HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.700 S Galena St.46A-87 June 22 , 1987
Mr. Jim Pavisha
Aspen Hospitality Services
P. O. Box CC
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Aspen Mountain PUD Residential GMP - 1984 Allocation
Dear Jim,
This letter is written to inform you that pursuant to Section 24-
11.7 (a) of the Municipal Code, your Aspen Mountain Residential
GMP - 1984 allocation will expire on September 1, 1987 . Section
24-11.7 (a) (1) requires that the Planning Office notify you of the
expiration date and the requirements which you must meet in order
to avoid loss of your allocation.
The Code requires that you complete all associated land use
reviews and submit plans to the Building Department sufficient
for the issuance of a building permit for the project by
September 1. If you are unable to meet this deadline, but wish
to retain your allocation, please submit a letter to me prior to
September 1, within which you request that City Council grant an
extension of the deadlines of up to 180 days. To justify the
extension, please demonstrate your diligence in pursuing this
project and why the extension is in the best interests of the
community.
Please also note that according to the report submitted to me by
Georgia Taylor, you need to obtain building permits to recon-
struct five residences which you previously demolished, or your
credit will expire. Please contact me so we can determine how to
extend this credit, if you so desire.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this
regard.
Sincerely,
Scotch' 7664"Post-it"Routing-Request Pad
ROUTING - REQUEST Alan Richman
Please ,✓� Planning and Development Director
❑ READ )� To
❑ HANDLE tl/
APPROVE �(
and
❑ FORWARD
❑ RETURN
�Y!
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning office
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Amendments to the Residential
Projects
DATE: January 25, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
approval of the PUD Amendments proposed for the 700 S. Galena and
Summit Place projects. In addition, the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Planning Office rescoring for amend-
ments to the 700 S. Galena Growth Management project.
REQUEST: Zmendments to 700 5-outh'Galena an Summit Place.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership.
LOCATION: 700 South Galena and Mill Street.
ZONING: L-2 .
HISTORY: The Aspen Mountain PUD was approved in 1985. This PUD
approval included five lots. Two lots were approved for lodge
projects, two for residential projects and one, Top of Mill, is a
pending residential project. At the time of approval, the
project was evaluated in terms of its separate components, but
the growth management scoring looked at the development as one
project. The commitments for infrastructure, services and some
amenities are tied to the PUD as a whole, and not specifically to
one of the five projects, and were scored as such.
The applicant's request approval to make amendments to two of the
residential projects prior to submittal of the amendments to the
Lodge projects. The Planning Office does not have any objection
to this approach since we have always supported the individual
identity of the projects within the PUD in order to break up the
massing of the. buildings and give each project individual
character. The proposed amendments to the two residential
projects are substantial with regard to the design of the
structures. The architectural design of these projects is quite
different in style from the structures approved in 1985. The
purpose for the changes is tied to the preference of the new
owner as well as the current trends in architecture in Aspen.
The proposed townhouse-style structures appear to be what the
market is dictating at this time. The proposed projects are in
keeping with the type and style of townhomes that we have
recently seen being constructed in town.
The Planning Office is comfortable with reviewing the applica-
tion for amendments to the residential projects prior to the
review of the hotel development amendment. The residential
projects have always been seen "having a separate identity from
the remainder of the hotel development proposed for other lots
within the PUD. Visually, these projects need not be connected
and having individual designs will help to break up the feeling
of single ownership. However, the services and other project
commitments are tied to the entire PUD agreement. The Planning
Office and applicant feel that with the appropriate conditions of
approval for the residential projects, including the comprehen-
sive amendment of the PUD agreement following review of the
hotel, the integrity of the PUD and the applicants commitments
can be maintained.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL]
The applicants are requesting to amend two of the five projects
in the Aspen Mountain PUD. These projects are 700 South Galena,
a four unit project (two duplexes each containing two 3 bedroom
units) and Summit Place a triplex containing three 2 bedroom
units.
700 South Galena is a project that was required to obtain
allotments through the Growth Management process. Changes that
are proposed for this project were evaluated by the Planning and
Zoning Commission pursuant to section 24-11.7 (b) of the Code.
The Planning Commission was asked to review the proposed changes
at their meeting on December 22, 1987 and make a recommendation
to the City Council by rescoring the project in order to deter-
mine whether:
(1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum thres-
hold he must achieve in each category or for all
categories to receive an allocation; or
(2) The applicant's position relative to the other appli-
cant's during the competition would have changed.
In addition, the proposed changes to the 700 South Galena project
require a PUD amendment pursuant to section 24-8.26 (b) of the
Code. This section of the Code states that "such amendments
shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in
conditions that have occurred since the final plat was approved
or by changes in community policy. "
The proposed amendment to the Summit Place project requires a PUD
2
amendment only. This project was not subject to the Growth
Management process since the units were replacement units.
The following describes the proposed changes in both projects.
700 South Galena
The amendments to this site include a reduction in the number of
bedrooms approved for each unit and an associated reduction in
the number of parking spaces. The existing approval is for 4
four bedroom units and 20 parking spaces. The request is to
reduce the number of bedrooms to 3 per unit and to reduce the
parking spaces to 16 from 20. None of the commitments for
services or employee housing have been modified. These commit-
ments remain part of the overall PUD agreement.
The proposed design of the project is substantially changed from
the design approved in 1985. The applicant will provide compari-
son drawings at the meeting. The staff comments section of this
memorandum goes into greater detail regarding the design changes.
Summit Place
The existing Summit Place approval is for a triplex with two
bedrooms each and a total of 6 parking spaces. The proposed
amendments are to the design of the building only. _The Summit
Street setback is increased- by -approximately 8 feet. The
o``f-tffe
commitments for services have been modified:
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) Environmental Health: Tom Dunlop of the Environmental health
department had the following comments regarding Air Quality:
"Woodburning:
The applicant shall become familiar with City of Aspen
Ordinance 86-5 defining the numbers and types of woodburning
devices that may be installed in the project.
In reviewing the submittal the applicant has represented
three woodburning devices in the Summit Place project, one
in each _ dwelling unit. Under current regulations the
proposed building can qualify for one fireplace and one
certified woodburning stove. There cannot be individual
woodburning devices for each of the three units. One of the
three units could have a fireplace and one could have a
certified stove. The third unit could not have a wood
burning device.
The 700 S. Galena project can qualify for one fireplace and
one certified woodstove per side of each duplex, since each
3
side of the two duplex units is greater than 1000 square
feet.
Natural gas fireplace appliances may be installed in any
units.
It shall be noted here that the applicant will be required
to fill out a woodburning device permit form when a building
permit is applied for. This office has the form and will
assist the applicant in filling it out. "
The attached memorandum dated 12/7/87 also discusses the
other applicable rules and regulations regarding noise and
contaminated soils. Conformance with these applicable
regulations should become conditions of approval for the
projects.
2) Fire Marshal: The Fire Marshal had no comments regarding the
amendments since the project has not changed with regard to
the commitments made for fire protection.
3) Water Department: Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Depart-
ment stated in the attached letter dated 12/8/87 that he had
no comments regarding the proposed amendments since none of
the modifications changed any of the commitments made in the
original submittal.
4) Engineering: In a memorandum dated December 15, 1987, Jay
Hammond, of the Engineering Department notes that the
scoring for the utility commitments has been based on the
entire Aspen Mountain PUD. He expressed some concern
regarding the commitments of improvements that will occur
only when and if the hotel projects are built. Mr. Hammond
suggests that the developer be obligated to replace district
improvements at their own expense if they are forced to
install utilities or other improvements after the district
work is completed. The Engineering Department supports the
request for height calculations relative to final grades on
South Galena Street. With regard to Summit Place, Mr.
Hammond recommends that the driveway easement indicated on
the adjacent property to the north be clarified as a
condition of approval. (Memorandum attached)
STAFF COMMENTS:
At their meeting on December 22, 1987, the Aspen Planning
Commission concurred with the proposed staff scoring for the 700
South Galena project. This score was above the threshold and did
not change the project's position relative to other projects
which were competing at the time the project was initially
scored. In addition, the Planning Commission made a recom-
mendation of approval with regard to the proposed PUD amendments
for both projects.
4
PUD Amendments and Growth Management Scoring - 700 South Galena
With the exception of the architectural changes, the proposed 700
South Galena modifications are minor in nature. The bedroom
count is reduced by 4 rooms and the parking spaces are reduced by
the same number. The other changes are architectural in nature.
From a visual perspective the architectural modifications affect
the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed design is similar in
its use of materials to other newer projects in Aspen such as 700
E. Hyman, which use brick and sandstone exteriors and copper
roofing. The two duplexes are 3 stories tall and are requested
to be measured from the finished grade of Galena Street rather
the existing grade on the site. According to the Engineering
Department, the 1974 topographic maps indicate that the historic
elevation is substantially higher than the current site eleva-
tion. In addition, because the City has plans to raise the--i
street as much as 18" during the 1988 Galena Street Improvements, J
this increase would have an impact on the proposed underground
parking with respect to the necessary grade of the ramp. The
final outcome of allowing the height of the project to be
calculated at final street grades means that the building will be
approximately 2 to 2 1/2 ' higher than the 1985 proposal. The 1
impacts of this are felt by the lots to the south of the project,
although the change does not appear to be substantial relative to
the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Office and Engineer-
ing Department have no objection to the proposed height calcula-
tions, since the Code requires that the height be measured from
the natural undisturbed groundslope which, as noted above, is
$, higher than the current disturbed status.
The approved site plans for 700 South Galena have a courtyard
area between two L-shaped duplexes and an outdoor spa area in the
southeast corner of the lot. Landscaping surrounds the two
structures and is incorporated into the internal open space on
the site. The proposed amended site plan has two square shaped
duplex structures with the open spaces located in the southeast
corner of the lot and the western portion of the lot. Again,
landscaping surrounds the structures on all sides. In comparison
the amended design provides less of an internal landscaping
design throughout the project, however, it provides a more
focused open space layout. The proposed design offers an
excellent buffer for the surrounding properties to the southeast
of the project as well as offering more open space from the
Galena Street side of the project.
For purposes of scoring the services portion of the Growth
Management criteria, none of the prior commitments have been
changed. The staff feels that the project has basically remained
at the same level with regard to the scoring criteria. The green
space of the project has been increased to some degree but has
not significantly affected the public open space value. Thus,
5
the Planning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that
the scoring remain the same as the 1985 scoring. This means that
the applicants position relative to the other PUD projects
remains the same and that the application continues to meet the
minimum thresholds required.
PUD Amendments - Summit Place
It appears from the past records regarding Summit Place that
setback variances were never granted for the structure. The
setback from Summit Street apparently was tied to an easement
agreement between Cantrup and the City. The setback appears to
be approximately 51 , which is less than the 10 ' minimum rear yard
setback. The approved structure also does not meet the setback
requirements for the front or rear yard. The proposed structure
still does not meet the setback requirements, however it does
push the structure approximately 8 feet to the north, off of the
Summit Street easement. The setback requirements for the L-2
zone district are 10 ' for the front and rear yards and 5' for the
side yards.
The 1985 approval was based on the upgrading of the existing
structure on the site. Since the current proposal is for a
totally new design which requires the demolition of the existing
structure the Planning Office's recommendation to the Commission
was that the applicants comply with the zone district setback
requirements. The Planning Commission decided that the appli-
cants are improving on an existing approval and therefore the
proposal is acceptable. The proposal is less nonconforming than
the existing approval with regard to setbacks.
_ In addition, the driveway easement to the north side of the
property is on the adjacent lot. The applicants ability to use
the easement is currently in question. The Planning Office
recommends that the driveway easement issue be resolved prior to
final approval of the PUD amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PUD Amendments
for the Summit Place project with the conditions as listed below:
1) The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its
entirety after the review for the amended lodge
proposal. That subdivision agreement shall incorporate
the amendments as,provided for in ,this prop salJ.
�',',e._' � /yy,—,.��" _ r�-' ,G'r �fl};1� Z,l.t
2) The �project shall comply with all new Environmental
Health requirements as outlined in the memorandum by ,j%f�_,t
Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987 . .-7
6
3) ri r appro 1 by th/ City Council, the legal use of
the d i way / e ement� all c i to the
r h� satis a ti f the inning fice.
4) The final plat shall be amended to indicate the setback
variation approval for the Summit Place project.
Since Co n 1 3 J has not been addressed to date, the Planning
Office suggests t the City Council require that legal use of
the driveway easement be demonstrated to the City Attorney prior
to issuance of a building permit for the project. �,�,,
In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that City Council
accept the rescoring provided by the Planning Office confirming
the 1985 Growth Management Allocation to 700 South Galena and
amend the PUD with respect to this project with the following
conditions:
1) The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its
entirety after the review for the amended lodge
proposal. That subdivision agreement shall incorporate
the amendments as provided for in this proposal. '
2) The project shall comply with all new Environmental
Health requirements as outlined in the memorandum by
Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987.
3) The correct street address for the project be resolved
by the Building Department or by that entity with
authority to make that decision.
4) The driveway shall be improved to reduce some of the
radii entering the project. This shall be modified to
the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
ch hadid
7
C
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1987 RESIDENTIAL GMP AMENDMENT
Project: Aspen Mountain Project Date: 12/22/87
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The construction of a 12" main in Galena Street will,__
according to the Water Department "upgrade the distribution
network in the immediate neighborhood by providing increased fire
flows; not only for the proposed complex but for the central
core area_" The valve interconnect in Monarch will increase
service reliability to the project This improves quality of the
service in the area (There is no change in commitment since
1985. )
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Replacement of lines in Durant improves system and
minimizes infiltration now occurring in old lines. Plant
capacity is being raised by reduced flow distribution. This
improves quality of service in the area. (There is no change in
commitment since 1985. )
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Storage capacity of runoff waters will exceed the
amount required A diversion structure will be constructed to
"clean" runoff before it is expelled from the site. New or
replacement storm sewers will be installed in Galena, Durant and
Mill Streets This improves conditions in the area. (No chancre
in commitment has been made since 1985. )
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Fire flows are being boosted by the improvements to
water lines Existing hydrants are being supplemented with four
new hydrants Fire trucks can access on Galena and loop to Mill
and will not have to backout (No change in commitment has been
made since 1985. )
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 2
2 -
COMMENTS: Parking to be provided is at one space per bedroom with
four additional visitor spaces. The parking will be underground
and will adequately serve the needs of the project. This goes
beyond the requirements for parking. The score remains the same
as 1985 The number of parking spaces remains the same relative
to the number of bedrooms.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Galena Street will be realigned improving traffic
flow. Parking for the general public is being eliminated and not
replaced although fewer traffic conflicts will result when the
parking lot is gone Additional traffic is being added by this
project to streets of limited capacity. (This score remains the
same. )
SUBTOTAL: 11
2 . Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
3 -
COMMENTS: The Planning Office feel the scale and materials
proposed for the two duplexes on 700 S. Galena will be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood when the entire Aspen Mountain
PUD is builtout no variations from the area and bulk require-
ments of the L-2 zone districts are requested. The townhouse
style provides a transitional density between the lodge projects
and less dense residential areas. (The score has not changed
since the 1985 review.)
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Approximately 40% of the 700 S. Galena site will be
open space Landscaping is extensively planned and two duplex
units is a low-density alternative for the site and requires no
on-grade parking and a more residential character is maintained.
Utilities will be underground and Lodge Improvement District
improvements completed (The score has not changed since the
1985 review. )
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Insulation is proposed to exceed required Code
R-values Plantings and berming will be incorporated in the
landscaping (The score has not changed since the 1985 review. )
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
4 -
COMMENTS: The realignment of the Dean Street pedestrian/bike
trail will terminate one block east of the 700 S. Galena
location but be directly accessible to the units in the lodge.
A new trail is being provided for mountain access. (The score
has not chanted since the 1985 review. )
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The overall PUD has open space in excess of 50% of the
site Technical open space of the hotel site exceeds 25%. The
700 S Galena site will be 40% open space A considerable
amount of landscaping will be very visible to surrounding
residents to the south (The score has not changed since 1985. )
SUBTOTAL: 13
3 . Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project is within two blocks of the Rubey Park
Transit Center and the Durant Avenue Bus routes. (The score has
not chanted since 1985. )
5 -
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) .
The Planning office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 _- Project -is located within two -blacks--walking distance ,
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project is within two blocks of the Commercial
Core (The score has not changed since 1985. )
SUBTOTAL: 6
4 . Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . 1
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
Two (2) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
1 Please note that the employee housing rating system has
changed since the 1985 scoring of the Aspen Mountain project. The
applicants commitment however, remains unchanged. For the purpose of
this rescoring we are using the old scoring system.
- 6 -
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One-bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1. 00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each five [5]
percent housed) .
RATING: 16. 8
COMMENTS: 33.25 free-market residents will occupy the four units
at 700 S Galena plus the eight units in the hotel. 24 employees
will be housed in deed-restricted units. Total project popula-
tion is 57 25 of which 24 employees is 42%.
_(42% - 5% = 8.4 x 2 pts = 16.8 points) (The score has not
changed since 1985. )
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each
fifteen [15] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL: 16. 8
5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . 2
2 Please note that the employee housing conversion portion of
the scoring no longer exists in the current criteria. We have
continued to award the applicant with these points however, since they
were applicable for all applicants in the 1985 scoring.
- 7 -
C Cy.
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed-restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
10 - 33% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 1
34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 3
67%-100% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 5
RATING: 4
COMMENTS: The total employee housing program for the lodge and
residential components of the PUD is to house 198 employees in
converted units (Alpina House, Copper Horse ABC Apartments) and
new units (Ute City Place) . Approximately 158 of the 198
employees can be housed in converted units (80%) .
6. Bonus Points (maximum seven (7] points) . RATING: N/A
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, AND 4: 46.8
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: 4
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: N/A
TOTAL POINTS: 50.8
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
hadid.scoring
8 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: December 15, 1987
RE: 700 South Galena GMP and PUD Amendment, Summit Place
PUD and Subdivision Amendment
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
I would offer the following comments:
1 . 700 South Galena
a. GMP Amendment - Attached is a suggested scoring sheet
for engineering - related concerns on the request to amend
the GMP. I would further offer the following:
Water and Sewer - I have indicated a maximum score in
these areas in consideration of the overall plan for
improvements by the Aspen Mountain Subdivision . 700
South Galena itself has no direct obligation to provide
extensive neighborhood improvements to these utilities
and I am somewhat uncomfortable with scoring the
proposal for many improvements that will occur only
when and if the hotel projects come on line.
Site Design - Again, I have suggested a maximum score
in this area anticipating the projects coordination and
participation in the proposed district improvements on
both Galena and Mill Streets south of Durant. The
applicants, while indicating their willingness to
coordinate improvements and scheduling to accommodate
district work, are vague in citing the pending Trump
litigation as a potential hindrance to their
cooperation . Perhaps conditions obligating the
developer to replace district improvements at their own
expense should they be forced to install utilities or
other public improvements fa ter the district work is
completed would be appropriate.
