deferred use of the 27 stall parking area west of Building #1.
More of these measures are discussed later in this report and may
prove helpful in this regard.
The current plan is to remove the existing fence and restripe one
of the tennis courts to gain these additional spaces. If the
above reduction in on-site spaces proves to be an effective auto
disincentive, then the court could remain as a recreational
amenity. Should demand dictate more parking facilities in the
future, then removing the fence, etc., as in the original plan,
would be a relatively minor and inexpensive undertaking.
BANNER
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
BUS SERVICE
Transportation service to the Red Roof/Aspen Green employee
housing is provided by the Roaring Fork Transit Agency. The
following information was provided by Paul Hilts, RFTA Operations
Manager.
The existing system operates on the schedule shown in Table 2.
TABLE 3
RED ROOF/ASPEN GREEN EXISTING BUS SERVICE
ASPEN/SNOWMASS VILLAGE/EL JEBEL ROUTE:
SEASON TIMES INTERVAL
Winter 7: 00 A.M. - 12: 00 A.M. Every hour
Every 30 minutes during peak
hours ( 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.)
Summer 7: 00 A.M. - 12: 00 A.M. Every hour
Every 30 minutes during peak
hours ( 7-9 a .m. and 4-6 p.m. )
Off-Season 7: 00 A.M. - 10: 00 P.M. Every hour
AIRPORT SHUTTLE:
SEASON TIMES INTERVAL
Winter 6: 30 A.M. - 10: 00 P.M. Every 30 minutes
Summer ( 1 ) 6: 30 A.M. - 10: 00 P.M. Every 20 minutes
Off-Season None
( 1 ) Proposed schedule for Summer , 1989
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
BUS SERVICE (Continued)
The Red Roof/Aspen Green housing complex is serviced by two RFTA
routes, the Aspen/Snowmass Village/E1 Jebel bus, and the Airport
shuttle. Bus stops for both up and down valley routes are
presently located immediately adjacent to the existing Red Roof
Inn on Highway 82.
Sufficient seating capacity presently exists on the Aspen/
Snowmass Village/E1 Jebel buses that leave Rubey Park and El Jebel
at hour intervals during the midday hours. However, buses on this
route that leave at half hour intervals during peak loading
periods during the morning (7:00 - 9:00 A.M.) and afternoon (4:00
- 6:00 P.M.) commuter hours are presently running over capacity.
RFTA has indicated a desire to expand their current capacities to
alleviate this commuter hours crowding, but at present have no
means to do so. The purchase of more buses would be the only
means to extend this service, but no such purchases have been
approved at this time.
The Airport shuttle buses are also available for Red
Roof/Aspen Green commuters. These buses leave Rubey Park and
the Airport every half hour between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and
9:30 P.M. RFTA indicated that sufficient capacity generally
exists on this route at all times.
BANNER
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
AUTO DISINCENTIVES
Many local studies have discussed auto disincentives and
automobile restraint policies for the Aspen community. The most
comprehensive report on this subject is found in the Halprin
Study for State Highway 82. Halprin identified both on-site
measures and off-site public policies which may effectively
reduce traffic congestion on the local road and highway system.
Off-site measures include :
1) Increased level of service for mass transit. Better bus
service is the most effective of the alternatives, as it
gives the residents the most convenient alternative to the
automobile. As previously mentioned, the RFTA bus service
at the Red Roof is more than adequate and should address
this need. However, a further improvement would involve
bringing a bus on-site to pick up the Aspen Greens/Red Roof
residents. This approach would address the needs of both
MAA students and permanent residents.
2) Elimination of parking facilities in Aspen. With no
destination facilities, or inconvenient facilities
(expensive or remote), automobile use would be discouraged.
3) Employer provided transportation. Many of the large Aspen
businesses provide transportation for their employees. An
expanded program would decrease the auto dependence and
traffic generation of the work force.