Trails - The proposed improvements are not the distinct
obligation of 700 South Galena.
Fire Protection - Engineering has dropped fire
protection as an area of review and would recommend
that comments be sought from the new Fire Marshal.
b. PUD Amendment - The only comment we would offer on the
Page Two
700 South Galena
December 15, 1987
PUD amendment involves the applicant 's request for height
calculation relative to final grades on South Galena. We
would support this request for several reasons:
- The proposed district improvements include potential
changes to existing street grades in the area of 700
South Galena. The street could be raised as much as 18
inches (though probably less) and the relative grade of
the street is important to the parking access.
- The existing site is not at native grade and the
evidence on our 1974 topographic maps indicates that it
was substantially higher than the current site.
- Final grades on the street will take into account the
relative positions of existing structures.
2. Summit Place PUD and Subdivision
Amendment - We would offer just two comments regarding
Summit Place.
a. We recommend the driveway easement indicated on the
adjacent property to the north be clarified as a
condition of approval.
b. The amendment of the Aspen Mountain Trail easement
would appear to present no problems.
JH/co/700SoGalenaGMP
Enclosure
cc: Chuck Roth
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, on December 22, 1987 the Aspen City Council approved
amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision with regard to 700
South Galena and Summit Place, both residential projects within
the Aspen Mountain PUD;and
WHEREAS,the amendments to the 700 South Galena Project were made
pursuant to Sections 24-8 . 26 (b) and 24-11.7 (b) and Summit Place
amendments were made pursuant to Section 24-8 .26 (b) , of the
Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendments also included maps which indicate the
approved amendments to the Landscaping,grading and architectural
design of the two projects and;
WHEREAS, the following are Text and Plat Amendments to the First
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development/ Subdivision Agreement
for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded in Book 500, Page 656
in the office of the Pitkin Country Clerk and Recorder:
D L 1011 2 2
OI'eMUS &We LS
an association of land planners
April 21, 1988
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Cindy:
As we discussed, my letter is to request written acknowledgement
that the height of the two buildings at the 700 South Galena
project can be adjusted now that the new grades have been
established by the City Engineer for Galena. It is our under-
standing that under Council ' s final motion, the midpoint of the
roofs can be no more than 28 feet above the grades of the streets
as realigned.
The architects need to authorize the other consultants to revise
their drawings so that construction can proceed as soon as other
issues surrounding the project are cleared up.
Let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
seph Wells, AICP
JW/b
cc: John Sarpa
Perry Harvey
Ferd Belz
Michael Thompson
Bob Hughes
El
608 east hyman avenue o aspen,colorado 81611 o telephone:303 925-6866
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, on December 22 , 1988, the Aspen City Council
approved amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision,
Residential Projects (700 South Galena Street and Summit Place) ;
and
WHEREAS, amendments to the aforementioned project 700 S.
Galena, were made pursuant to Sections 24-8 . 26 (b) , and 24-11.7 (b)
of the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendments include maps indicating changes in
the landscaping, grading and architectural design of the 700 S.
Galean project; and
WHEREAS, annexed hereto and included herein, as Exhibits
"A" , and "B", are the text and map amendments respectively to the
Aspen Mountain PUD 700 S. Galena project, as approved by the
Aspen City Council on the date herein above noted, amending the
Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, recorded in Book 500, Page 656, at the Office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are to be filed by the City of
Aspen with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office on
1988 .
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
It is anding of the parties that the pro-
cedure set forth in Section M of this Agreement regarding
non-compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforce-
ment and implementation of the financial assurances set forth
herein and required by Section 20-16 (c) of the Municipal Code.
4. Emolovee Housina - Summit Place. Owner has no employee
housing obligations in connection with the Summit Place component
of the Project.
S. On-Site Parking - Summit Place. Owner has no new
on-site parking obligations in connection with the Summit Place
component of the Project. Owner shall , however , preserve six ( 6 )
of the subsurface parking spaces which presently exist beneath
Lot 2, Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
D. 700 SOUTH GALENA
1 . Site Improvements - 700 South Galena. The 700 South
Three
Galena component will be comprised of 4 /f/QVr-bedroom residential
units containing an aggregate of approximately 12, 000 square feet
included in external FAR calculations.
of floor area/ Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occu-
pancy for 700 South Galena, and as a condition precedent thereto , z
Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the following Section
20-16 improvements in the 700 South Galena area:
( a) Owner shall construct a new sidewalk, curb and
gutter along the easterly side of South Galena Street ( as
realigned) as it abuts Lot 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and a
-21-
new curb and gutter along the westerly side of South Galena
Street ( as realigned ) as it abuts Lot 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivi- i
Amended Landscaping and Grading Plan
sion, in accordance with the V0(1YVVVV 1VV4V and pursuant to other
normal City specifications. In addition, Owner shall repair or
replace any other existing (or newly installed ) sidewalks , curbs
or gutters that may be damaged during construction.
t �
( b) In the event it has not already done so , Owner
shall relocate underground the above ground utility line which
presently exists along the Easterly boundary of Lot 4, Aspen
Mountain Subdivision, in accordance with the Utility Plan and
i
pursuant to other normal City specifications . '
4
2. Landscaping Improvements - 700 South Galena. In accor-
dance with Section 24-8. 16 of the Municipal Code, all required
landscaping for 700 South Galena shall substantially conform to
Amended Landscaping and Grading Plan (Sheet
the V4VcY!19VdQVV)1gV. Said Landscape Plan depicts and describes
the nature, extent and location of all plant materials at mature
sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of
existing plant material , flower and shrub bed definition, a plant
material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and
quantities , proposed treatment of all ground surfaces ( e.g . , pav-
ing , turf, gravel , terracing , etc. ) , irrigation water systems,
decorative water features, retaining walls, fencing , benches,
site lighting , and all other agreed-upon landscape features .
Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence
-22-
( a) Hunter Longhouse : For and in consideration of
( i ) the making by Owner of a $250, 000 subordinated equity capital
I
investment in the Hunter Longhouse project, which funds have
already been delivered and receipted for, and ( ii ) the recording
in Book 540 at page to of the Pitkin County records of a "Ded-
ication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and
Guidelines" covering the Hunter Longhouse project executed by
Owner , the City, the Board of Pitkin County Commissioners, and
Aspen-Pitkin Employee Housing, Inc. , Owner has been credited with
housing a total of 56 employees. Owner ' s employee housing obli-
8.7
gation for 700 South Galena is /3/ employees. Accord.ingly, upon
the City' s issuance to the Owner of a valid and effective Certif-
8.7
icate of Occupancy for 700 South Galena, /9/ of said 56 employee
housing credits shall be deemed automatically allocated to and
consumed by the 700 South Galena component of the Project.
5. On-Site Parking - 700 South Galena. Prior to the issu-
ance of a Certificate of Cccupancy for 700 South Galena, and as a
I '
condition precedent thereto, Owner shall have constructed sixteen
i
( 16 ) subsurface parking spaces
Vy4VVV within Lot 4 of the Aspen IMountain Subdivision. These
subsurface 4V(Y/!/y'r/f/Y9rY parking spaces represent the total number
of on-site parking spaces which Owner is required to provide in
connection with the 700 South Galena component of the. Project.
-26-
f
art
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. P.O. Box 2155
a, Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-6727
April 14, 1988 CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS
Mr. Jay Hammond, Public Works Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Grades of Galena Street - 700 Galena
Dear Jay:
We have set the new grades for South Galena Street with regards to the
700 Galena project. All grades are within 0.50 of pa i as agreed to
by all parties. GL 1
(Old Alignment) (New Alignment)
Existing Centerline Proposed Centerline Change in
Station Elevation Elevation Elevation
2+50 7935.60 7935.67 .07
3+00 7937.50 7937.61 .11
3+50 7939.68 7940.18 .50
4+00 7943.25 7943.50 .25
4+50 7946.75 7947.05 .30
5+00 7950.70 7950.89 .19
All shots are based on field survey; interpolation between some survey
shots was required to determine the existing centerline elevation
shots. Unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume these eleva-
tions to be adequate to meet everyone's needs.
Sincerely,
SCFMUESER CORDON MEYER, ITSTC.
Ron Thompson
Planning Engineer
RT:lc/5726
Enclosure
cc: A. J. Zabin, Rae-Cassens w/ encl.
Bonnie Johnson, Desiqn Workshop, Inc. w. encl.
1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-1004
height of 700 S. Galena _J
o 1974 topo maps show that the site has approximately ;' feet of
elevation drop from the top of the site to the bottom.
o The 1974 topo maps show that the site sits alittle below Galena
Street/ Slopes slightly downward from ttie street elevation.
o new application uses existing grade to illustrate the eleva-
,,tions of the units.
o Patsy %buiding dept. said she would use 1974 as last record.
f '
1
fa
J'
(4Lv
L�
CL
4/ 14 Af�rz, 1 1)5cb
GR.
5'3 GRAND ASPEN
S. HOTEL II III GRAY Px
CONC.
CCA(r-
�XP7hAj EMN -
- - omw
/�-�/,. � ��� f IMPROV�MEN7S BY GRAND ASPEN HOTEL
cr All 2t50 Fes. 35� ..................� ................. .� .�.. ........\............
1 GRAV,PXG, - ■...U............ 111151161............�............am1112121N.....11 = _ '�.� GALENA STfr
l 1�
IMPROVEMENTS BY D/STR/CT
o _•- �'- Cam! ._ 1 ■1i11111� L{
a e r DDITION
DIS
J —� —_
r
TOO GALENA I I L(4ekr II y Z
W� — i
: 3
r/pPLE � I ;v � i
N
N
� GRAV.
FZ
T,PPL:1 LCDGE DRIVEWAY i
8, i .IC i
- z.ac E.V 'JT ' r?4CPE� —� _ � —'—� -- -.—_...---_---------- - .�—._.........
i
Pte"
n�
nj
rpo
• �t/9
.44mpp7v
�Y✓J7c� ry-V4 11-A n<_:;
QOZ - n�N�6'` a J d -
J
0
�YbL
IL1 1 )I1 ) September 28, 1988
SEp 2 $ t ;
Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
My understanding regarding Galena Place is that
Council acted on Monday, September 26, to extend
the time by which we need to pull a building per-
mit until October 3 , 1988 . We are totally
prepared to do so except for one uncontrollable
problem.
Our excavation and foundation plan requires the
use of tiebacks for shoring. To use tiebacks, we
need encroachment agreements from the neighbors to
the South and East. We have in hand all the
agreements except one. The terms of this last one
have been agreed upon, but we now cannot find the
land owner, Preston Henn. I am hopeful that he
will surface between now and Monday, but I am
worried that I may not be able to have a signed
agreement back here on Monday.
Is there a way I can pull the permit to meet the
October 3 deadline if I do not have the encroach-
ment agreement? Obviously, I will not proceed
without the agreement in hand.
Please review this and call me to discuss options.
Sincerely,
Perry A. Harvey, Dire or
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH:fc
(io)0 Eas? Cooper Street Suite 200 Ashen Colorado 81611 (303;925-4272 FAX: (303) 325-4387
y
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,P.C. 600 East Hopkins Avenue
A Pro/saa/onal Corporoflon Suite 203
Aspen,Colorado 51611
Attorneys At law Telephone(303)926-2612
Telempler(303)928-4402
January 22, 1988
City council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 700 South Galena
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
We represent George and Joan Anderman, who own a house on
the hillside overlooking the site of the proposed 700 South
Galena project. The project is on your agenda for Monday,
January 25, for a PUD amendment. The Andermans are concerned
about the amendment in so far as it relates to height and ask
that you either deny or table the request.
Hadid Aspen requests an amendment to the Aspen Mountain
PUD or the 700 South Galena portion of it to tie the 28-foot
(in reality 33 foot) allowable height to whatever will be the
increased grade of Galena Street in planned improvements.
According to your planning staff's memorandum of December 22,
that could increase the height of the project up to two and
one-half feet in relation to existing grade and to the
Anderman house. We suggest such a potentially varying and
currently uncertain measurement is inappropriate and illegal.
Further, there is no basis in the City Code to measure maximum
height of structures from a future, measured grade of a
street.
The Andermans have owned their house since it was built
in 1960. At that time, their house was surrounded by a dairy,
and they had views all over town. They have followed the 700
South Galena proposal, from Mr. Cantrup's time, through
commerce, to Hadid. In 1982 they negotiated a concession from
Mr. Cantrup concerning construction of the then-proposed
retaining wall, so that the stilt supports for their house
would not be undermined. In 1984, the Andermans hired an
architect and attorneys and ,appeared before you concerning the
height of the project and its computation. The minutes of
your June 25, 1984 meeting reflect as follows:
"Joe Wells told Council the applicants have
made several revisions in the 700 South Galena
submittal so the height would be acceptable and
still maintain the amount of open space in the
proposal. Wells said the applicants have brought
Member.Coft 0971,COW..(1069.ondV.0 ir")bon EXHIBIT 15
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
city council
January 22, 1988
Page 2
the building into compliance with the height limit
for the underlying zone district. This has been
done by increasing the steepness of the access into
the garage. The stairway causing the living area to
have a higher ceiling has been removed and the
living areas have a standard 8 foot ceiling. The
building have been sunk into the ground somewhat.
Wells said they have worked with the original GMP
submittal. The roof heights range from 22 feet 6
inches to a ridge line height of 33 feet, in
compliance with the regulations.
Russ Pielstick [representing the Andermans]
said he has reviewed this, feels it is within
compliance, and appreciates the efforts of the
developer. Pielstick said he would like these
elevations recorded in the record in terms of a USGS
elevation so that it is standard. Pielstick said
the Andermans would like to be notified if there are
any changes.„ .
At that time the Andermans had an agreement from the
developer, represented by the same planners who now represent
the successor developer, that the height limit of the L2 zone
would be respected and implicitly if not otherwise, that its
measurement would be from the existing grade. The agreement
included a fixed height in relation to the Andermans' house.
This agreement was presented to and apparently approved by the
City (see minutes above) and the Andermans relied on that
agreement and City approval when they withdrew their objection
to the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Apparently the developer desires the tie to the Galena
Street improvements because it worries about the difference in
grade to its proposed underground parking lot. While all will
support the idea of underground parking, there is no
engineering data to support the view that the grade to the
parking area would unduly suffer by an increase in the grade
of Galena Street of up to 18 inches that would require an
increase in the height of the building by two and one-half
feet. Moreover, Jay Hammond informs us that the grade plan is
by no means certain and that an 18 inch increase in the
elevation of Galena Street is a "worst case. 11 Apparently
there is no firm engineering study of the proposed grade--how
can you act or grant approval to a request that provides an
affected adjacent landowner no notice as to the actual effect
the result will have on his property? In the abstract if
there were no objection and no affected landowner, the
�t
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
City Council
January 22, 1988
Page 3
proposal would be fine--but a two and one-half foot increase
in the absolute height of the project would impact the
Andermans.
one reason the land use process requires some certainty
about bulk requirements is so that adjacent landowners can
assess how they will be affected. It may be that the grade of
Galena Street will not be changed in the area of this project;
or, the improvement district will not be formed. It hardly
seems fair that the Andermans have to go to the expense of
appearing when they can not know with any certainty how the
proposed amendment affects their views.
We ask that the amendment be tabled until one can
determine what absolute height is proposed for the project so
that compliance with the City's Code requirements and with
rights of adjacent landowners can be determined.
We will continue to work with the developer and the City
staff to see if there can be some resolution of the problems
before your meeting Monday night.
Sincerely,
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
By
J. N cholas McGrath
And
HOLME, ROBERTS & OWEN
Donald K. Bain, Esq.
Lawrence L. Levin, Esq.
Attorneys for George and Joan
Anderman
cc: Mr. Perry Harvey
Mr. John Doremus
Mr. Joe Wells
Planning Office
tl:andccl21.1tr
10 March 1988
RAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS
I,,,
210 SOUTH GALENA
WEN,COLORADO 81()11 Mr. Jim Wilson
M 925-28o7 Aspen Building Department
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 700 South Galena Project
Dear Jim:
Per our conversation this morning, I will commit to deliver two
sets of Architectural and Site drawings for the above project on
or before Friday, 18 March 1988. We need to receive the partial
permit by Friday, 15 April 1988 in order to keep our approvals
current. I understand from you that the four weeks between
my submittal and 15 April will be sufficient for review.
The drawings I shall submit will contain Architectural and Land-
scaping drawings sufficient to measure Floor Area Ratio, building
height, glazing area compliance and verification of our GMP and
PUD requirements by the Planning Office. We shall submit
Structural drawings on Monday, 31 March 1988.
1 have also spoken to Cindy Houben this morning, and we have
agreed that I shall provide her with the same drawings next week,
from which she shall verify compliance.
Please send me a note if anything herein is different from your
understanding.
Very truly yours
Michael Thompson AI
Partner
MT:sv
cc: Bill Drueding
Cindy Houben, Planning Office
}
e;
October 21, 1988
Les Rosenstein
Hagman Yaw Architects
210 South Galena
Aspen, Co 8166
RE: Galena Place
Dear Les,
The submitted design modifications for the Galena Place project
are generally consistent with the Galena Place approvals and will
not require any further review by the Planning Office. It is my
understanding that all precast concrete materials will be painted
to match the sandstone trim on the units.
I am attaching your letter and drawings dated October 20, 1988 to
a copy of this letter which will be placed in the Galena place
file, thereby documenting the approved modifications.
If you have any questions please call.
Sincerely,
Cindy Houben
Aspen/ Pitkin County Planner
ch.les
C
HAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS
LTD 20 October 1988
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
303/925-2867
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Galena Place
Dear Cindy:
As per our meeting yesterday I am enclosing one red marked
set of the proposed modifications to Galena Place.
As discussed, the proposed modifications are to step the side
walls in place of the sloped walls and to replace some sandstone
with precast concrete to match the color of the original sandstone
trim.
We are requesting an insubstantial change to Galena Place of
the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Hagman Yaw Archite, s, Ltd
te—Kosenstein
Project Manager
enclosures
-��-�l ll1.11.1.1i�11._!11 I_�11 ► I;.LI
111 1E,
I
I
II
t t � ►
IBC
]JTJ M11 q�"
I I
�� I ►� i i � I I: ! II, it i I
V I 1
r-
4lU l�
}
I
u0L- z�T
t 1
1
1
i
i
V
71
Llr---I
4
I
I!11-1.1.