On-site measures which could be developed and enforced by the
property manager include:
1) Reduced availability or remodeled parking facilities would
discourage the ownership and reduce the convenience of
automobiles, and thus tend to curb demand. As previously
suggested, the elimination or deferred development of the
parking lot on the east tennis court may provide an
effective deterrent. Similarly, overflow parking at the
Golf Course lot is sufficiently removed from the project to
restrict the convenience of daily auto use.
2) Management could issue parking stickers on a restricted
basis and could charge a fee for parking rights. Fiscal
controls have been found to be highly effective measures.
ASPEN GREENS EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
AUTO DISINCENTIVES (Continued)
3) The availability of on-site recreational facilities will
diminish the need to travel for these purposes. The project
is offering many such facilities including golf, tennis,
basketball and a children's play center.
4) On-site conveniences such as food and beverage services and
laundry facilities also tend to lessen the demand for
travel, thereby helping to reduce the traffic generation
potential of the project.
5) The availability of bike trails and cross country ski trails
presents an alternative to vehicle use. It has also been
suggested that the on-site management provide bicycles for
the use of the Aspen Greens/Red Roof residents. A program
was developed in Amsterdam in the late 1960's wherein an
organization collected and refurbished old bicycles, painted
them white for identification, and then distributed them
around the City for unrestricted public use. A similar
approach might be considered in this application. The Aspen
Police Department regularly recovers 20 abandoned bicycles
per year. There are currently 40 bicycles in various states
of repair situated in the impound lot awaiting disposal.
This source of vehicles could easily provide the inventory
to start an experiment of this sort and the program may
coincide with the seasonal needs of the student and
transient population of the housing project.
In summary, there are a number of policies and programs which
will discourage the need for automobiles and provide reasonable
alternatives. The challenge here is to design the best mix of
these alternatives to provide the most effective solution to this
community problem.
BANNER
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
VEHICLE TRAFFIC
State Highway 82 is the sole access to the Red Roof/Aspen Green
employee housing and the other activities at the Aspen Municipal
Golf Course. It is a year-round state maintained road serving a
variety of uses. The Colorado Department of Highways collected
hourly traffic counts during different seasons from 1981 through
1988 at the Castle Creek Bridge. A summary of those counts is
listed below:
TABLE 4
DAILY TRAFFIC PROFILE
Castle Creek Bridge (Winter) 16, 600 VPD 1494 VPH @ Peak
Maroon Creek Bridge (Summer ) 12,800 VPD 1024 VPH @ Peak
Total Daily Traffic (AADT) 10, 500 VPD 850 VPH @ Peak
Source: "Centennial Engineering" (B.F.S.) ; Leigh, Scott & Cleary
(T. D. P. )
From this collection of traffic counts, certain periods of the
day were found to be representative of daily flow
characteristics .
Exhibit 1 shows a winter morning peak from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00
A.M. and an evening peak from 3: 00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., which are
coincidental with the daily schedules of the school system and
the influence of the ski areas. The Aspen Green complex
employees will contribute to the morning peak due to the routine
8:00 A.M. work day. Their afternoon departure will occur on-
peak, but should not amplify the afternoon congestion since no
left turn movements are required.
Traffic generation at the golf course housing complex should have
two distinct characteristics, based on winter and summer
residencies. Winter residents will tend to be more auto oriented
and will have travel needs similar to most permanent residents,
thus they will add to the congestion. Summer residents, on the
other hand, will be less auto oriented, since many will be
students with routine schedules and schedules more compatible
with mass transit service.
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
VEHICLE TRAFFIC (Continued)
In this section, we analyzed the summer and winter residents and
their peak traffic characteristics.
TABLE 5
WINTER TRIP GENERATION
( 1 ) Peak
End Trips/Day Total Trips Hour Volume
Red Roof ( 50 Rooms ) 2 100 15
Aspen Green ( 84 Rooms) 2 168 25
Golf Course N.A. 28 6
TOTAL 296 VPD 46 VPH
( 1 ) Source : Regional Transportation Plan ; City of Aspen - Vouhrees
This assumes a 70/30 model split with RFTA (peak hour traffic
equals 15% ADT) and further assumes 90 percent left turn exit
movement.
This indicates that a maximum of 46 vehicles per peak hour will
interface with traffic on State Highway 82, which currently
averages 1030 vehicles per hour.
Based on our review of the CDOH Design Manual and the CDOH
Traffic Signal Warrant Study, it appears that the duration of
conflict is not sufficient to require either a traffic signal or
a center turn lane. However, a right deceleration lane is
warranted.
Summer traffic is generated from a number of uses at this site.
The existing Red Roof will be primarily occupied by MAA students
who tend to be less auto dependent than winter seasonal workers.
The Aspen Greens residents will be permanent residents with
similar travel needs in summer and winter. The Golf Course will
generate traffic between the 8:00 to 5:00 hours. Recreational
usage (softball , soccer ) will generate traffic in the evening.
Based on an assumption that the Golf Course will develop a
constant flow of 35 VPH and recreational usage will produce an
average of 40 VPH, Table 6 estimates the ADT and peak hour
loading that can be expected during the peak summer season.
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REPORT
VEHICLE TRAFFIC (Continued)
TABLE 6
ANTICIPATED ADT AND PEAK HOUR LOADING
End Trip/Day Total Trips Peak Hour Volume
Red Roof 1 . 5 75 11
Aspen Green 2 168 18
Golf Course N.A. 475 40
TOTAL 718 69
This indicates that approximately 69 vehicles per peak hour will.
interface with peak summer traffic volumes of 800 vehicles per
hour. It is probable that downvalley oriented traffic will be
heavier during the summer recreational league season. A 75 to
80 percent Aspen orientation seems appropriate.
BANNER
ASPEN GREENS EMPLOYEE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC REPORT
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Based on our analysis of the needs of the project, the following
minimum level of improvements are recommended.
1) The installation of pedestrian crossing signs and a partial
crosswalk at State Highway 82.
2) The installation and paving of a deceleration lane at the
entrance to the Golf Course.
3) Working with the Highway Department to explore the
installation of a pedestrian crossing signal. In addition,
the posted speed limit could be reduced through this
section.
4) The deferment of the construction of the west parking lot as
an auto disincentive.
5) The exploration of a on-site bicycle program to provide an
alternative to vehicle use.
1600 WINTER
u
1200 _..
PER LANE
C CAPACITY - 1100
m •
w
V 800
•
400
1
12 3 6 9 1 2 3 6 9 1 2
A.M. P.M.
1600 SUMMER
w
- 1 200 —
PER LANE
CAPACITY - 1100
w
J
U
600
w --_
>
400
12 3 6 9 12 3 6 p 12
A.M. P.M.
EXISTING TIME DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC
AT CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE
. .�� isA -0i.11r� r1 }L'r rr4s Ila L tS* 't ""+1 P- 39 Y'
EXHIBIT 1 t t� r�a��,�s k � .. �rr�4i?�., , ,� P �t s .�1_��
yy . T � r r 2
y1r f 1 kF{ 5 t S i a dP.
i r� � w t �- P'
a,1 b A L l i1i .•BANNER'ASSOCIATES INc '• CONSULTING-:ENGINEERS &S ARCHITECT
EXHIBIT 7
BANNER
May 16, 1989
Mr . Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group, Inc .
230 E. Hopkins St .
Aspen , CO. 81611
RE: Aspen Greens Sewer Capacity
Dear Tom:
This letter is intended to summarize our findings with regard to
the capacity of sewer facilities for the planned Red Roof Inn
employee housing expansion project .
Eightyfour additional bedrooms are planned for the expansion
project. This would contribute approximately 6,300 gallons per
day peak volume to the present system. Our analysis indicates
that the present sewer service line will be marginally adequate
to serve this increased need. While age is a factor, the primary
problem with the existing sewer line is its flat slope.