.�......_� V-_
��1
I
Fit ,(i I Lli
i Ili ii l 111'i i ,il i 111, 1 �. �� -I 'I! �III� �� iii III{Irifl, I 1/`
1 dill {
1' i
f;, lll�1f! �1 Illi ' 1
it II \
1 t {
I { , 'n11 1 7lil
If
T ,(if
� I ,
4 +
TYTT�
It'll{
II{! 1,1'11 11!1, ,i'1{j1
+'
I ��� I I(,l� ,t. ,, '; �1 f111,� 1 .11� ���, � , i � l, tl,� �trt'I •+r�� �f
rr-
it
I_
�ii 't l
T t a
if
J
'-j
r
T-rt � r _
I t ( f fTT ( j�ttt�_� ��# '1 IT1
1•
,I I
-T l��i,l I�Lr'I
' /`n _. . �. _ _ r---- 7� � �. �1.��L i,_ '.�_t1 �i rI i 1 i i ��'• ..__ ..1� i
\ I
_._ _... _
r
� � t
�LL
_ I
r ern r j
IT
17 rri'1T 1 1 l!
77 I
�^111!1ltililll� ! Ih' i �ilij L _-- —
_ —_ jell
a
rFF
F. !T 7T
r T r11T�11?
1L1
—
I
At:.� I ��a 1 L1111,�ll1i 'i� Lllli�
4. I I
I I i
- -
7 -. _
r
4
f f
I
'LLL JJ�
r- Tr
o
nr7IV fin/O �•.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO �:a o
rn�
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP?SENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMP -j oL
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION rn
--- V
�
C)3 ron LJ
v7 a
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ;g�& day of
1987
X$$%, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home-rule city ( hereinafter
SAVANAH, LIMITED
referred to as "City" ) , and (hereinafter
referred to as "Owner" ) ,
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Cwner has submitted to the City for approval , exe-
cution and recording a Final Subdivision and Planned Unit Devel-
opment (P. U. D. ) Plat (hereinafter referred to as th.e "Plat" ) per-
taining to the development of a hotel and residential project
known as the "Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision"
(hereinafter
referred to as the "Project" ) on those certain contiguous parcels
of real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin ,
State of Colorado and more particularly described on Schedule 1
attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Plat formally divides the subject property into
five ( S ) independent parcels of land , which parcels may be
described as follows:
( a) Lot 1 (sometimes herein referred to as "Hotel Phase
I" )
(b) Lot 2 (sometimes herein referred to as "Summit Place" ) ;
(c) Lot 3 (sometimes herein referred to as "Top of Mill', ) ;
(d ) Lot 4 (sometimes herein referred to as "700 South Galena" ) ;
time frames shall not constitute binding representations or
schedules :
Commencement Date Substantial Completion Date
Develooment Component (on or after ) (on or 31ter )
Hotel Phase I To be ��i'��rmined) (To be determined)
� � , February, Y9�s'6'
1988 1988
Summit Place March, XAAA December , f V_/
1988 1988
700 South Galena March, 1119/x/7 December , /1/9/b
(to be determined) (To be determined)
Hotel Phase II real IdV J/l/C'9/0 /deio�e/mVe/r/,//1/9W/
Too of Mill (Premature - to be established by amendment
(Phased Construction) to this Agreement)
At the time of application for a Building Permit for a particular
development component of the Project, and as a condition prece-
dent to the issuance thereof, Owner agrees to provide the City
Engineering Department with a detailed Construction Schedule for
that component, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Chief Building Official in the exercise of their reasonable dis-
cretion, which Construction Schedule shall particularly address
how construction phasing and other techniques within each compo-
nent will best accommodate under the circumstances ( a)
barricading and provision of pedestrian protection, ( b) mainte-
nance of adequate public vehicular access and circulation in the
development area, (c) excavation access and large truck traffic
circulation and staging areas, (d) disposal of demolition and
excavation materials, ( e) delivery and storage of major construc-
tion materials, ( f) construction equipment access and storage,
-4-
V
( e) 13 spaces - parallel parking along North
side of vacated Dean Street
The above-described subsurface and surface parking
spaces ( 351 in all ) represent the aggregate number of on-site
parking spaces which Owner is required to provide in connection
with Hotel Phase I of the Project and the Continental Inn renova-
tion, including those spaces required for the residential units
in Hotel Phase I.
C. SUMMIT PLACE
1 . Site Improvements - Summit Place. The Summit Place
comD_ onent will be comprised of 3 two-bedroom residential units
7,700
containing an aggregate of approximately 7/,/(/C/8 square feet of
included in external FAR calculations.
floor area . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for Summit Place , and as a condition precedent thereto , Owner
shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the following Section 20-15
improvements in the Summit Place area:
( a) Owner shall construct a new sidewalk , curb and
gutter along the westerly side of Mill Street as it abuts Lot 2,
Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and shall construct a new sidewalk
along the Northerly side of the "Summit Street Easement" within
Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivison, in accordance with the Utility
Plan and pursuant to other normal City specifications. In addi-
tion, Owner . shall repair or replace any other existing (or newly
installed) sidewalks , curbs or gutters that may be damaged during
construction.
-17-
2. Landscaping Improvements -_ Summit Place. In accordance
with Section 24-8 . 16 of the Municipal Code, all required
landscaping for Summit Place shall substantially conform to the
Amended Landsc/��UNN1/gVcYAW)�an Saide Lands-cape Plan depicts
VOO O1VV
and describes the nature, extent and location of all plant mate-
rials at mature sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species
and size of existing plant material , flower and shrub bed defini-
tion, a plant material schedule with common and botanical names ,
sizes and quantities , proposed treatment of all ground surfaces
( e.g . , paving , turf , gravel , terracing , etc . ) , irrigation water
systems, decorative water features , retaining walls, fencing ,
benches , site lighting , and all other agreed-upon landscape fea-
tures . Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence
commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated in
the Summit Place Construction Schedule, but in no event later
than one ( 1 ) year after the date of issuance of the Certificate
of occupancy for Summit Place. It is the mutual understanding of
the parties that a Certificate of occupancy may in fact issue for
Summit Place even though the landscaping improvements related
thereto have not yet been completed , so long as the portion of
the financial guaranty provided for in Paragraph C(3 ) hereof
which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms o'f said Para-
graph C( 3 ) .
-18-
f
It is the express understanding of the parties that the pro-
cedure set forth in Section M of this Agreement regarding
non-compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforce-
ment and implementation of the financial assurances set forth
herein and required by Section 20-16 (c) of the Municipal Code.
4. Emolovee Housina - Summit Place. Owner has no employee
housing obligations in connection with the Summit Place component
of the Project.
5. On-Site Parking - .Summit Place. Owner has no new
on-site parking obligations in connection with the Summit Place
component of the Project. Owner shall , however , preserve six ( 5 )
of the subsurface parking spaces which presently exist beneath
Lot 2, Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
D. 700 SOUTH GALENA
1 . Site Improvements - 700 South Galena. The 700 South
Three
Galena component will be comprised of 4 /f/QVr-bedroom residential
units containing an aggregate of approximately 12, 000 square feet
included in external FAR calculations .
of floor area/ Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occu-
pancy for 700 South Galena, and as a condition precedent thereto ,
Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the following Section
20-16 improvements in the 700 South Galena area:
( a) Owner shall construct a new sidewalk, curb and
gutter along the easterly side of South Galena Street*- ( as
realigned) as it abuts Lot 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and a
-21-
M �
new curb and gutter along the westerly side of South Galena
Street ( as realigned) as it abuts Lot 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivi-
Amended Landscaping and Grading Plan
sion, in accordance with the T/ r/�"�cf ��/��(a(r�l and pursuant to other
normal City specifications. In addition, Owner shall repair or
replace any other existing (or newly installed ) sidewalks , curbs
or gutters that may be damaged during construction.
( b) In the event it has not already done so , Owner
shall relocate underground the above ground utility line which
presently exists along the Easterly boundary of Lot 4, Aspen
Mountain Subdivision, in accordance with the Utility Plan and
pursuant to other normal City specifications .
2. Landscaping Improvements - 700 South Galena. In accor-
dance with Section 24-8. 16 of the Municipal Code, all required
landscaping for 700 South Galena shall substantially conform to
Amended Landscaping and Grading Plan (Sheet /-7 ) .
the V4V( VgVj (VIVI/o'rl. Said Landscape Plan depicts and describes
the nature, extent and location of all plant materials at mature
sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of
existing plant material , flower and shrub bed definition, a plant
material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and
quantities , proposed treatment of all ground surfaces ( e.g. , pav-
ing , turf, gravel , terracing , etc. ) , irrigation water systems,
decorative water features, retaining walls, fencing , benches,
site lighting , and all other agreed-upon landscape features.
Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence
-22-
( a) Hunter Longhouse: For and in consideration of
( i ) the making by Owner of a $250, 000 subordinated equity capital
investment in the Hunter Longhouse project, which funds have
already been delivered and receipted for, and ( ii ) the recording
in Book 560 at page (o of the Pitkin County records of a "Ded-
ication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and
Guidelines" covering the Hunter Longhouse project executed by
Owner , the City, the Board of Pitkin County Commissioners, and
Aspen-Pitkin Employee Housing, Inc. , Owner has been credited with
housing a total of 56 employees. Owner ' s employee housing obli-
8.7
gation for 700 South Galena is /9/ employees. Accordingly, upon
the City' s issuance to the Owner of a valid and effective Certif-
8.7
icate of Occupancy for 700 South Galena, /9/ of said 56 employee
housing credits shall be deemed automatically allocated to and
consumed by the 700 South Galena component of the Project.
5. On-Site Parking - 700 South Galena. Prior to the issu-
ance of a Certificate of Occupancy for 700 South Galena, and as a
condition precedent thereto, Owner shall have constructed sixteen
( 16 ) subsurface parking spaces X14 �Wr 1/(141)1WN"bVIKAMI
,4V4'J' 'V within Lot 4 of the Aspen tMountain Subdivision. These
subsurface fir/(Y/Vi1r/fj�_/gV parking spaces represent the total number
of on-site parking spaces which Owner is required to provide in
connection with the 700 South Galena component of the. Project.
-26- .
i
L
L
� 700 S. GALENA
C 925 E -D-URANT
PROJECT
L
i
t
1
C
1
C
i
L
Q
� A Residential G.M. P. Development
L
MARK A. DANIELSEN, CONSULTANT
Real Estate Planning & Development
415 E. Durant Avenue Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925-4384
December 1, 1982
Ms. Alice Davis
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Submission of 700 S . Galena/925 E. Durant
Residential G..- .P. Application
Dear Alice:
This application is submitted for review in conformance with
the Growth Management Plan Residential Development requirements .
The applicant, Aspen Development Group, seeks approval for 16 luxury
one bedroom free market units to be located at the 700 S . Galena
site. This site will also contain 1 low income single bedroom
employee unit. It was the location of a previous G.M.P. submission
that received an allocation for 17 units .
All approvals were obtained and a building permit was granted.
However, due to lack of construction financing, the project could not
meet the construction time schedule contained in the approvals. The
project, with minor modification, but very similar to the one
previously approved, is therefore resubmitted for review. The site is
again coupled with the 925 E. Durant site as a single, combined
project.
The 925 E. Durant site will now provide for 24 low income employee
studio units via an R.B.O. rezoning. This R.B.O. will apply to both
..sites, but will not create any additional free market units . This
combined project will therefore create luxury accommodations while
substantially increasing the inventory of low income employee
housing. We believe that the attached information and development
plan for the 700 S . Galena/925 E. Durant Project is sufficient and
appropriate to meet with a favorable review and approval by the
Planning Department, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council.
Should there be any questions or need of additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me . I thank you in advance for .
your time and attention to this application.
Best regards,_
Mark A. Danielsen
MAD:kkd
Enc.
700 S. GALENA / 025 E. DURANT PROJECT
Residential Development
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
A combination Project:
700 S . GALENA
16 Luxury one bedroom accommodations and
F
1 Low income one bedroom unit
925 E. DURA.NT
24 Low income studio units
700 S. GALENA / 925 E. DURANT
Residential Development
Growth Management Plan Application
16 Residential Accommodations
25 Employee Units
Submitted To: City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Applicant: Aspen Development Group
c/o Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303 925-1936
Planning: Mark A. Danielsen, Consultant
Real Estate Planning & Development
415 E. Durant Avenue Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
. 303 925-4384
Request for Approvals
This application is submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with
Article 11, Section 24-11.4, of the Aspen: Municipal Code, for a
Growth Management, Residential Dvvelpment allocation. The applicant
requests that an allocation of 1.6 residential one bedroom free market
units be given along with approval for 24 residential low income
employee studio units and one low income employee single bedroom unit.
The applicant requests that the employee housing units be exempt from
the development allotment procedures , as provided for in Ordinance
53, Series of 1982, Section 24-11. 2 (f) .
The applicant also requests that both parcels of the project be
rezoned to R.B.O. , as provided for under Article 10, "Residential"
Bonus Overlay District. " This overlay zone will result in a substantial
addition to the inventory of low income employee housing without
creating any additional free market units .
Q �- Z
ui
QJ
� Q
a
4
k:
[ 1 1, j 1__.2 t_ I t J t_:A t # t I t i t 1 L A [ A I 1 1 [ A t.- VA k __A L-.A
700 S. GALENA
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
INTRODUCTION:.
1. Project Name: 700 S . Galena
2. Project Location: Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2
Anthony Acres Subdivision
3. Street Address: 700 S . Galena Street
4 . Parcel Size: 21, 600 square feet
5. Current Zoning District: L-2 Zone with R.M.F. permitted use
5A. Zone Under Which
Application is Submitted: L-2 Zone with R.B.O. rezoning
6 . Maximum External FAR: 21, 600 sq. ft. without R.B.O.
27, 000 sq. ft. with R.B.O.
7. External F.A.R. Provided: 26 , 800 sq. ft. with R.B.O.
8. Number and type of 1.6 luxury one bedroom accommodations
Units Proposed: 1 low income (ezployee) one bedroom unit
9 . Size of Units: 14 units @ 1, 350 sq. ft.
2 units @ 1, 400 sq. ft.
1 units @ 800 sq. ft.
10 . Price Range of Units: 16 accommodations @ market prices
1 employee unit under low income rental/
sale guidelines
11. Submission Review: Yes
12 . 8040 Greenline Review: No
13. R.B.O. District: Yes
14 . View Plane: No - property is not within any
designated view plane
15. Special Procedures Required: None
16 . Exemption from allotment
procedures for employee units
requested: Yes
17 . Stream Margin Review: No
18 . Historical Preservation
Review: No
19 . P.U.D. : No
20. Description of Surrounding
Land Uses and Zoning: The neighborhood in which this project
is located consists primarily of lodges,
coaffnercial facilities, single and
multi-family units. Immediately
surrounding complexes are the Tippler
Inn and Lodge, Continental Inn,
Alpenblick Inn and Durant Condominiums .
Distances to:,
A. Elementary School: approx. 12 mile
B. Middle and High Schools : approx. 2 mi .
C. Existing School Bus Routes: within 4 m:)-
D. Existing parks & playgrounds: within
4 mile
E. Hospitals : approx. 2 miles
F. Airport: located 52 miles away
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
(1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points) :
The commission shall consider each application with respect to its
impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the
area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the
project only and not the area in general .
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
a. ) Water (maximum 2 points) : considering the .ability of the water system
to service the development, acid if a public system, the ability of the
system to provide the service without: system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer.
The 6" cast iron pipe (C.I .P. ) located on Galena Street, immediately in front
of the project, will provide the projects water needs. Water pressure in the area
is between 70-80 P.S. I . .
A preliminary project review by Jim Markalunas indicate that "there are no problems
in the area, and that no improvements can be made by the development - certainly
there is no point in an overkill situation and needlessly wasting money. "
b. ) Sewer (maximum 2 points) : considering the capacity of the sewers and the
system to serve the proposed develop,'ient without extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
There is an 8" sewer line immediately in front of the project on South Galena
Street. This line is sufficient to serve the projects needs without any further
extensions or improvements. The development has already been approved for
service by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District Board of Directors.
The project's wastewater and sewage requirements are directly related to unit
size and occupancy. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health Standard
of 100 gal ./person/day to occupancy standards of 1.5 people per each one bedroom
unit, the project is seen to generate 2550 gallons per day. The Advanced Waste-
Water Treatment Plant (A.W.P. ) has a capacity of 3.2 million gallons per day, of
which, an average of 2.3 million gallons are used. Consequently it is seen that the
planvis running at only 720/0' capacity, and the project would generate less than
1/10 of one percent to the plant capacity, and thus is well within the capacity
of the system.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
Conversations with, and a project review by Heiko Kihn of the Aspen
Metropolitan Sanitation District indicate that the sewage wastewater
and sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to serve the. project
without system extensions beyond those normally installed, by the developer,
and without treatement plant or other facility upgrading.
c. ) Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) : This evaluation is based upon the
capacity of the project's drainage facilities to adequately dispose
of surface runoff without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
This project will have a drainage control system to collect and retain site
runoff on the site. A series of drywells along with' retention wells will
provide sufficient capacity to retain site runoff. The drywells and retention
wells will be designed and placed consistant with standard engineering practices.
The result of this system will be to effectively retain and disperse under-
ground, surface and roof water runoff.
If the design of on-site drainage: facilities results in the need for overflow
connection to the storm sewer, the applicant will extend existing storm sewer
facilities up Galena Street to City specifications.
The applicant will further improve the entire areas drainage by placing new curb
and gutter along the entire South Galena Street frontage. The development will
provide a new catch basin, to be located at the discretion of the Engineering
Department. This will -improve storm drainage in areas other than the project
itself.
d. ) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) : considering the ability of the -fire
department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection
according to the established response standards of the district without
the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station.
The project site is located within five city blocks from the fire station and
can expect a maximum response time of five minutes from alert siren to equipment
arrival . This is �%,ell within the established response standards of the district.
There is no necessity for either establishing a new fire station or additonal
equipment in order to serve this project. The project will improve service for
the entire area by providing a new fire hydrant on the north-west portion of the
development.
A project review by Willard Clapper, Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, indicates
that pressure in the area is good and the hydrant will improve fire protection service
for that area.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
e. ) Parking Design (maximum 2 points) : This evaluation is based upon the
provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet
the requirement of the development and the design of those spaces with
respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
The 700 South Galena Street Project provides for 26 parking spaces in an under-
ground parking garage. Only one surface parking space is necessary. The
27 spaces meets the parking requirements of the project plus all of the ten
spaces reserved for the Continental- Inn at the Galena site. This shall minimize
both visual impacts and amount of paved surfaces. The garage ensures a maximum
of convenience and safety. The entry ramp will also use a snow-melting system.
The applicant has also requested a variance to allow 2 eigInteen foot curb cuts
on Galena Street.
Having reviewed the condition and location of the site, the Engineering Department
recommends the granting of a variance to allow two (2) eighteen (100 ' ) foot curb
cuts on Galena accessing the site. As the applicant has stated, the site is
only accessible from Galena and lacks an alley or other means of approach. Due
to the substantial underground parking and resultant low impact on surrounding
parking, the Engineering Department has no problem with the curb cut variance.
f. ) Roads (maximum 2 points) : considering the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
the existing traffic patterns , creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system.
The 700 South Galena Project is located on South Galena Street approximately one
half block south of Durant Avenue. This premium location allows for easy alternate
transit methods - Rubey Park is only one block away, the center station for all
city and county buses. Galena Street itvelf is a major street and impacts from
this project will . be very minimal , if any.
The projects convenient location to downtown Aspen, Little Nell ski lift, and
Ruby Park buses all help ensure that the proposed development will be well served
by the existing street system without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns, _or_ creati rig safety hazards.
Examination of the traffic impact of the project is primarily based on work
generated by the UM'rA transportation study by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates,
Inc. traffic consultant for the UMTA study.
The following table presents the trip type and trip frequencies per day per unit
for a project unit as estimated by that firm. The 5.5 trips per unit is less
than the 10.0 trips per unit for a typical residential unit, because the project
consists of one-bedroom units generating less people than larger apartment or
condominium units. Total trips are estimated between automobile and non-automobile
trips.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
Estimated
Estimated Non-Automobile Estimated Non-
One-Way Trips Trips percentage ,Autombile Tri s
Skiing/Recreation* .75 601 .5
Work 2.00 751 1.5
Shopping and
Entertainment 1.25 751 .9
Personal Business 1.00 501 .5
Other 1.50 2.51 .4
TOTAL 6.50 601 (Average) 3.8
*The 60i' non-automobile averag , for recreation trips assumes approximately 75-801
of ski trips are non-autoi>>obile but only 50-551 of summer recreation trips are
non--automobi 1 e.
Due to the project's immediately convenient location to downtown Aspen, Little
Nell 's Lift and Rubey Park buses , it is estimated a high percentage (60-75°x)
of skiing, work, shopping and entertainment trips will be non-automobile trips.
As shown, potentially 601 of the total projected trips per unit will be non-
automobile trips. The estimated 2.7 automobile one--way trips per day are
equivalent to a resident's using his car on an average of approximately one
time per day. The walking and public transportation convenience of the project's
location plus the project's low resident; population results in very minimal traffic
impact created by the project.
Principal daily usage will occur between 8-9 A.M. and 5-6 P.M. for adjacent roads .
Alternate transit means include the Durant Avenue bus route which connects to
all major areas in the city and county, premium location to ski lifts and hiking,
trails at the base of Aspen riountain.
Sidewalks shall also be provided along the entire South Galena Street frontage.
DURANT AVE.
�E
-
3:
AT
' CHALET: N I ( �°° i ca
I
d; yY! tI.� iler MEN
t /
'�LOL�`{ 2 � i ! A L,. > 1 r� � g?1.
4 t S G { 2 3 i!L t�°. r. c, c� K S 1
t. _ _.
ST.
INN
C 50
: 10 11 12
6 0/ I
690 J ,
l
711( C f fir. ff �y U 1
I ,
�.
_� tp
r 0 _
cook
F{FIT H, VE. l Q t�0 �• 7Z4
T2- 7�
w
s,4c EiV
C,1`.( r� vrioN gy wf�2ri£S c� F i4i°/�cic AN7` AS of
��► 1 , i »- 2_q- 82
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
(2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points) : The commission shall consider
each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each
project and shall rate each development by assigning points according
to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. ) Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points) : considering the compatibility
of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with
existing neighboring developments.
The neighborhood in which this project is located consists primarily of lodges ,
commercial facilities, single and multi-family units. Immediately surrounding
complexes are theTippler Iran and Lodge, Continental Inn, Alpenblick Inn and
Durant Condominiums. All developments are in the L-2 zone, which encourages
construction of lodges and allows tourist oriented multi-family units. This
project, as with the surrounding developments, are all three stories in height,
and are of a similar size. Indeed, the Galena project is smaller in unit number
and size than some of its neighbors.
The architectural features of the project include custom ;good frame construction
with exterior materials including redwood or cedar siding facade, stone and glass .
Almost all parking is located underground, with a total of 27 spaces provided.
All of these architectural aspects will compliment the construction presently
found in the neighborhood. Consequently, the b;.ilk, density, design and use of
earth tones are eminently appropriate for the neighborhood, as is the size,
height, and location of the project.
b. ) Site design (maximum 3 points) : considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas , the extent of undergrounding
of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation
and increased safety and privacy.
The proposed project consists of sixteen (16) residential multi-family units and
one (1) employee unit. All are one bedroom units located in a straight line
configuration accessible via elevators and stairwells from the underground parking
garage. There is a lobby and common meeting area on the groundlevel of the project.
The employee unit is also on the ground level , toward the south end of development.
Amenities of the project include the underground parking garage, fireplaces in
each unit, a spacious lobby with common meeting areas and game rooms.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
The parking garage insures safety and circulation efficiency. The
spacious units and individual balconies allow for privacy of the
residents . The applicant will underground all utilities for the project,
and will provide any and all necessary easements for doing so.
c.) Energy (maximum 3 points) : considering the use of insulation,
passive solar orientation, solar ene-,--gy devices, efficient
fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conserva-
tion of energy and use.
The project is designed to maximize thermal characteristics and minimize
fossil fuel demand. Several methods, shall be employed to conserve
energy .
The architectural dc!Ji9n itself will promote energy savings by means
of minimizing exterior wall exposure via use of common walls, and by
vertical space organization. This Means the project has a minimal
ratio of exterior surfaces per square foot of occupied space. The
units are also oriented with highest use interior spaces to the
south-west, all-owing passive solar heating potential. Substantial
amounts of the roof are flat, and designed to alloy; the units to retain
the additional insulation value of snowfall layers .
The 700 South Galena Project will employ insulation methods that will
exceed the current theriaal insulation requirements by 100 or. more.
Electric energy is currently designed as the projects primary interior
space heating. As a substant.-I'ial portion of the communities electric
energy is hydro-generated, this will provide an additional reduction
in fossil fuel demand.
Energy conservation is also realized through the use of efficient
fireplaces . Heat circulation fire-places sliall be e=mployed, using
exterior combusion air, double damper controls, glazed fire opening, and
heat return ducting. 1\.utomatic thermostats will be used in the lodge
Me 4
rooms to control night time temperatures .
These architectural and construction techniques result in an excellent
project design that maximizes energy conservation.
d.) Trails (maximum 3 points) : considering the provision of
pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to
existing parks and trail systems whenever -feasible.
The project is located some 450 L.P. to the Galena Street Pedestrian
Mall. The project will provide sidewalks along the South Galena Street
site perimeter to connect to the city sidewalks system. The project
location is also well situated to provide for immediate access to the
Little Nell Ski Lift and Aspen Mountain trails (only 300 feet away) .
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
e. ) Green Space (maximum 3 points) : considering the vegetated, open space
on the project site which is usable by the residents -of the project
and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding
developments.
The project will have planted areas and landscaping along the Galena Str=eet
perimeter. There is also a large vegetated open space area immediately in
front of the project south of the lobby. This area also offers relief from
the density of the building - which has been substantially reduced from the
maximum allowed under an RBO/L-2 zone - as well as providing a buffer area
from Galena Street
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
(3) Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points) : The commission
shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to
Public transportation and community commercial locations and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
a. ) Public Transportation (maximum 3 points) :
1 -- Project is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance
from an existing city or county bus route
2 -- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route
3 -- Project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route
The 700 South Galena Street Project is well within two (2) blocks walking
distance of both city and county bus routes.
b. ) Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points) : The planning office
shall make available a map depicting the coi 'merical facilities in town
to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas .
1 -- Project is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance
from the commercial facilities in town
2 -- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of the
commerical facilities in town
3 -- Project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of the
commercial facilities in town
This development is also within two (2) blocks walking distance to the
commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block is equivalent to two hundred fifty
(260) feet in linear distance.
z
w
J
Q
2
O
0
0
Z p
1O
O a
b Na 't dv o o L � �w
o.
1E
v <
1 0:
I I LULI
U)
C Icr
H � h
3
1S aN3 1S3M
— NIO la
:0 i
Ll
� >
_ w
TT
U
•1S VN3,V
W O�
r� -
w a I
tr` > O w�
C
>i
µ, o
•ls i „I w r— I -----
- «? W Y Q
C\'x t %
- ~ _ ca ( 1
q'
- — - -
Z - t
_HOaVNO-W� a
�
/ 1S —N3dSV
C- C 2 I ar
O I -. W
1S +HOSIWaV`J� I ,
r - L /
Ys-
LO —
�
1S I O dN033S
I
Cfl I � I
cr
1S I rH1aIH1�
Ix 1 l
w I
ul
Y
•13 Hlanod
a
L I I
1S HIJId�
n
r
i
'1S r••�-—-�) HIM S
Ill !
11 CFO
now
-f - _ ]i�J li ii �ill�l't1'il pit
*,��►--.� _ I I EI�Ntd�ii� t �f �iiit!!�fi�li�ItH1
ice_-___
II
ON
LEI
�i���,.
}�' JU�aEyil+�. � y !.� \1 \,i�•,`Ili ��,��' `��'�w ��`�11\• ,- .
i',
i
;r
T r===7L= rT -
u {L -
Ml.::1N CAL Roots \ATH HOIf56 i
A
6TAIRWA`( HOP LIH CLUD
700
SOUTH-- Ll
I
BUILDING
Q DI IAII
a
6teET1r'K RAMS LODO`( r-
4
HEALTH CLUB -
- � Lta..6a._ kEVISIUNt>
0HKU
DRAW N
DATF
SGT I O r-1
_r _e
2
vv••
�. ,y.I� �. . �; �•r, ,A���+~�e� ��.'�� _ ., .� ...�._mss- .
lip
�� � . ifs r1 •'
14
-AR
�..a..w.�r•i �'�
`
� �. I r••rs rrrs��t r
'I®; ua��,� d ���. � M'�a�� c w � d�twauM��n I�s�r•: ...�•-�.x: J�✓ � � ••cr i � ' --
1.,,d1u../iIi^t �,'ty�,tt�ar�il r�• � � °�� �rr•�..• ' � . �T .�. � ;�1f�� s-+r�.uz .� z.
■ �,, �"�...?vi - — '•a'' _ ''fit` ..�., .. �! ��,
t ,.,_�
J�
• y j;10,000,101 .�....r••ou l . . IMii3lii.,rrr.1 �. 41 .t► `�.
1�! .a_aut•i �h. ' ''Ve.1i� "t? p•iu a. �• ! t�,wt�utnrawsw•n�i� .F b _- -.-. it + '•. _ •%.� I .■' a. • a c •-,.«.�+♦ I
„I �Y !1 ♦1• • •y�,ti ,,.,.,ter!••• �” • y.4° o.•,�++
�,.d-u•w��.r.—i � I��'.����I' '� r �•�.r 't� r� ��.r..��a�r��'�•��� -
-�, � _•�W r:,a�rwur�r�•� \%r"»� .- �; • F `r'`
�;�a�if,�is-� •• N//��' .`` "'��•'�:r„n ��'ir•AI'cr�f•�,r�.i,.rrr
Ita��!a�rt�ilt nom: t. P�+. L.L(�r.
ubw
y 'a� II •_ ltyitp�
�1 I • r � /I liP%j''
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
— I
DRAWING NUMBER
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
925 East Durant Project
IV Provision of Low, Moderate and Middle Income Housing (maximum 40 points)
a. ) & b. ) Deed Restriction and Assionment of Points:
The commission assigns points to applicants who agree to deed restrict a portion
of the development for a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sales price
terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council .
The total project consists of both the 925 East Durant and 700 South Galena sites.
The two sites contain: a total of 41 units. All sixteen free market units and the
employee unit on the Galena site are one bedroom units. The twenty-four employee
units at the Durant site are all studios . Thus , on a bedroom basis , there are nine-
teen (19) employee bedrooms and only 16 free market bedrooms. This computes to
54% of the project being devoted to employee housing on a bedroom basis. For
purposes of the R. B.O. , twenty-five of the forty-one units are devoted to employee
housing, or 61% of the project.;.
All twenty-four of the Durant studios are 425 sq.ft. each. The one--bedroom employee
unit at the Galena site is 800 sq.ft. . The total amount of deed restricted floor
area totals 11,000 sq. ft. . The Galena site has two !nits at 1,400 sq.ft. , and
fourteen units at 1,350 sq.ft. , for a total free market floor area of 21 ,700 sq.ft. .
The calculation of 11,000 : 21 ,700 = 50.7% reveals that at least 50% of the
projects free market floor area is devoted to deed restricted floor area.
Therefore, the project meets all the requirements to be scored on the basis of
50% of the total development being devoted to low income housing guidelines and
occupancy limitations.
c. ) These deed restricted units fall within the size limitations as given
below:
Unit Minimum sq ft. Maximums .ft_
Studio 400 600
One Bedroom 500 800
d. ) The deed-restricted portions of the development wills onstructed with
the same exterior building materials and compatable exterior
architectural style.
e. ) As no employee units currently exist on either site, there shall be no
displacement of employees as a result of this development.
i
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
925 East Durant Project
V Unique Financing (maximum 10 points) :
The commission assigns points to applicants who agree to sell all or a
portion of the development to qualified individuals as established by
the City Council within housing income-eligibility guidelines.
The applicant agrees to provide 100 financing for, and upon the sale of
a minimum of 5 one bedroom deed restricted units. The mortgage offered
by the applicant will be freely assumable for a term of thirty (30) years
or more, at an interest rate equal to the current rate of the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation as determined on the date of preliminary plat
submission or final plat approval , with no closing t oints and no pre-payment
penalty.
i
F
i
Residential G.M. P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
GMP Evaluation Report and Summaja
The submission for this project maximizes use of public and social facilities
thereby minimizing any adverse envi•ronnental impacts and thus should
achieve maximum points in those specific categories .
As a result the following point evaluation is anticipated for this project:
Project Name: 700 South Galena Street Project
Location: Lot 16 and Parcel B,' Block 2, Anthony Acres
Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado
A. Public Facilities and Services : (maximum 12 points)
No foreseeable difficiencies exist in any of these areas, and some are
improved in the area due to the new development.
1. Water 1
2. Sewer 1
3. Storm Drainage 2
4. Fire Protection 2
5. Parking Design 1
6. Roads 1
Total : 8 Points
B. Quality of Design: (maximum 15 points)
1. Neighborhood compatibility 3
2. Site Design 3
3. Energy 3
4. Trails 2
5. Green Space 2
Total : 13 Points
Residential G.P .P. Submission,
700 South Galena Project
C. Proximity to Support Services : (maximum 6 points)
The project is ideally suitable in its location to public transportation
routes and is within easy walking distance to commercial facilities.
1. Public Transportation 3
2. Commercial Facilities 3
Total : 6 Points
D. Provi si orr of Employee-Housi n (maximum 40, points)
The project providi-s a net addition of 25 units, or 54% of the development
on a bedroom basis ' ;hat is deed restricted to the low income category under
Housing Price Guidelines.
The floor area of the deed restricted space in the development is 50% of
the floor area of the non-deed restricted portion of the project.
54% low income development: two points for each 5% of the total develop-
ment that is deed restricted to low income price guidelines = 20 points.
E. Unique Financing: (maximum 10 points)
The applicant shall rovide 100% financing under the provisions of
Section .2.4-11.4(b) (5�(cc) upon sale of a minimum of 5 one bedroom units
10 points.
F. Bonus Points: (maximum 7 points)
This project has riot only met the substantive criteria of Section
24-11.4(b) (1) , (2) and (3) , but has achieved an outstanding overall
design that merits recognition in the following area:
1. Improvement of storm drainage and fire
protection services for the area: 2 points
2. Outstanding design that achieves neigh-
- borhood compatability, premium quality
residential lifestyle: 2 points
3. hIajor portion of project (50%) devoted
to low income housing: 3 points
Total Bonus Points : 7 Points
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
Summary:
Project Points Maximum Points
1. Public facilities and services : 8 12
2. Quality of design: 13 15
3. Proximity to support services : 6 6
4. Provision of deed restricted housing: 20 40
5. Unique financing: 10 10
Total 57 83
6. Bonus points: 7 7
Total Points : 64 90
This development should achieve 47 points in Categories under Section
24-110(l) ,(2) , (3) and (4) . Minimum eligibility for a project is 60%
of the points available under those categories, or 43.8 points. It is
anticipated that the project small achieve a total of 64 points for all
categories, including financing provisions and bonus points .
100 South Galena Street
Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay District
Application is hereby made pursuant to the provision of Article 10,
Section 24, of the Aspen Municipal Code, City of Aspen, Colorado,
entitled Residential Bonus Overlay District. This Article was added
to the Code via Ordinance 15, Series of 1980 for the purpose as stated
in Section 24-10.1, ". . .to provide for present and future housing
needs of the community by authorizing the development bona fide law,
moderate and middle income housing free from specul,at:ive investment
influence and for primary residential use by local residents. " The
applicant submits ' a.t this project complies with all the requirements
contained in the ai: (. ve article and therefore it is appropriate that
the property be rezoned from L-2 to L-2/R.B.O. (Residential Bonus
Overlay) District. Compliance of all requirements contained in Article
10, Section 24, are as set forth below:
Section 24-10.3 Applicability
A. ) This is a "pure" residential project. All units on this site
are residential multi-family dwelling units.
B. ) The site is located in the L-2 zone. As per this section, the
Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) District may be applied in the L-2
zone district with sites that meet the minimum lot size of the district.
For multi-family use in the L- 2 zone, the minimum lot area is the same
as the RMF zone - 6,000 sq.ft. . The 500 South Galena Street site is
well above that minimum, having 21,600 sq.ft. .
Section 24-1.0.4 Permitted uses :-
A. ) The RBO district allows multi-family use within these zone districts,
provided that one-half or more of the dwelling units are deed restricted
within the terms of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) .
B. ) Section 24-11.4(b) (3) : The applicant agrees to deed restrict all or a
portion of the development for a period of fifty (50) years to rental
and sale price terms within housing price guidelines established by
City Council and to occupancy limitations within housing income
eligibility established by the City Council . Minimum size of a studio
is 400 sq.ft. and 500 sq.ft. for a one bedroom unit.
Residential Bonus Overlay
700 South Galena Street project
The 925 East Durant/700 South Galena project is a dual-site, single
development. The 925 East Durant site is the employee housing location
for the project. All studio units are 425 sq.ft. each. These units will
be deed restricted in accordance with the above section for a period of
fifty years.
Section 24-10.5 Area and bulk requirements_
A. ) As mentioned above, the minimum lot area in the L-2 zone with
multi-family use is 6,000 sq.ft. . The 700 South Galena Street site
has 21,600 sq.ft. .