We therefore plan to abandon a portion of the old 6" VCP sewer
line and construct a new one to serve both the existing Red Roof
Inn and the planned expansion.
This new sewer line will be located north of the tennis courts
and adjacent to the ninth fairway of the golf course. It will
tie into the existing sewer trunk line in the vicinity of the
driving range.
We are currently in the process of working with the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District to design this new system. A
letter from ACSD was included in the Appendix of the General
Submission which confirms the District's capacity to service this
addition .
Sincerely,
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BAI #8168; F: J4, 8168-5
PD/clk
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS &ARCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506• (303) 243-2242
EXHIBIT 8
BANNER
May 16, 1989
Mr. Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group , Inc .
230 E. Hopkins St.
Aspen , CO. 81611
RE: Aspen Greens Water Supply
Dear Tom:
This letter is intended to summarize our preliminary analysis of
the source and demand for water at the Aspen Greens housing
project.
This expansion project is planned to add an additional 84
bedrooms to the existing building and will require a reliable
supply of water for both fire protection and domestic use. The
City of Aspen Municipal Water Department will provide the
necessary water service. We have discussed this project with
them and it is their assertion that a sufficient volume of water
presently exists in the City system to service this project.
Please see attached a letter from Jim Markalunas of the City
Water Department.
Therefore, our analysis indicates that an adequate water supply
to service these additional units is currently available. A
minor looped line extension appears to be all that will be
necessary to service the new units, as ample capacity already
exists in the proximate vicinity. A detailed fire flow analysis
will be proposed (once the building program has been completed)
and reviewed with the Fire Marshall .
Sincerely,
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BAI #8168 ; F : J4, 8168-4
PD/clk
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS& ARCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 •(303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506• (303) 243-2242
EXHI R I T 9
BANNER
ASPEN GREEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
A conceptual site drainage plan together with volumetric
calculation was prepared by Banner Associates, Inc. The plan is
included on the Map of Drainage Basins.
The drainage plan was engineered to accomplish the following:
1 . Retain on-site the additional volume of water
generated by the improvements and attributable to a
five year frequency event.
2. Detain the flood water runoff estimated for a 100
year frequency event to the extent that they not
exceed the present pre-development runoff.
On-site retention will allow the runoff from the building roofs,
parking lots and roads to be collected and released through
evaporation and transpiration. This self-containment will help
protect the hydrologic stability of the surrounding area.
The proposed storm water detention system will help curb runoff
peaks during a 100 year event and allow a more gradual release of
storm waters into the surrounding area. This will be of benefit
to downstream areas during periods of flooding and will mitigate
the drainage impacts associated with the full development of the
Aspen Green employee housing project.
GENERAL
In this report we analyzed the storm drainage characteristics of
the existing Red Roof Inn site along with the future Aspen Green
improvements, defined the 100 year frequency developed and
undeveloped storm water runoff and determined the amount of storm
water detention required to satisfy the City of Aspen Code
requirements.
The primary references utilized in the preparation of this report
are Time Intensity Frequency Curves, Colorado Climate Center,
Department of Atmospheric Science, CSU; Utility and Site Drainage
Map, prepared by Banner Associates, Inc.; and site plan and
topographic maps provided by the Stevens Group, Inc.
The project elements which were included in this analysis include
the parking lots, roads, the tennis courts, existing roof
surfaces, the new building roof surfaces and the existing
drainage ditch located on the east edge of the project.
The total area studied consists of 1.80 acres of land.
To do the analysis, we divided this area into drainage areas
H-1 , H-2 and H-3 for the historical analysis, and into areas
D-1 , D-2, D-3 and D-4 for the developed analysis.
Drainage area H-1 encompasses the area which has been
historically covered by brush and short grass. It is bounded by
the two existing parking lots, the tennis courts, the property
line to the north and the drainage ditch on the east. Drainage
is primarily to the northeast.