B. ) As twenty-five of the forty-one units , or 61%, created by the R.B.O.
are deed restricted in terms of Section 24-11.4(b) (3) , the minimum
lot area per one bedroom dwelling unit is 625 sq.ft. .
17 - one bedroom units x 625 sq.ft. = 10,625, sq.ft. minimum area needed
for the Galena project. As the 700 South Galena Street site is 21 ,600
sq.ft. , the area is more than sufficient to fulfill this requirement.
C. ) The minimum lot width in the L-2 zone is 60 feet. The Galena site
has over 200 feet in width that birders on Galena Street.
D. ) The minimum front, side and rear lot requirements of 10, 5, and
10 feet, respectively, have been observed.
E. ) The maximum height requirement of 28 feet has been observed.
F. ) There are no accessory buildings on the site. There is no need to
reduce the required open space by special review. The Galena R.B.O.
site meets the required 25% open space.
G. ) Because more than one half of the dwelling units created via the
R.B.O. will be deed restricted in terms of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) ,
the maximum external floor area ratio shall be 1.25:1 (as stipulated
in Section 24-10.5(8)(5)) The calculation for external floor area
ratio is as follows:
Site area = 21,600 sq.ft.
R.B.O./F.A.R. = 21,600 sq.ft. x 1.2.5 = 27 ,000 sq.ft.
Total floor area of the project = 27,000 sq.ft. . The total floor
area of the project does not exceed the maximum external F.A.R. for the
L-2/R.B.O. zone.
Residential Bonus Overlay
700 South Galena Street Project
Section 24-10.7 Application for designation of an R.B.O. Site
A. ) An owner of a site or area in the City of Aspen may apply at
any time during the year for inclusion of such site or area
within a Housing Overlay District.
B. ) 1. The site plan, sections , and elevation plans, together
with other materials submitted in this application should be sufficient to
satisfy the requirement of materials described under Section 24-8.7(D)&(E)
of the Municipal Code.
2. A description of the total number of dwelling units categorized
by the type, square footage, and number of bedrooms Has been summarized
earlier in this application. The corst:ruction method will utilize custom
wood frame construction complimented by stone and glass . The projected
sales or monthly rental for the employee units at the 925 East Durant site
will be discussed in that section. The on-site employee unit at 700 South
Galen Street shall also be in the "low income" category as given earlier.
The remaining sixteen units at the Galena site shall be rented or sold at
current market: prices. These units shall make possible the employee units
at the Durant site by subsidizing the units from the profits received by
the Galena units. The applicants names and experience are discussed uner
the 925 Durant Street section of this application.
Section 24-10.91 Review Criteria
A. ) The first criteria requires that City Council find that the proposed
development is appropriate for the neighborhood considering architectural
design, bulk and density. Neighborhood means an area four blocks in
length. (2 blocks on either side of the site)
The neighborhood in which this project is located consists primarily of lodges ,
commercial facilities , single and multi-family units. Immedia;,ely surrounding
complexes are the Tippler Inn and Lodge, Continental Inn, Alpenblick Inn
and Durant Condominiuriis. See s- te context map.
The architectural features of the project include custom wood frame construction
with exterior materials including redwood or cedar siding facade, stone and glass.
The parking located on the Galena site reserved for the Continental Inn is
being relocated back to the Inn. Almost all parking is located underground ,
with a total of 27 spaces provided. All of these architectural aspects will
compliment the construction persently found in the neighborhood. Consequently,
the bulk, density, design and use of earth tones are eminently appropriate
for the neighborhood.
Residential Bonus Overlay
700 South Galena Street Project
B. } This application for a Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning achieves
the purposes and objectives as outlined in this section in the following
manner: '
1. This project complies ,,J th the Planned Unit Development Statement
of Purposes as set forth in Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen. The P.U.D. encourages +`lexability, innovation and variety of land
planning. Toward this end the concept for the 700 South Galena Street Project
is a direct result of the applicants flexability and innovation in site
planning. The site plan as presented has been amended and improved since
the original 1978 G.M.P. application. The original proposal called for the units
in an "L" shaped configuration to allow for surface parking for seven cars.
The design only allowed for ten underground parking spaces and the "L" shaped
configuration inhibited the views from several of the units . The original
design also reflected a maximum of 17 units, so that any R.B.O. rezoning would
necessitated an increase in the bulk; of the project. This is no longer true.
The new design allows for increased parkins for 26 spaces , all underground,
and one surface parking space. The ten parking spaces reserved for the Continental
Inn by the owners need not be transfered back to the Inn.
The previous "L" shape has given way to a single line of units , stepped to
meet the contours of the land. The sixteen residential units approved under
the G.M.P. quota are located in seven 3-story high columns , each accessible
via elevator and stairwell from the parking garage. The northern and southern-
most columns each contain two units, one story in height. The five middle
columns contain the reirna.ining thirteen units and the lobby. The lobby is at
street level , as is the employee unit.
There are no additional free market units created as a result of the R.B.O.
rezoning. Only the size of the units have been modified, to reflect increase
spaciousness and allow a superior design that is in conformance with todays
market demand. The overall residential population of the project is therefore
not substantially changed via the rezoning. This creative site plan thus
ensures minimal impact in the area while achieving a computable relationship
with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood.
As the site is located on Galena Street within one block south of Durant Street,
the location maximizes the use of public streets and main transportation systems
available. Utilities are immediately available, as are police and fire protection ,
water and sewer access. The project meets open space requirements without
necessitating special reviews to reduce open space requirements. The project
is located within one block of the CC zone and within two blocks from the Galena
Street mall . These topics are discussed in greater detail under the G.M.P.
section of this application.
Residential Bonus Overlay
700 South Galena Street Project
2. The Galena site is the companion project to the 925 East Durant
employee housing site, and makes the employee units possible' by subsidizing
those units from the income realized by the Galena units. As such, rezoning
this site will comply with the Housing Action Plan (H.A.P. ) as discussed
in the Durant section of the application.
3. All units have been designed and will be constructed to achieve
maximum construction quality and aesthetic appearance. Employee unit sizes
have been discussed earlier in this application.
4. The companion project of the 700 South Galena Street Project is the
925 East Durant Street site which provides the employee housing appropriate
for the project. As the Durant site is in an area that is exclusively free
market units, it aids in the geographic dispersion of deed-restricted employee
units.
5. As the development is in an area of similar types of' development and
close to the commercial core, ski lifts and transportation routes , there is a
minimization of adverse social and environmental impacts . T; site of the
R.B.O. utilizes land already approved for development via the 1978 G.M.P. allocation,
and received all previous approvals necessary for issuance of a building permit.
6. As discussed in section (a) above, the project is compatable with
surrounding zoning and land uses. Area and bulk requirements have been met.
7. The project location is within one block of Durant Street and the Rubey
Park Transit Center, the main transportation center for the City of Aspen. This
ideal location is also one block from the ski lift, commercial core and downtown
areas. The site location thus optimally discourages automobile use while providing
ample space for underground parking and storage of automobiles.
8. The adequacy and availability of utilities have been shown in previous
G.M.P. and subdivision applications. Those applications show that all utilities
are immediately available to the site and are more than adequate for the project.
This R.B.O. rezoning application is thus seen to be appropriate for the neighborhood
in terms of land use, architectural design, type of development, and location.
The neighborhood consists of various land uses and architectural styles which will
not be impacted from the R.B.O. rezoning. This R.B.O. application creates an additional
twelve employee studio snits without any increase in the number of free market units.
Increasing the spaciousness of tourist orientated luxury units to fit market demand
thereby adds 12 units to the low cost housing inventory of the community.
700 south Galena Project
Adjacent Property ov,,ner's
I. Alpenblick Condominium Association condominiums)
c/o Fasching Haus
747 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
2 Andes ran, George G.
506 Denver Building
1776 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
3. Blitz, Robart
716 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 810611
4. Cantirup, Fans B.
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
5. Colgate, Stirling A & Rosie' ll.
4616 Ridgeway
Alamos, New I-IcxicO 87544
6. Nettle Corporation
P.O. r-CIVI 8030
Aspen, Colorado 3161.2
7. The Tipple Lodrjc (12 Condominiums)
A Joint Venture
P.O. Box 147
Aspen, Colorado 81612
3. pop-,il, Ronald M.
1292 Monte Cielo Dr.
Beverly Hills, California 90210
j
0
C
mm
C�
Z C/) w
-� Cn
925 E. DURANT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
INTRODUCTION:
1. Project Name: 925 E. Durant
2. Project Location: Lots F, G, H, I, Block 119
City of Aspen
3. Street Address: 925 E. Durant Avenue
4 . Parcel Size: 12, 000 square feet
5. Current Zoning District: R.M.F. Zone
5A. Zone Under Which
Application is Submitted: R.M.F. with R.B.O. rczoning
6 . Maximum External FAR: 12 ,000 sq. ft. without R.B.O. rezoning
15,000 sq. ft. with R.B.O. rezoning
7. External F.A.R. Provided: 14 , 850 sq. ft. with R.B.O.
8 . Number and Type of 24 Low income (employee) studio units
Units Proposed:
9 . Size of Units: 24 units @ 425 = sq. ft.
10 . Price range of Units: All units to come under. Low Income
Rental/Sale Guidelines
11. Subdivision Review: Yes
12. 8040 Greenline Reviewi Yes
13. R.B.O. Districtt Yes
14 . View Plane: No - property is not within any
designated view plane
15. Special Procedures
Required: None
16 . Exemption from Allotment
procedures for employee
units requested: Yes
17. Stream Margin Review: No
18 . Historical Preservation
Review: N c
19 . P.U.D. : No
20 . Description of Surrounding
Land Uses and Zoning: Surrounding land uses are lodges,
condominiums, apartment units and
assorted single-family residential
units . Building complexes in the
immediate surrounds are-: The Alpina.
Haus Lodge; Silverglow Apts . Chateau
Snow Lodge; Old. Hundred Condominiums;
and The Vagabond Lodge .
The project site and immediate area
is all R.M.F. zone.
Distances to:
A. Elementary school: approx. 3/4 mile
B. Middle & High Schools : approx. 2 miles
C. Existing School Bus Routes: within 1-4 m-1.
D. Existing parks & playgrounds: within
1-2 mile
E. Hospitals: approx. 2 miles
F. Airport: located 5'1 miles away
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant
(1) Availability of rublic facilities and services (maximum 10 points) :
The commission shall consider each application with respect to its
impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula :
0-- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1-- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the
area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the
project only and not the area in general .
2-- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
a. ) Water (maximum 2 points) : considering the ability of the water system
to service the development, and if a public system, the ability of tine
system to provide the service without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer.
There is a G" C. I .P. on West End Street and also on Durant Avenue. All
improvements and connections necessary for this project have already been
installed. There is an excellent 90 P.S.I . water pressure in this area.
No extensions are necessary.
b. ) Sewer (maximum 2 points) : considering the capacity of the sewer system
to serve the development, without extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, without treatment plant or other facility
upgrading.
The 925 East Durant Street Project is easily served by the existing 8" line
in the alley behind the project. No treatment plant or other facility up-
grading is necessary to serve the development. This project has already
received approval for service by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
Board of Directors.
The project's wastewa'_k.,.r and sewage requirements are directly related to unit:
size and occupancy. applying the Colorado State Department of Health Standard
of 100 gal ./person/day to occupancy standards of 1.0 person per each studio
unit, the project is seen to generate 2400 gallons per day. The Advanced Waste-
Water Treatment Plant (A.W.P. ) has a capacity of 3.2 million gallons per day,
of which an average of 2.3 million gallons are used. Consequently it is seen
that the plan is running at only 72% capacity, and the project would generate
less than 1/10 of one percent to the plant capacity, and thus is well within
the capacity of the system.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant
Conversations with, and a project review by Heiko Kihn of the Aspen
Metropolitan Sanitation District indicate that the sewage wastewater
and sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to serve the project
without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and
without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
c. ) Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) : This evaluation is based upon the
capacity of the project's drainage facilities to adequately dispose of
surface runoff without system extensions beyond those normally installed
by the developer.
This pro-ject will have a drainage-control _system -to- collect and retain site
runoff on the site. A series of dry.,iells along with retention wells will
provide sufficient capacity to retain site runoff. The drywells and retention
areas will be designed and placed consistant with standard engineering
practices. The result of this system will be to effectively retain and disperse
underground, surface and roof water runoff.
The project t,J ll improve storm drainage in the city by commiting to install an
additional new catch basin, to be located at the discretion of the City Engineering
Departi ,L:nt.
d. ) Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) : This evaluation is based upon the
ability of the Aspen Fire Department to provide fire protection according
to established response standards without the necessity of establishing
a new fire station or requiring additon of major equipmen t to the existing
station.
The project site is located approximately 2100 L.F. (5 city blocks) from the
fire station and can expect a maximum response time of 5 minutes from alert
siren to equipment arrival at site fire location. The project site is served
by (2) hydrants with adequate static; pressure for fire protection. Two adjacent
roadways , Durant Avenue and alley way, provide immediate access for fire vehicles.
The project will improve fire protection in the district by co! miting to install
a new hydrant in a location to be determined by Willard Clapper, Chief, Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department. No other improvements for fire protection are
necessary for this project, as per conversations with Willard Clapper; there
is also no necessity for establishing a new fire station or addition of major
equipment.
e. ) Parking Design (maximum 2 points) : This evaluation is based upon the
provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces to meet
the requirement of the development and the design of those spaces with
respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
Residential G. M. P. Submission
925 East Durant - - - -
The project will provide 21 parking spaces in an underground garage and
3 surface spaces along the alley. Entrance to the garage will be from
Durant Avenue. This parking plan will minimize paved surfaces , while
maximizing both safety and convenience.
f. ) Roads (maximum 2 points) : The evaluation is based upon the capacity of
existing roads to service project generated traffic without substantially
altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street
system or increasing maintenance.
This site is located on Durant Avenue,_ a-main road linkage to the rest of the
city. Approval of this project will not substantially alter existing traffic
patterns or overload the existing street system or increase maintenance.
The close physical proximity to town encourages pedestrian access , as well
as having the Duran t'-_venue bus system immediately available to the residents.
The applicant will improve roads in the neighborhood by improving the alley
behind the project. This will reduce the parking congestion currently found
there and greatly improve the overall conditions.
Examination of the traffic impact of the project is primarily based on work
generated by the UMTA transportation study by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates , Inc.
traffic consultant for the UMTA study.
The table belola presents the trip type and trip frequencies per day per unit
for a project unit as estimated by that firm. The 6.5 trips per unit is less
than the 10.0 trips per unit for a typical residential unit, because the
project consists of one bedro011 units generating less people than a.rger
apartment or condominium units. Total trips are estimated between automobile
and non-automobile trips.
Estimated
Estimated Non-Auto;►obi1e Estimated Non-
Trip Tyloe One_llay Trip Tri p percent, 11 Automobile Trips
Skiing/Recreation* .75 60% .5
Work 2.00 75% 1.5
Shopping and 1.25 75% .9
Entertainment
Personal Business 1.00 50% .5
Other 1.50 25% .4
TOTAL 6.50 60% (Average) 3.8
*The 60% non-automobile average for recreation trips assumes approximately
75-80% of ski trips are non-automobile but only 50-55% of summer recreation
trips are non-automobile.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant
Due to the project's immediately convenient location to downtown Aspen,
ski lifts and Rubey Park buses, it is estimated a high percentage (60-75%)
of skiing, work, shopping and entertainment trips will be non-automobile
trips. '
As shown, potentially 60% of the total projected trips per unit will be non-
automobile trips. The estimated 2.7 automobile one-way trips per day are
equivalent to a resident's using his car on an average of approximately one
time per day. The walking and public transportation convenience of the
project's location plus the project's to°�:! resident population results in
very minimal traffic impact created by the project.
Principal daily usage will occur between 8--9 A.M. aril 5-6 P.M. for adjacent
roads. Alternate t sist means include the Durant Avenue -bus r-ou-te-which
connects to all major areas in the city and county, preirJurn 1coation to ski
lifts, and hiking trails at the base of Aspen Mountain.
r
qLD f 9 2ti8 ff ti I
- 20 g t
P, S Cif , -
E.
10 B6
ol
E OT L ice.! I
_.I�r ��
�M r p C9 I C)e 110;N 0,F)1� 1F)0
1000 E.
0 0 ',c)0. j W T ErRS AVE.
LG01
-,-TLF'UF` L
C k y{
3�_ff`.�`{�y s • ( ' W\/// �"1'4. � o� 9 1 0 •Y ! Ep�•�1 4f\��y
X A ut
/
Ll
Q) _.
.
ft9
t\l THE GANT
CONDCjdINIUMS
cy
NN1 S 900 E>
9 O O
f}bSfFCC V f PRO p£,¢ ry Bw.vEb eK
� � � v"Vr•,�2 �pTiON 6y P4117-!PS o F
z-
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points) : The commission shall consider
each application with respect to the its exterior and site design and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formul a:
0-- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1-- Indicates a major design flaw.
2-- Indicates an excellent design.
a. ) Architectural design (maxima 3 points) : considering the compatibility
of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building
materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
The neighborhood in which this project is located consists primarily of
o.hcr residential multi-family and tovdnhouse projects, as well as apartment
houses and lodges. There are also some assorted single-family residential
units scattered in the area. Building cor;:r?lexes in the immediate area are
the Alpina Haus and Roaring Fork Apartments to the east; The Old Hundred Condos
and Brass Bed Lodge across the street to the north; Chateau Roaring Fork to the
north-east; North-Star Lodge and Chateau Snow Lodge to they south; and Le Clairvaux
Condos and Aspen Townhouse East further to the west. The location is therefore
most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In accordance with the new height limitation imposed upon the RMF zone, the
project kill be only 25 feet high, less than many of the surrounding developments.
The size of the project in terms of units is similar to many of the lodges and
condo developments listed above. Since this project consists entirely of
studio units, the resident population of this project will be significantly less
than its neighbors. Amenities include the underground parking garage, fireplaces ,
and large open space areas.
The architectural features of the project will include custom a;ood construction
with exterior materials including pre-cast concrete panels , cedar siding facade,
stone and glass. All of these architectural aspects will compliment the construction
presently found in the neighborhood.
The size, height, location and building materials are therefore most computable
with the neighborhodd developments.
b. ) Site design (maximum 3 points) : considering the quality and character
of the proposed landscaping and open space areas , the extent of underground
of utilities , and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation
and increased safety and privacy.
The project consists of two buildings that are the mirror image of each other. There
is a central courtyard between the buildings. There i.s also a large open space
area that is sufficiently landscaped to create a large buffer from nearby developments .
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
The st .e plan and landscaping allow for a large degree of privacy for the
projects resident population.
The underground parking garage, accessible from Durant Avenue and only three
surface spaces on the alley provide for a most efficient circulation system
that maximizes safety for its residents. All utilities shall be palced
underground.
c. ) Energy Conservation (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
The project is designed to maximize thermal characteristics and minimize fossil
fuel demand. Several methods shall be employed to conserve energy.
The architectural design itself will promote energy savings by means of minimizing
exterior wall exposure via use of common walls , and by vertical space organization.
This means the project has a minimal ratio of exterior surfaces per square foot of
occupied space. The units are also oriented with highest use interior spaces to the
south, thus maximizing passive solar heating potential . The roof is flat, and
designed to allow the units to retain the additional insulation value of snowfall
layers.
The 925 East Durant Street Project v.ill employ insulation methods that will exceed_
the current thermal insulation requirements by 10110 or more.
Electric energy is currently designed as the projects primary interior space heating.
AS a substantial portion of the communities electric energy is hydrogenerated, this
will provide an additional reduction in fossil fuel demand.
Energy conservation is also realized through the use of efficient fireplaces. Heat
circulation fireplaces shall be employed, using exterior combustion air, double
damper controls, glazed fire opening, and heat return ducting. Automatic thermostats
will be used in the lodge rooms to control night time temperatures.
These architectural and construction techniques result in an excellent project design
that maximizes energy conservation.
d. ) Trails (maximum 3 points) : The evaluation is based upon the provision of
pedestrian and bicycle ways linking to existing parks and trail systems,
whenever feasible.
Within easy access of path systems, the project is : 650 ft. from the existing
Ute Avenue pedestrian/bicycle trail ; 450 ft. to Glory Hole Park; 1600 ft. to the
downtown pedestrian mall system. This location makes the project ideally suited
to meet the recreational needs of the residents. Linking to the city sidewalk
system, a sidewalk will be provided by the project deveopment along Durant Avenue.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
e. ) Green Space (maximum 3 points) : The evaluation is based upon the
vegetated, open space on the project site which is usable by the
residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments .
The development plan has used courtyards and landscaped areas to break up the
site and add to the privacy of the units. Hard surface open spaces are additionally
broken up by heavily treed and planted areas. Landscaped areas have also been used
to minimize the impact on surrounding buildings. The buildings have been set
further to the east to provide more distance betti,,een developments. The open space
areas of the project are most usable by its residents and offers relief from the
density of the building and surrounding developments.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
(3) Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points) : The commission
shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to
public transportation and community commercial locations and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
a. ) Public transportation (maximum 3 points) :
1-- Project is located further than six (6) blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route
2-- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route
3-- Project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route
The 925 East Durant Project is located within 900 L.F. , or 30 blocks from the
Durant Avenue city and county bus routes.
b. ) Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points) : The planning
office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities
in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from
these areas.
1-- Project is located further than six (6) blacks walking distance
from the commercial facilities in town
2-- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town
3-- Project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of
the commercial facilities in town
This project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial
facilities in town.
-'A
_0
C)7
J
I l LlL
SIXTH
FIFTH
FOURTH ST.
;K
THIRTH—J I ST
SECOND O ST
74
FIR T I ST
ic
>
74
01
ARMISC ST.
7-
-TI
iL
ASP MONARCH EN— ST—
ST-
-
rx
xz
x m: ......
i
CY)
I
'0
m
F/
Ln
MILL
00
ALEN A ST,
0 c
U ER —ST cn
F2
SPRING —ST
Z'
N ST.
AL —ST.
L
r.
L H
WEST END ST.
_0
9.Z5 DURPV-4T
)00
0
0
C�
z
MILL
00
ALEN A ST,
0 c
U ER —ST cn
F2
SPRING —ST
Z'
N ST.
AL —ST.
L
r.
L H
WEST END ST.
_0
9.Z5 DURPV-4T
Sidewalk
u
property line
�i 000 — -- - -7 - - --00010" u
Y
p
o
S�7
Open
CL _.-
o do
a I I t
Open Space �
A
I
n o t ?17 C)ZtiV r
Trash & Recycling 3 Larking Spaces
-" - pr p r y"line
ALLEY
SITE PLAN
1 5 10 20
20'•0"
0
i
o
1
Ti
Ll
M .
u
-- -" prop re y me "- - —
FLOOR PLAN
or
2
l
Q,
li
i
sM,.ag r�F ¢✓ � j
I
_ � � i IWL I __ 3 � •
CCQE�,rvV/,V TEES z
T-
�/G G�Rr•+6C ME�J /�Cc'�/-e ff/�CE' -
�.per' S'1./l N,ro[�s •I :J NWF
j bvCS q.� GRn�/PL. —_ L�MEUf —7WF� ry
4 - G/T:2 ,4PESNJr v. ecs G.F✓. R�'`1:t'
I p.c-G l(li V� _.-—� � a-�� G�J�✓L i�.,�c?c snaa..c.�® ro Pico
h
�ELEV3,15-�4 f--' l rre uHa= H
TO.FT - TOP G7° �Ci+v.7
BZ-O
3'-i° '�-3, 4' �
# } 4 4 BUILDING SECTION B-B
fCALE: 1/4' • 1'-0'
1 I
is
JA
�1 1111 I l l III f 11 I I 1 t i 1 1 I I I I I i I'I 114 I I II II I I I I11 I 11 I I I I I 11I' 1 ' I I
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
925 East Durant Project
IV Provision of Low, Moderate and Middle Income Housing (maximum 40 points)
a. ) & b. ) Deed Restriction and Assignment of Points:
The commission assigns points to applicants who agree to deed restrict a portion
of the development for a period of fifty (50) years to rental and sales price
terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council .
The total project consists of both the 925 East Durant and 700 South Galena sites .
The two sites contain a total of 41 units. All sixteen free market units and the
employee unit on the Galena site are one bedroom units. The twenty-four employee
units at the Durant site are all studios. Thus , on a bedroom basis , there are nine-
teen (19) employee bedrooms and only 16 free market bedrooms. This computes to
54% of the project being devoted to employee housing on a bedroom basis . For
purposes of the R.Q.O. , twenty-five of the forty-one units are devoted to employee
housing, or 61% of the project.
All twenty-four of the Durant studios are 425 sq.ft. each. The one-bedroom employee
unit at the Galena site is 800 sq.ft. . The total amount of deed restricted floor
area totals 11,000 sq.ft.. . The Galena site has two units at 1,400 sq.ft. , and
fourteen units at 1,350 sq.ft. , for a total free market floor area of 21 ,700 sq.ft. .
The calculation of 11,000 e 21,700 = 50.71 reveals that at least: 50% of the
projects free market floor area is devoted to deed restricted floor area.
Therefore, the project meets all the requirements to be scored on the basis of
50% of the total development being devoted to low income housing guidelines and
occupancy limitations.
c. ) These deed restricted units fall within the size limitations as given
below:
Unit Minimum sq.ft. Maximuni sq.ft.
Studio 400 600
One Bedroom 500 800
d. ) The deed-restricted portions of the development will] cnstructed with
the same exterior building materials and compatible exterior
architectural style.
e. ) As no employee units currently exist on either site, there shall be no
displacement of employees as a result of this development.
Residential G.M.P. Submission
700 South Galena Project
925 East Durant Project
V Unique Financin (maximum 10 points) :
The commission assigns points to applicants who agree to sell all or a
portion of the development to qualified individuals as established by
the City Council within housing income-eligibility guidelines.
The applicant agrees to provide 100% financing for, and upon the sale of
a minimum of 5 one bedroom deed restricted units. The mortgage offered
by the applicant will be freely assumable for a term of thirty (30) years
or more, at an interest rate equal to the current rate of the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation as determined on the date of preliminary plat
submission or final plat approval , with no closing 'points and no pre-payment
penalty.
Rsidential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
GMP Evaluation report and Summary
The submission for this project maximizes use of public and social
facilities thereby minimizing any adverse environmental impacts and
thus should achieve maximum points in chose specific categories.
As a result the follo:uing point evaluation is anticipated for this project:
Project Name: 925 East Durant
Location: Lots F,G,N,l Block 119 City of .Aspen
A. Public Facilities and Services : (maximum: 12 points)
No foreseeable difficiencies exist in any of these areas, and some are improved
in the area due to the new development.
1. Mater 1
2. Sewer 1
3. Storm Drainage 2
4. Fire Protection 2
5. Parking Design 1
6.Roads 2
Total : 9 Points
B. Quality of Design_ (maximum 15 points)
The project development provides an excellent design in terries of neighborhood
compatibility, residentail lifestyle and energy conservation.
1. Neighborhood compatibility 3
2. Site Design 3
3. Energy 3
4. Trails 2
5. Green Space 2
Total : 13 Points
Residential G.M.P. Submission
925 East Durant Project
C. Proximity to Support Services : (maximum: 6 points)
The project is close to public transportation routes and is within easy
walking distance to commercial facilities.
1. Public Transportation 2
2. Commercial Facilities 2
Total : 4 Points
D. Provision of Fmplafee HouS i ncr (maximum: 40 points)
The project provides a net addition of 25 units , or 54°0 of the development
on a bedroom basis that is deed restricted to the low income category under Housing
Price Guidelines.
The floor area of the deed retricted space in the development is 50% of the floor
area of the non-deed restricted portion of the proje:ct..
54% low income development: two points for each 5% of the total development that
is deed restricted to low income price guidelines = 20 points.
E. Unique Financing_ (maximum: 10 points)
The applicant shall provide 1.00% financing under the provisions of Section
24-11.4(b)(5) (cc) upon sale of a minimum of 5 one bedroom units = 10 points .
F. Bonus Points : (maximum: 7 points)
This project has not only met the substantive criteria. of Section 24-11.4
(b)(1) ,(2) and (3) , but has achieved an outstanding overall design that
merits recognition in the following area:
1. Improvement of storm drainage, roads,
and fire protection services for the area: - - - -3 points - - - -
2. Outstanding design that achieves neigh-
borhood compatability, premium quality
residential lifestyle: 1 points
3. Major portion of project devoted to low
income housing - additional employee units
created via R.B.O. : 3 points
Total Bonus Points : 7 Points
Residential G.P1:P: Submission
925 East Durant Project
Summary:
Project Points Maximum Points
1. Public facilities and services : 9 12
2. Quality of design: 13 15
3. Proximity to support services : 4 6
4. Provision of deed restricted housing: 20 40
5. Unique financing: - - -- -- - - - - - 10 - - - -10-
Total 56 83
6. Bonus points : 7 7
Total Points : 63 90
This development should achieve a minimum of 46 points in categories under Section
24-11.b(1) ,(2) ,(3) and (4) . Minimum eligibility for a project is 60% of the
points available under those categories , or 43.8 points. It is anticipated
that the project shall achieve a total of 63 points for all categories, including
financing provisions and bonus points.
925 East Durant Street
Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay District
Application is hereby made pursuant tothe provisions of Article 10,
Section 24, of the Aspen Municipal Code, City of Aspen, Colorado, entitled,
Residential Bonus Overly District. This Article was added to the Code via
Ordinacne 16, Series of 1980 for the purpose as stated in Section 24-10.1 ,
". . .to provide for present and future housing needs of the community by
authorizing the development of bona fide low, moderate and middle income
housing free: from speculative investment influence and for primary residential
use by local residents. " The applicant submits that this project complies
with all- the require - nts contained in the above article and therefore it is
appropriate that the; `;. roperty be rezoned from RMF to RMF/RBO (Residential Bonus
Overlay) District. Compliance of all requirements contained in Article 10,
Section 24, are as set forth below:
Section 24-10.3 Applicability
A. ) This is a "pure" residential project.. All units on this site are
residential multi-family dwelling units. There are no commercial
or office uses associated with this project.
B. ) This site is located in the RMF zone. As per this section , the
Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) District may be applied in the
RMF zone district with sites that meet the minimum lot size of the
district. In the RMF zone, the minimum lot size is 6,000 sq.ft. .
The 925 East Durant Street site is double that size requirement,
having 12,000 sq.ft. .
Section 2.4-10.4 Permitted Uses:
A. ) The R.B.C. district allows multi-family use within the RMF zone
districts, provided that one-half or more of the dwelling units
are deed restricted within the terms of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) .
B. ) Section 24-11.4(b) (3) : Applicant agrees to deed restrict all or
a portion of the development for a period of fifty (50)years to
rental and sale price terms within housing price guidelines established
by City Council and to occupancy limitations within housing income
eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Minimum
size of a studio is 400 sq.ft. and 500 sq.ft. for a one bedroom unit.
Residential Bonus Overlay
925 East Durant Street
The 925 East Durant/700 South Galena project is a dual-site, single
development. The 925 East Durant is the employee housing location for
the project. All the studio units are 425 sq.ft. each. All units rented
or sold will be deed restricted in accordance with the above section for
a period of fifty years.
Section 24-10.5 Area and Bulk Requirements :
A. ) As mentioned above, the minimum lot area in the RNF zone is 6,000 sq.ft.
and the 925 East Durant site is 12,000 sq.ft. .
B. ) As 25 of the 41 units (61%) created by the RBO will be deed restricted
in terms of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) , then the minimum lot area per studio
dwelling units five hundred (500) sq.ft. . the total of 12 studio
units times 500 oq.ft. minimum lot area/unit = 12,000 sq.ft. and therefore
complies with the area and bulk requirements of the zone.
C. ) The minimum lot width in the RMF zone is 60 feet. The subject site
consists of four city lots for a total 120.16 feet.
D. ) The minimum front, side and rear lot requirements of 10.5, and 10 feet
respectively, have been observed.
E. ) The project was initially planned and designed to meet the 28 foot height
previously provided under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Since
the requirement has recently been revised to 25 feet and as the height
variance was not granted, the project has been redesigned to meet the
new 25 foot height limitation.
F. ) There are no accessory buildings on the site. The new open space
requirements imposed by P & Z Resolution 81 - 18 are met, as the
project has 35% open space.
G. ) Because more than one half of the dwelling units will be deed restricted
in terms of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) , the maximum external floor area
ratio shall be 1.25:1 (as stipulated in Section 24-10.5(g)(5) . The
calculation is as follows :
Site area = 12,000 sq.ft.
R.B.Q./F.A.R. = 12,000 sq.ft. x 1.25 = 15,000 sq.ft. maximum F.A.R.
the total floor area of the project does not exceed the 15,000 sq.ft.
requirement.
Residential Bonus Overlay
925 East Durant Street
Section 24-10.7 Application-for—designation of an R.B.O. site:
A. ) An owner of a site or area in the City of Aspen may apply at
any time during the year for inclusion of such site or area within
a Housing Overlay District.
B. ) 1. The site plan, sections, elevations, together with other materials
submitted in this application should be sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of materials described under Section 24-8.7(D) and
(E) of the Municipal Code.
2. A description of the total number of dwelling units categorized
by type, square footage, and number of bedrooms has been summarized
earlier in this application. The construction method utilized will
be custom °. od frame construction. The rental and/or sales price
to employm for the 925 East Durant units will be as set forth
under the most current housing price guidelines in effect.
Section 24-10.9 Review Criteria:
A. ) The first criteria requires that City Council find that the proposed
development is appropriate for the neighborhood considering architectural
design, bulk and density. Neighborhood means an area four blocks in length.
(2 blocks on either side of the site). The neighborho W in which this
project is located consists primarily of other residential multi-family
and townhouse projects , as well as apartment houses and lodges . There are
also some assorted single-family residential omits scattered in the area.
Building complexes in the immediate area are the Alpina Haus and Roaring
Fork Apartments to the east; The Old Hundred Condos and Brass Bed lodge
across the street to the north; Chateau Roaring Fork to the north-east;
North-Star Lodge and Chateau Snow Lodge to the south; and Le Clairvaux
Condos and Aspen Townhouse East further to the west.
The architectural features of the project will include- custom wood
construction with exterior materials including pre-cast concrete panels,
cedar siding facade, stone and glass. All of these architectural aspects
will compliment the construction presently found in the neighborhood.
As a result, the bulk, density, design and earth tones are eminently
appropriate for the neighborhood.
Residential Bonus Overlay
925 East Durant Street
B. ) This application for a Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning achieves
the purposes and objectives as outlined in this section in the
following manner: `
1. This project complies with the Planned Unit development Statement
of Purposes as set forth in Section 24-8. 1 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen. The P.U.D. encourages flexability, innovation
and variety of land planning. Toward this end the concept for the
925 East Durant site is a direct result of the applicants flexability
and innovation in site planning.
The original 1978 G.M.P. application was made before any R.B.O.
ordinance existed. That site plan utilized the entire site for
only twelve (12) units - the maximum land use permissible at that
time. Upon implementation of the R.B.O. ordinance, the site plan
was amended to accompodate the most efficient land use under the
new R.B.O. zone. This amended site plan was then brought before
City Council for review at their regular meeting on March 10, 1980.
At that meeting, City Council approved the amended site plan in
order "to preserve the ability to build 12 additional units under
the housing over•1ay, . . ,the new_hui1din is on one corner of the
site allowing for another building which would accommodate 12 more
units. " 7C ty Council Minutes , March 10, 1980, P I 4, underline^
addedJ
The site plan, as amended and presented in this application, maximizes
land use to create additional low income employee housing. The
architectural design achieves a compatable relltionship with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project thus achieves beneficial land
use relationship for the community as a whole by providing employee
housing as well as for the neighborhood through architectural design.
As the site is located at 925 East Durant Street by hest End Street in
town, the location maximizes the use of public streets and main trans-
portation systems available. Utilities are immediately available,
as are police and fire protection, water and sewer access . These are
extremely important aspects of an employee housing project. The re-
zoning will also make more efficient use of the land as it will create
an increased amount of deed restricted low income employee housing.
2. Rezoning this site will comply with the Housing Action Plan (_April 1980)
as it will help meet employee housing production goals by creating some
24 low income studio employee housing units . The H.A.P. identifies a
1980 shortfall of over 200 units. This project will help alleviate
that shortfall and provide the community with a vitally needed asset
in terms of employee housing.
Residential Bonus Overlay
925 East Durant Street
3. All units have been designed and will be constructed to achieve
quality in both construction and aesthetics. Each unit will
have a fireplace and will be 425 sq.ft. .
4. The 925 East Durant site is the location of the employee housing
for the companion project of 700 South Galena Street. The Galena
Street project however, also contains one employee unit. As the
Durant site is in an area that is exclusively free market units , it
aids in the geographic dispersion of deed restricted units.
5. As the development; is in an area of similar types of developments
and close to the commercial core area, there is a minimization of
adverse social and environmental impacts. . •Any adverse impacts due
to density, architectural design or site planning have been negated
as evidenced by City Council approvals for the site plan amendment
in March 1980 as mentioned above and final approval of the first
twelve units in a design and site plan to allow the additional density
via this R.B.O. rezoning. The site for the R.B.O. utilizes land
previously approved for development. Social impacts are further
reduced by placing employees in town close to working and shopping areas.