Drainage area H-2 is the impervious tennis court surface. All
water at this area runs away from this surface.
Drainage area H-3 includes all parking areas and roads which have
a gravel surface. This area is bounded by the present Red Roof
building and the drainage area H-1. This area currently drains
to area H-1 and eventually to the ditch.
Drainage area D-1 is all the other developed areas which have a
concrete surface, mostly sidewalk surfaces. These areas drain
primarily to the open landscaped areas immediately adjacent to
them.
Drainage area D-2 encompasses all asphalt surface parking lots
and roads. These areas also tend to drain to the landscaped
areas adjacent to them, in a prevalent northeast direction .
Drainage area D-3 is the roof area of the new Aspen Green housing
buildings. The water which hits this area falls to the
landscaped area below the roof line, then drains to the
northeast, eventually joining the drain system to the detention
pond.
Drainage area D-4 is the landscaped or natural brush area
primarily to the north and east of the new building sites. This
area will receive most of the other areas' drainage water in
addition to its own , and will drain to the northeast and to the
existing ditch.
The drainage calculations in the report are based upon the
Rational Method, i.e.: Q = ACI where:
Q = Flow in cubic feet per second
A = Area in acres
C = Ratio of impervious to open area
I = Intensity in inches per hour
The basis of design is to retain a 5 year frequency event on site
and detain a 100 year storm with the quantity of detention being
the difference between the 100 year developed and undeveloped
storms peak rate of runoff, for a 10 minute time of
concentration. The system was designed so that the volume being
detained on site will be time released at a rate not to exceed
the historic rate of flow.
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
Historic Runoff: The historic runoff was calculated based
upon the conditions which existed on the property before the new
improvements are added.
The design volumes were determined and show a rainfall
intensity of 2.0" per hour for a five year event and 4.5" per
hour for a 100 year event.
RED ROOF INN EMPLOYEE HOUSING DRAINAGE PLAN
HISTORIC RUNOFF VOLUMES
DRAINAGE AREA SURFACE RUNOFF - 0-5 0-100
DASIN ACRES CONDITION COEF. FLOW FLOW
H-1 0.99 LAND/GRASS 0.30 0.59 1.34
H-2 0. 16 IMPERVIOUS 1.00 0.32 0.72
H-3 0.65 GRAVEL 0.60 0.78 1.76
1.69 3.81
Developed Runoff: The developed runoff was calculated in a
manner similar to the historical runoff for each of the basins.
The most significant difference between the historical and
developed conditions are the new "C" factors. The C factors
which were used are:
Concrete area 0. 85
Asphalt pavement 0. 90
Roofs 0. 90
Gravel surfaces 0. 60
Landscaped and grass areas 0. 30
Impervious surfaces 1 . 00
The developed rates of runoff are calculated to be :
DEVELOPED RUNOFF VOLUMES
DRAINAGE AREA SURFACE RUNOFF 0-5 0-100
BASIN ACRES CONDITION COEF. FLOW FLOW
D-1 0.11 CONCRETE 0.85 0.19 0.42
0-2 0.68 ASPHALT 0.9 1.22 2.75
D 0.21 ROOF 0.9 0.338 0.85
D-4 0.8 LAND/GRASS 0.3 0.43 1 .03
2.269 5. 10525
Required Detention : The detention required is therefore the
difference between the 100 year developed rate of flow, minus the
100 historical flow, times a 10 minute period or :
(0-100 DEVELOPED) 5.11 CFS
MINUS
(0-100 HISTORIC) 3.8115 .CFS
REQUIRED DETENTION = 1.29375 CFS
FREEBOARD VOLUME = 776.25 CUBIC FEET
Due to the topography of the site, it is proposed that the ,
detention structure be placed on the northeasterly portion of the
property as shown on the site and drainage plan .