6. As stated in section (a) above, because of the area in which the project
is located, the project is computable with surrounding zoning and
land uses.
7. The project location is within four blocks of State Highway 82, a
major transportation route, and is within 32 blocks of work and
shopping areas. The site location thus discourages automobile use and
provides for underground parking and storage of automobiles .
8. The adzquacy and availability of utilities has been shown in prior
G.M.P. subdivision applications . Those applications showed that
all utilities are immediately available to the site location and
are adequate for the project.
This R.B.O. Rezoning application is thus seen to be appropriate for the
neighborhood in terms of land use, architectural design, cluster development
and. location. The neighborhood consists of a menage of various land uses and
architectural styles which will not be impacted from the development of employee
housing units.
. 1
r
TABS 3. 4
t FrCduction Versus Need — S.
+ i
it t.a t
1480 Peed '
m'6
1979 Shortfn'1 250 s L
1979 Grp;"nth .x.87 14," X21 t
1980 G- rh +G
12/21!89 =Need 384 2`7 117
1979 Addbticn -7
?77 2 f 0 117
i;1 -1 L8 -a3
• 1980 Expected -� '
y
Shortfall 216 ? 4
1986 Need -
1780 Shortfall 2116
1981-86 Growt" 1%6 x, 57)
i981-86 i, '
c. 'vi�jl"?R uii17 ''d
Total 65i Its i 8
- ' G;'P 5v
•. 148's 8 5 Ci c u )
Countv 50)
Care ta14er 45;
1986
.f� A� g� 3 ,seee included.
*Push G IP aboVe w ?l off' po.er�i'21 `-3 .��a- s 1�•.0g rank.• e s a
Source: Harr�� {{ Trusco"tt{
r
I f
to 925 E. Durant P-jf'ct
i OjfI llmd'rw- G-KIM&U11,19
Ole, and cn- }m gadstrom 925-77279 16 units
P.O. 915c 4G15 after 6 P.m Or before
mlit 107 Building C 9 a.m.
2. Vxj&-Nd In39- 9 ap"rtzrmt units
AsFcciatC-S under single ownership
'A vagzvr--':�d Lxge
926 E. Jid"O,;Jt
AT'n," 616i1
8 rental units tOtal
3. ScVd 11. une,:-r one ownr.
Y.O. nox 33
Co'-O--Z�OD 81611
-
under single owne rship
Nathan 1,1nIM
4'710
Bat1g-,3a, Vur, .-d 20014
24 lc<lg-- rental units
S. Nbrth Star Patt"-rS single owner.0,iP
Djkj . Worth Stax Lzx3cP
914 WaLers Mk-nt-
color-e�:13 81611
24 con3aTdniull units
6.
r,.O. pox 9260
7. Adpiycl H-1115
C/,) ca
P.O. BOX 31112
Amer;, 0,A-C-raI3 81611
Southern Area Condo. (Aiers: 7 core3s,dniun mits
8. Chatp-u Rt-w
w'Iter O. Wells Fes: Sly-XI CM-30 CS 21.550 LAke St-0--t mdt 1101
Ms,
bUcjdCrn 49031
b) Alta Inw-f3tront C07,17ary careo Unit' #102
CVO 12a.Zei.gh D)ter-pri-s
8560 Sunset Blvd.
Ws Angeles, Califonua 9000
C) Tjrwas A. Spain Unit #201
Old Ord-,ard F-ad
&rnrx*, mew York 10504
d) Avil.la B. Pates Unit #202
15 E. 2300 Itivrarsicb Dri-
1,LIsa, (yKlaurj-.a 74114
e) a-iter. Ur-Ler Coq—y Inc.
Box 7095
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104 Unit #203
f 4 g) woligan Properties Unit #301
23890 W. Eight Mile R3ad thit. #302
Southfield, Mic:tLicjm 48034
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rob Weien, Building Department
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office /A-t)
RE: Galena Place
DATE: October 3 , 1988
The Planning and Zoning Office has completed its review of the
plans submitted with respect to the Galena Place project. At
this time, I am able to issue a certificate of zoning compliance
for the purposes of issuing a foundation permit only to this
project.
Our review of this project has been comprehensive and has fully
addressed all issues with respect to zoning compliance. We have
identified one substantive issue which prevents us from approving
issuance of any permits beyond the foundation permit. Once this
issue is resolved, we will be able to sign off on the remaining
aspects of the building permit.
Conditions upon which this certificate are based include:
1. The First Amended PUD/Subdivision Plat and Agreement must be
signed and recorded.
2 . The applicant must meet with Bill Drueding, Zoning
Enforcement Officer, to determine the manner in which the
front yard must be re-designed in order to comply with
setback requirements. The re-design shall be shown on the
building plans prior to issuance of any permits for
construction beyond the foundation permit.
3 . Jay Hammond, City Engineer, requests that specific plans and
specifications for sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting and
landscaping be submitted for his approval prior to permit
issuance for any construction in the public right-of-way.
4 . The applicant has paid a park dedication fee of $9, 770. 17.
The applicant must provide us with additional material so we
can verify that this amount is correct.
Please do not issue a permit until you have verified with me that
item 1 is complete. Please make sure that items 2, 3 and 4 are
conditions of the permit. Please call me if you have any
questions.
galenafoundcomply
Standby Irrevocable
Letter of Credit
No. 01653628-1
Dater October 3, 1988
TO: City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
We hereby open our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor for the account
of Savanah Limited Partnership , in the amount
of Ninety Thousand and NO/100-------------------------------------------- U.S.
Dollars U.S.$ 90,000.00 available by drafts at sight and subject to
the following terms and conditions:
1. Drafts. All drafts must be drawn on Aspen Savings & Loan Association,
must be negotiated or presented to Aspen Savings & Loan Association at the
street address below on or before December 31, 1988 , and must bear the
reference: "DRAWN ON ASPEN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION LETTER OF CREDIT NO.
01653628-1 , DATED October 3, 1988 ."
2. Notation. This is a notation letter of credit. Each draft must be
accompanied by this Letter of Credit for endorsement by Aspen Savings & Loan
Association of the amount and date of each draft and the balance remaining.
This Letter of Credit must be surrendered to Aspen Savings & Loan Association
when exhausted. This Letter of Credit shall expire at 5:00 p.m.
Mountain standard time on December 31, 1988.
3. Documents. All drafts must be accompanied by the following documents:
Written advice in the form hereto annexed as Exhibit A, subscribed by the City
Manager of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that there exists a default under the
terms of either Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2, or both, of Section D of the First
Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement, Aspen
Mountain Subdivision, recorded in Book 574 at Page 792 , et seq. of the Pitkin
County, Colorado real property records specifically for the Galena Plnnp
component.
4. Other Terms and Conditions. This Letter of Credit shall not be
transferable and is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary
Credits (1983 Revision) of International Chamber of Commerce Publication No.
400. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full the terms of our undertaking and
such undertaking shall not in any way be modified, amended or amplified by
reference to any document, instrument or agreement referred to herein or in
which this Letter of Credit is referred or to which this Letter of Credit
relates and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by
reference any document, instrument or agreement.
5. Obligation of Issuer. Aspen Savings & Loan Association agrees with the
drawers, endorsers and good faith holders of drafts drawn under and in
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Letter of Credit that Aspen
Savings & Loan Association will duly honor such drafts upon presentation to this
office.
ASPEN SAVINGS & OAN ASSOCIATION
By
5;V- �, —
abeth A. Will ams, Vice President
Date Paid By Amount of Draft Balance Remaining
EAW/LD/10-3/kt
4
M ^
EXHIBIT A
October 3, 1988
Aspen- Savings- &-Loan Association - - - - - - - -
225 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Your Standby Letter of Credit No. 01653628-1
Gentlemen:
We herewith draw upon the above-referenced Letter of Credit and, pursuant
thereto, advise you that there exists a default under the terms of either
Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2, or both, of Section B of the First Amended and
Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement, Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, recorded in Book 574 at Pages 792 , et seq. of the Pitkin
County, Colorado real property records, which default entitles the City of Aspen
to draw upon the Letter of Credit.
Sincerely,
Robert Anderson
City Manager of the
City of Aspen, Colorado
RA/ND/10-3/kt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Galena Place Building Permit Deadline
DATE: September 20, 1988
A minor but significant matter of confusion has arisen with
respect to the Galena Place project within the Aspen Mountain
PUD. In essence, the problem is as follows:
1. The Galena Place project was required to submit plans
sufficient for the issuance of a building permit by March
31, 1988. This deadline was met by a filing on 3/18/88 .
2 . Section 24-11.7 (a) (2) of the prior Code required that the
applicant obtain a building permit for the project within
120 days while the Building Code gives the applicant 180
days to obtain the permit. The applicant was processing the
PUD Agreement and Plat for Galena Place, Summit Place and
Hotel Phase I throughout this period. Therefore, the
applicant requested an extension from the Chief Building
Official prior to the end of the 180 day period, but did not
recognize that the 120 day period, which can only be
extended by City Council, had already lapsed.
The staff believes that the inconsistency between the 120 and 180
day deadlines is an example of the kind of problems which
required the Code to be rewritten. We see no public purpose in
penalizing the applicant for a problem in the prior Code. We
recommend that Council direct staff to make minor amendments to
the language in the Aspen Mountain PUD Agreement, which was just
recently approved, to specify that a building permit for Galena
Place will be obtained by October 3, the same date by which Hotel
Phase I must obtain a foundation permit.
galenaconsent
September 16, 1988
IAIAI )
Mr. Alan Richman
Director, Aspen Planning Office
1lulding'' City of Aspen
Inc 130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Richman:
Our letter is to request, on behalf of Hadid Aspen
Holdings, a clarification regarding the date by which a
building permit must be obtained for the Galena Place
project.
1. Under Resolution #11-88, March 31, 1988 was es-
tablished as the date by which drawings sufficient
for the issuance of a building permit for Galena
Place were required to be filed. This deadline
was met by the Applicant with a filing on March
18 , 1988 .
2 . Following that action, on May 25, 1988, City
Council eliminated a confusing provision of the
Municipal Code (Section 24-11.7(a) (2) ) which
required that a building permit be obtained within
120 days of the permit filing date; this provision
was in conflict with City Building Department
policy requiring that a permit be obtained within
six months of the date of filing for permit,
communicated to us verbally on many previous
occasions by that department.
By eliminating the 120-day provision in the GMQS
regulations, we have assumed that the City ack-
nowledged its acceptance of that deadline for all
projects seeking a building permit.
3 . Under the recently approved First Amended and
Restated Planned United Development/Subdivision
Agreement, Aspen Mountain Subdivision (page 7) it
is clearly stated that construction on the Galena
Place component shall commence on or after Septem-
ber 15, 1988 .
('0j Past Cooper 4treet Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (3031 925-4272 FAX' 3031 925-4387
By virtue of its action on September 12, 1988
in approving this Agreement, Council appeared
to acknowledge that the deadline by which a
permit must be obtained for Galena Place was
governed by the Building Department's policy
of six months from the filing date of March
18, 1988.
4 . On September 13 , we requested an extension in what
we believed to be the deadline for obtaining
a permit (September 18, 1988 ) in order to
allow sufficient time to record the First
Amended PUD/Subdivision Agreement, (approved
by City Council on September 12) as well as
the First Amended Plat (presently under revi-
ew by City staff) . As you know, these docu-
ments cover amendments to Galena Place as
well as to the Ritz-Carlton project.
Our understanding has been that one extension
of at least 120 days, upon a showing of good
cause, is within the sole descretion of the
Chief Building Official, and in the past has
been granted as a matter of course without
exception so long as the request was
submitted in a timely manner.
Please advise if you need any further information on
this matter. Obviously we would like to clear up the
confusion as quickly s possible.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planner
RE: Galena Place and Summit Place/ Aspen Mtn. PUD
DATE: September 19, 1988
These are the areas of concern and areas which need clarification
prior to Final Approval.
GALENA PLACE:
1.The rear and side yard setbacks in the LTR zone district are
10 ' and 511 respectively. The Plat submittal shows two areas
where these setbacks are not met. On the north side yard the
setback from a light well is only 2 ' from the property line. On
the East(rear) yard there is only a 7 ' setback to the property
line from the 3rd flood balconies. The definition of yard allows
balcony projections to some extent. I checked with Bill Dreuding
on both these setback questions. Both are allowed to occur
without the need for a variance.
2 . Should the Plat show the access driveway? page 5
3 . Page U-1 - Jay Hammond should check; specifically look at the
proposed detention.
4 . It should be noted that the approved height is from the
finished grade of Galena.
5. Landscaping: On the South property Line the transformer area
is inconsistent with the detention structure shown on U-1. ; The
variety of landscaping materials is different; The major concern
is that several Blue Spruce trees are missing( I 've noted this on
page L2) .
SUMMIT PLACE:
1. The Plat should include variation language for the setbacks.
2 . The mylars should be 24 11x 36" sheets
3 . The drawings do not adequately address setbacks, the entire
property boundary is not shown for lot 2 .
4 . There is a grade change between the public R.O.W. and the
structure(within the setbacks) . This area includes steps and a
patio for each unit. Bill Dreuding must be consulted regarding
the patios below grade. Is this allowable.
5. The elevations for the building must show where existing grade
is relative to the height of the building.
6. The Landscaping plan is fine.
ch.gplace
( Final Draft: 4/25/88
` arranged, or intended, or for which it either is or may be
occupied or maintained.
UTILITY/TRASH SERVICE AREA means any area used for the placement
of garbage or trash containers or mechanical equipment accessory
to the principal structure or use; provided:
A. All utility/trash service areas shall be fenced so as
not to be visible from the street, and such fences
shall be a minimum six (61 ) feet high from grade. All
fences shall be of sound construction and shall have
not more than ten percent (100) open area.
B. Whenever this chapter shall require that a utility/-
trash service area be provided abutting an alley,
buildings may extend to the rear property line if
otherwise allowed by this chapter provided that an open
area be provided which shall be accessible to the
alley, and which meets the dimensional requirements of
Art. 5, Div. 2 .
C. A minimum of fifteen (15) linear feet of the utili-
ty/trash service area shall be reserved for box
storage, utility transformers or equipment, or building
access, and a minimum of five (5) linear feet of the
utility/trash service area shall be reserved for trash
facilities, unless the dimensions of the area are
reduced pursuant to Sec. 7-404 (C) .
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT means the right to undertake and complete
the development and use of property under the terms and condi-
tions of a site specific development plan.
YARD means an open space which is not wholly or partially
enclosed by buildings, not in an alley or street, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground skyward, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, provided it meets the following
requirements:
A. Projections into required yards. Yards shall be un-
obstructed from the ground to the sky except for the
following allowed projections:
1. Building eaves - eighteen (1811) inches;
2 . Architectural projections - twelve (1211) inches;
3 . Individual balconies not utilized as a passageway
(provided they do not project more than one-third
(1/3) the distance from the exterior wall to the
t4 . property line) - four (4 ' ) feet;
Fire escapes required by the Uniform Building Code-
( four (41 ) feet;
5. Uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps,
which do not exceed thirty inches (30") above
3-23
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 1988
TO: PAUL
FR: FRED
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN P.U.D.
With respect to your questions on the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. ,
I have worked with Cindy Huben only on the residential projects
(700 Galena Street and Summit Street) . Alan R. is working on the
hotel portion of the P.U.D. and expects to recommend significant
changes.
She asked the attorney' s office to review the amendments to
the P.U.D. submitted by the applicant pursuant to the Municipal
Code and the terms of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. You referred that
request to me.
The amendments to the residential projects include minor
technical minor changes and significant architectural changes. In
light of the fact that City Council approved the request for
amendment as submitted, I told Cindy that there was little advise
that this office could provide.
Cindy indicated that you wanted the residential amendment to
the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. filed with the Clerk and Recorder
Office during the interim. Alan anticipates significate changes
to the hotel portion of the P.U.D. and plans to also record the
changes with the recorder' s office.
Enclosed are copies of the amended P.U. D. residential
portion of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. as accepted by council, but
subject to your approval. Cindy has prepared a cover sheet to be
recorded with the amendments and various landscaping map.
If you approve the amendments and the cover letter, I 'll
send them to the clerk's office for recording.
KA f
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987
Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, David White, Roger
Hunt , and Michael Herron. Jim Colombo and Jasmine Tygre were
excused. Mari Peyton and Ramona Markalunas arrived shortly after
roll call.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none .
PUBLIC HEARING
GMP AMENDED SCORING
700 SOUTH GALENA
CWelton opened the public hearing.
Cindy Houben of the Planning Department: The 700 South Galena
Project is requesting an amendment to their growth 'management
scoring based on some changes that they have made in their
project. I have rescored their project based on the changes and
propose that the Planning Commission accept the scoring that is
proposed by the Planning Office. The difference in the scoring
really relates to volume features of the project .
Roger : In my review the only significant change I see is in the
architecture and site design. The technical aspect of it really
does not change.
Larry Yaw: This is a simplified site plan showing the 4 units
which are in duplex town house configuration . This is Galena
Street along here. This line is the present configuration. The
site is a little over 18 ,000 sq ft and each unit is 3 ,000 sq ft
for a total FAR of 12 ,000 sq ft which is about 6 ,000 sq ft below
the allowed FAR.
The site plan is made to maximize the public benefit and the
private benefit of the open space. This open space along Galena
Street being that which lends itself to the streetscape on the
public side and the area in here combined by the units and the
site which has a steep embankment in here is for the use of the
ownership. The site slopes about 17 ft up from this point to
this point. This drawing shows a landscape configuration and the
PZM12.22 .87
entry to the individual units . The site is entered from a
pedestrian standpoint through a little gateway here as it were.
The site along here is retained with landscaping and retaining
walls and this is the private part of the site which is a large
grass area with retainage and planting in here. It is directly
related and intended for use the people here.
This site has been stabilized with a retaining wall . The
underground garage which has 16 parking : spaces which is 4 in
excess of the 12 required. We have 12 bedrooms now which has
been reduced by 4. We enter the parking at this point. The site
is generously landscaped using Ash at this point and low shrubb-
ery in this area and then a lot of Colorado Spruce and Aspen in
the back area.
This drawing shows the parking garage configuration--again
entering at this point into the garage. There are 16 spaces .
The little red line here shows the footprint of the buildings
above. The pink are elevators and each unit is served individ-
ually by the elevator from the garage . That helps in an energy
sense as well because it keeps the traffic from going in and out
from the front entry.
Floor plans are lower level , mid level and upper level . Lower
level has the open space floor entry.
Roger : Where you show what looks like tile cross hatch there,
that is open to the outside? "
Larry: No, it is not. It is covered. But open to the outside
from here and from the entry along the front.
Roger : It is covered by the building.