Required Retention : The retention required is the difference
between the five year developed rate of flow, minus the five year
historical flow for a rainfall intensity period of one hour :
(0-5 DEVELOPED) 2.269 CFS
MINUS
(0-5 HISTORIC) 1 .694 CFS
REQUIRED RETENTION = 0.575 CFS
FREEBOARD VOLUME = 2070 CUBIC FEET
It is proposed that the retention volume be placed in the same
pond as the detention , located to the northeast bf the new Aspen
Green improvements. The pond has been sized to accommodate the
following :
1 . Storm flow retention 2070 cu . ft . 0. 05 ac . ft .
2. Retention of periodic rainfall 776 cu . ft. 0. 02 ac . ft .
Total 2346 cu . ft . 0. 07 ac . ft .
2
The surface area of one pond is approximately 960 ft. with a
depth of 2'2" for retention and an additional depth of 10" for
detention with a 12" pipe at the 2 1/2 foot level releasing the
historic volume to the ditch. This retention pond will include a
grease trap to prevent oils and other objectionable materials
from entering the golf course water system.
An alternative design would divide this capacity between two
ponds, one located at the northeast corner of the property and
the other at the northwest.
The northwest retention pond would have a surface area of
2
approximately 470 ft. with a 2 1/2 feet to 3 feet depth.
Overflow would be piped under the berm and would follow the low
contour until it would eventually flow to the existing ditch at
the east of the property.
The detention/retention pond at the northeast corner of the
2
property would have a 560 ft. surface area with a depth of 2'2"
for retention and an additional 10" - 16" for detention. It
would also have a 12" pipe at this level for the release of water
into the existing ditch.
EXHIBI T 10
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING COMPARISON
PROJECT RENT SQUARE S.F.
FEET COST
CASTLE RIDGE
Studio $336 368 . 91
1 Bedroom 522 569 . 92
2 Bedroom 628 936 . 67
3 Bedroom 703 1130 . 62
HUNTER LONGHOUSE
1 Bedroom $535 592 . 90
2 Bedroom $685 782 . 88
2 Bedroom Addition $750 900 . 83
CENTENNIAL
Studio
Low $405-445 455 .89-. 91
Moderate 500-575 470 1. 06-1. 22
1 Bedroom
Low $533-550 598 . 89-. 92
Moderate 655-710 598 1. 10-1. 19
1 Bedroom Loft
Moderate $742-800 733 1. 01-1. 09
Moderate End $825-880 841 . 98-1. 05
2 Bedroom
Low $800-875 881 .91-. 99
Moderate $875-950 881 .99-1. 08
3 Bedroom
Low $970-985 1097 . 88-. 90
Moderate $1040-1110 1097 .95-1. 01
RED ROOF INN ADDITION (as of May 16, 1989)
Studio $275 308 . 89
Studio $369 413 . 89
2 Bedroom $619 694 . 89
2 Bedroom $625 700 . 89
2 Bedroom $780 874 . 89
2 Bedroom $801 897 .89
EXHIBIT 11
BANNER
May 16, 1989
Mr. Tom Stevens
The Stevens Group, Inc .
230 E. Hopkins Street
Aspen , CO. 81611
RE: Aspen Greens Project Utility Availability
Dear Tom:
This letter is intended to provide you with our findings
regarding the availability of electric, natural gas and all other
ancillary utility services to the Aspen Greens housing expansion
project.
Our present findings indicate that all utilities are immediately,
available to the project and their capacities are adequate to
accomodate the increased needs of the Red Roof expansion. All
that will be necessary in each case will be minor line extensions
to access the new units. Please refer to the Appendix of the
General Submission for letters from the appropriate utility
providers .
There currently exists an electric utility and transformer
easement bisecting Building No. 1. This easement and the
underground power cables will be relocated to the west side of
the building and terminate at the transformer site.
Sincerely,
Patrick Dobie , P.E.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BAI #8168 ; F: J4, 8168-6
PD/clk
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS& ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS &ARCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .(303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506• (303) 243-2242