Larry: Yes.
Roger : In other words it is open to the outside .
Larry : Right . There is one bedroom at this level and the
elevator . On the mid level there are two master bedrooms and the
upper level so it can reach the view which is generally this way
toward Shadow Mountain. A living room, dining and kitchen again
served by the elevator from the parking garage.
The buildings are 2 and 1/2 levels above the street grade . The
red line shows the 28 foot height limit and we are below that.
Again the upper level living spaces are here to capture the view
and generally remove themselves from the streetscape'. We have
employed a curved roof form to get a little more volume to that
2
PZM12 .22 .87
and as well because the curved roof form like a gable form
disappears from view more quickly than doesta gable roof line.
The materials used in this building are a copper roof form. That
will be tainted so that it reaches its oxidized non glare state.
The form and the pitch of the roof are important because of some
of the buildings above it so we think the roofscape and what they
see is an important element of design. The basic materials of
the building are brick and sandstone. The brick is a bevelled
brick which has -had -curved edges- and- materials are not unlike
Boogie ' s.
The building is articulated with glass along the top where the
view is and a kind of division of glass here at mid point of the
building then a copper roof which is curved. __________affair
which really is a snow catcher So it keeps from coming onto° any
pedestrian area. The site has been designed to avoid that as
well. The parking area which goes down under the building will
be landscaped.
Parry Harvey: This area is employed as an internal entry space
and a private space so that in our opinion the use of the site
did not give as much open space to the public domain as the new
C simplified site plan. Another reason we changed is in order to
keep under the height limits here, we had to combat spaces from
unit to unit which we thought eventually could be problem-
atic . The entry to the parking are similar . Those are the
essential differences . The other difference is that these
buildings come closer to the edge of the setback than the new
ones .
This drawing of the new parking garage uses the site in such a
way that it provides a better transition from the density of the
PUD which is on the Continental side to the looser older fabric
of the individual houses on the hillside.
Roger : I have one statement about the site design that concerns
me a little bit. That is your treatment of the ramps .:ompared to
the old one . What sort of method are you going to have for
keeping the ramp clear of the snow and ice ?
Parry: It will be heated .
Roger: Given the characteristic of the street and where people
want to go out of this project, it really doesn' t make much sense
to make a 90% entry to the street. The entry people are going to
go up Galena Street from this project.
Parry: We wanted to have a pausing--enough plat area in here to
come up and pause and look both ways before entering traffic.
3
PZM12 .22 .87
Roger : But I see an awful lot of sharp curves there which to me
is just not a very practical way of doing this thing.
Parry: Show me what you are thinking about in terms of how it
should be .
Roger : You will notice in the other one it just sort of came
straight out. I understand that you are probable closer down to
this end of the project and this building - lower that that -is-
probably not practical.
Parry : The transformer is there and the Tippler ' s driveway is
there. We didn' t want to get into that.
Roger : My thinking is if you •could cut that corner to make a
little longer radius corner all around here, it would seem to me
a lot more practical way of doing it.
That is really my only comment about the site design is that that
does not seem very practical with all those corners .
Larry: It is made wider so that a car can actually make a curve
in there rather than have to take the angles. But it could also
be curved. We thought it was adequate and a fair amount of
expense comes from big curved retaining walls.
Roger : I think first of all minimizing that 90% turn on the
inside so that cars coming in don' t have to make this crazy bunch
of S turns trying to get in there.
Parry: Acknowledging that most traffic is headed
Roger : Traffic is probably going to come downhill and come from
downhill.
Larry: That is a good comment.
Cindy : Jay Hammond was concerned about the grade . But he
thought it was adequate .
Welton: We can either rescore this or have a motion to accept
the Planning Office ' s scoring.
MOTION
Roger : I would move that we accept the Planning Office ' s score.
David seconded the motion.
4
r a
PZM12 .22 .87
Mari : When we first did this scoring for this part of the
project , we were considering this as well as the other 4 units as
part of the lodge. What are we doing now? Just this ?
Alan: Yes. You are just being asked to look at this portion.
It is not clear whether the residential units in the lodge will
in fact continue as part of the project at all. They may be
abandoned.
Welton then asked for public comment.
There was none and Welton closed the public hearing on this
section of the GMP amended scoring.
All voted in favor of the motion.
700 SOUTH GALENA
Cindy: I spoke to Patsy Newberry, the planning official about
the correct address for this project and it looks like it is out
of sequence on the address maps for that area of town. I would
like to propose that one of the conditions of approval is that we
get that clarified.
The request for amendment on the 700 South Galena project is
pretty simple in regard to the actual changes in the buildings .
The number of bedrooms has been reduced. When the project was
approved in 1985 it was approved with 2 _ __ _ with' 4 bedrooms
in each unit . The applicants are requesting a change to 2
bedrooms in each unit. And also that the parking facility be
relative to these bedrooms so the total amount of parking spaces
be reduced.
The other change that I mentioned briefly before is that they are
requesting that we calculate the height of the structure from the
street grade om whatever the finished grade of Galena is. I
have no problem with that. When you look back at the ' 974 maps
for that area Galena was 15 inches higher than it is nog•,*. We are
recommending that the height should be calculated from the street
grade as it is finished on Galena.
The main changes that we see there is the architectural design
and site plan for the structures.
MOTION
Roger : I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendments for
the South Galena Project with the conditions 1 and 2 being the
same as in the Planning Office memo dated December 22 , 1987
(attached in records) with the addition that the street address
5
PZM12.22 .87
be resolved by what the Building Department or whomever is in
authority to do that. And #2 that the treatment of the driveway
is improved to reduce some of the radii entering the project and
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. And I further move to
forward the scoring to the City Council with the recommendation
to approve it .
David seconded the motion with all in favor .
SUMMIT PLACE PUD
Cindy: The Summit Place Project that is proposed is a much
better project than what is already approved. However I think
that there is a confusion as far as the past record with regard
to what was approved on the site with regard to setbacks.
John Sarpa, Senior Vice President for Hadid: This is our first
time before you all. We will have a couple of more opportun-
ities. I wanted to have the opportunity to be a part of this
first interaction and its pertinence to the site we are about to
take. From the overall picture we wanted to do 2 things. The
properties have sat for so long with talk, talk, talk. So as you
may know the first thing we took on was the old Continental Inn
to make it look a little bit better. We opened that a few days
ago. These two sites are the same. We went in a looked at them
to see what could be done and as you are about to see our
conclusion on this site was that it was in shambles . The
construction was so poor and the design was so poor that it
really made more sense to start over . That was clearly not our
easiest option in terms of putting something out and on the
market. That was our motivation because the 2 units were pretty
well done. And it would have made this process a lot easier if
we were just renovating something. But they are bad news. There
is just no way of getting around that. I don' t know if you have
ever been in them but it reminds me of the place where they have
crazy walls and mirrors . It is just nuts.
The conclusion we came up with was really to start o- er. And I
think Charles Cunniffe has done a really good job of coming up
with something.
Charles Cunniffe: What we did was we tried to use the foundation
that was there. What was there was done not according to code or
not according to construction technology so we ended up with the
conclusion that we should abandon that and start from scratch and
make it a better project as we could have if we had done it
ourselves .
We ended up with 3 units on this site instead of the 4 that
Cantrup had intended to build. We are trying to do 3 2-bedroom
6
PZM12.22 .87
townhouses that are within the basic height and confines of the
buildings that were there. But we have tried to keep it from
protruding as far into the setbacks as it did. The problem is we
still have a very limited site. I think one of the things that
has happened historically with this building is that when the
plans were presented by the previous owner they granted them the
use of Summit Street as an access which then the interior
wherever conventional turnings were regular streets. This was
once a driveway to this property. So we have then we acquired
ourselves intentionally a setback from the front yard that has
caused us some restrictive limitations on what the building is
allowed.
What we have chosen to do is to build 3 new units here, working
as much as we can within the limitations that we find on the
site. We have a 3 story building with a basement level that has
parking and mud room entry from the bottom. Then it goes on up
to the 2 bedroom floors and living floor on top. These are 2-
bedroom units and there is stack parking, laundry and elevator
that goes up with a mudroom entry for this level . That is
essentially the basement level. The first level has an entry and
a bedroom with a master service bathroom and dressing area. This
same plan is essentially on the second floor as well with the
entry level being a spa area for this entire unit. The 3rd level
is the living level and we have basically an open kitchen,
dining , living arrangement with the area being oriented to the
view of Aspen Mountain.
The building site is so close to the base of the mountain that we
have attempted an elevation in this section of the building to
try to open up the view through here so that you are- looking up
through the core of the roof at the view. The view is definitely
way up from where you are sitting.
We have tried to stay lower than what is there within the legal
height limit and back from the setbacks that are there. We have
lowered the driveway easement a little bit in order tc- -sake for a
better project .
Joe Wells: It appears that the Summit Street easement is perhaps
the most controversial aspect of this. There is some confusion
about it. John Roberts acquired the property. This is pretty
much a condition of the site. This is a drawing done on a 174
topo. The Summit Street site is here. There was some confusion
about whether Hans had actually finalized the easement agreement
through the property here. We find no record that that was ever
finalized. It was discussed but before it was finalized ,
Cantrup' s empire came crashing down and this project was a part
of that. He was doing 2 units on the site exempt from GMP. He
was hoping to do the second 2 units through a replacement notion
7
PZM12.22 .87
but he didn ' t have the contiguity required for the units . He
wanted to demolish and rebuild on the site. So this project was
instrumental in the collapse of that house of cards .
In our original scheme for the 2 projects, Summit Place and Top
of Nell--Summit Place was simply going to be finished with 3 of
the 4 units. We were going to have a ski easement down through
which would be established in our approvals. Top of Nell was to
be accessed a lower parking structure at Top of Nell was to be
accessed via this general alignment. But there was no antici-
pation in our first scheme to have a road going through there.
The City Engineer really was adamant that that easement be
established through our platting effort. Subsequently this is
the form that the platt took. Lot 2 , the Summit Place lot was
established here. The ski trail easement was established here.
Then the easement that Jay wanted was here. We thought it was
pretty clear to everyone that the relationship between that
easement that the City was requiring was in very close proximity
to Summit Place Project .
The one point that Cindy has raised that I think is if concern to
her is the fact that we failed to note a setback variation on the
platt is accurate. In other words Alan asked us to list all the
variations required under the PUD directly on the platt . We
obviously failed to pick up the fact that Summit Place which
received very little attention through the approval process did
require setback variations all the way around the building except
on the East side of the project. That was certainly our over-
site . Our point is however that this proposal lessens the non-
conformity from the easement line. We chose to establish the lot
lines as we did assuming that that PUD variation was acceptable.
It was never discussed in any detail. Obviously we would not
have configured lot 2 in the way ultimately chose to configure it
if we had not thought the City knew that that setback variations
were required as PUD permit. So our position is that since wL!s
are lessening that nonconformity we think that ,ould be a
favorable approach.
Cindy: Just to enter into the record whether or not there were
any actual setbacks granted on lot 2 for the structure was
granted as it was in fact was granted as far as Joe could tell
actually there was never a written document for the unit and it
only has it on the platt. The Planning Office position is that
maybe when this project was approved the idea was that the
existing structure was going to be built as a triplex and the
setback----------now the entire foundation is going to be taken
out and a new project being built . We are looking at a totally
new project and I think really the burden of proof is more with
8
PZM12.22 .87
the applicant show us _that they can' t meet the setbacks more to
the reasoning why they should have variances from the setback.
Alan : In the code the thing that puts a variation into effect--
the thing that makes a variation a legal fact is the going on the
platt. We can ' t assume that the new that they were variations
apart. They have to state that the variation was being granted
when it comes to floor area. That is what we do on all platts.
When we grant a variation, they must be noted on the Platt so
that there is some notice and some legality: to it.
Welton: This is an odd sized configured lot. And the area of
greatest difficulty is the area where the easement for Summit
Place was granted. The 2 feet between an 8 foot setback and a 10
foot setback doesn 't make that much difference in my mind. And
it can be noted on the amended platt just as it was forgotten on
this platt.
Roger : Also what is called Summit Street I think the reason for
getting that easement was as a transportation easement and not
necessarily a street easement. Now a previous applicant, the
Roberts group, decided to make that a street to access the
building south of that street, right?
Alan: No, we really did. It was really something that the City
wanted that as opposed to that the applicant was interested in .
Obviously since that time with the Plaza coming through there, it
has become paved.
Roger : I thought that the early goal was to get that transpor-
tation easement to create the length between lA and basically
Rubey Park.
Joe: The way we were required to word the language was that the
City Engineer had the option to create the street as he felt it
was required.
David: Didn ' t we also think about maybe another acc ss in case
there was a fire ?
Paul Taddune: It was also the instrument that the easement was
used because there was concern over how a street dedication would
impact the FAR calculation. I don' t know at the time if any
attention was given to setbacks .
Alan: No, there really wasn' t.
Parry: I remember there was discussion about how wide the street
could be because there was a building there. So we know we were
right up against it.
9
PZM12 .22 .87
Welton : I think its improving the situation that currently
exists . And I don' t feel comfortable making a big deal of 2
feet .
Joe: I don' t know how Cindy came to the conclusion that we are
moving it back 8 feet and that is something we had to make sure
you understand.
Welton: Well, 8 feet is shown on the site plan.
Joe : The comparison that is in your submission shows the extent
to which it is moved back on the architectural drawings . The
existing balconies overhang onto the easement.
Cindy: I would like you to consider the first 2 conditions. And
also the Environmental Health conditions. #3 would be that° the
driveway easement shall be clarified prior to the approval of the
amendment .
And then that #4 the final platt be amended to indicate the
setback variations .
That prior to approval of the amendment that the driveway
easement shall be clarified.
Parry: You mean approval of the amendments by Council ?
Cindy: Right .
MOTION
Roger : I move to recommend approval of the Summit Place PUD
Amendment subject to the following conditions :
1 . The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its entirety
after review for the amendment as part of the whole PUD proposal.
The subdivision agreement shall incorporate the = -endment as
approved for this proposal.
2 . The project shall comply to the Environmental Health require-
ments as outlined in the memorandum by Tom Dunlop dated December
7 , 1987 . (attached in records)
3 . The driveway easement will be clarified to the agreement of
the Planning Office prior to approval of the amendment ;tio City
Council approval .
4 . The final platt shall be amended to indicate setback variat-
ions .
10
PZM12.22 .87
Michael seconded the motion with all in favor .
PUBLIC HEARING
FIRE- DISTRICT SPA CONCEPTUAL/PRECISE PLAN
Welton opened the public hearing.
Steve : This is a request from the Aspen Fire Protection District
to build an office between the Thrift Shop and the Fire Station.
And it was rezoned to public SPA back in 1982 and at that time
some conceptual plans were drawn up for doing an office in that
area. At that time there was to be a second floor residential
unit for this . But this was never processed or formally
approved . And the 1987 plan is to just build the 700 sq ft
addition.
The Engineering Department raised a concern about the parking on
Hopkins Street that is reserved for the Fire Station and that is
one concern that we would like to discuss with you. They have
also raised some concerns about platted requirements that are
fairly perfunctory.
The Parks Department state that they are satisfied with the
landscaping plan . They are satisfied with the construction
schedule. The noted that the drywell that is going in there as a
fairly major facility and will handle the drainage off both the
fire station roof as well as the office roof . They suggested an
irrigation system as well. "
With regard to the compatibility criteria of the SPA review, the
Planning Office agrees that this is basically acceptable . The
architecture, the setback of the structure leaving open space and
the landscaping are really very good . - We think that it does
indeed keep that small park and leaves that space open. They
have to remove some of the trees that have been to the back of
the lot. Unfortunately there is not enough space to plant them
in the front of the lot. We suggest that they do few more
shrubs next to the building to enhance that a bit mor-" .
HPC has reviewed this application at conceptual review and
approved it . They felt that the height, the mass and the bulk
were acceptable . There was still some concern over the
coloration of materials in order to contrast the sense of the
massive gray concrete block next to the Thrift Shop. That is a
matter that will be resolved by HPC at final .
The parking concern that Chuck Roth of the Engineering- Department
raised is that there are some spaces that are for the Firemen on
Hopkins. There are only 2 spaces and we think that they are
probably necessary in order for Firemen to have in emergency
11
I/ L
r
.s+
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager ��
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office A
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Amendments to the Residential
Projects
DATE: January 25, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
approval of the PUD Amendments proposed for the 700 S. Galena and
Summit Place projects. In addition, the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Planning Office rescoring for amend-
ments to the 700 S. Galena Growth Management project.
REQUEST: Amendments to 700 South Galena and Summit Place.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership.
LOCATION: 700 South Galena and Mill Street.
ZONING: L-2 .
HISTORY: The Aspen Mountain PUD was approved in 1985. This PUD
approval included five lots. Two lots were approved for lodge
projects, two for residential projects and one, Top of Mill, is a
pending residential project. At the time of approval, the
project was evaluated in terms of its separate components, but
the growth management scoring looked at the development as one
project. The commitments for infrastructure, services and some
amenities are tied to the PUD as a whole, and not specifically to
one of the five projects, and were scored as such.
The applicant' s request approval to make amendments to two of the
residential projects prior to submittal of the amendments to the
Lodge projects. The Planning Office does not have any objection
to this approach since we have always supported the individual
identity of the projects within the PUD in order to break up the
massing of the buildings and give each project individual
character. The proposed amendments to the two residential
projects are substantial with regard to the design of the
structures. The architectural design of these projects is quite
different in style from the structures approved in 1985. The
purpose for the changes is tied to the preference of the new
owner as well as the current trends in architecture in Aspen.
The proposed townhouse-style structures appear to be what the
market is dictating at this time. The proposed projects are in
keeping with the type and style of townhomes that we have
recently seen being constructed in town.
The Planning Office is comfortable with reviewing the applica-
tion for amendments to the residential projects prior to the
review of the hotel development amendment. The residential
projects have always been seen having a separate identity from
the remainder of the hotel development proposed for other lots
within the PUD. Visually, these projects need not be connected
and having individual designs will help to break up the feeling
of single ownership. However, the services and other project
commitments are tied to the entire PUD agreement. The Planning
Office and applicant feel that with the appropriate conditions of
approval for the residential projects, including the comprehen-
sive amendment of the PUD agreement following review of the
hotel, the integrity of the PUD and the applicants commitments
can be maintained.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicants are requesting to amend two of the five projects
in the Aspen Mountain PUD. These projects are 700 South Galena,
a four unit project (two duplexes each containing two 3 bedroom
units) and Summit Place a triplex containing three 2 bedroom
units.
700 South Galena is a project that was required to obtain
allotments through the Growth Management process. Changes that
are proposed for this project were evaluated by the Planning and
Zoning Commission pursuant to section 24-11.7 (b) of the Code.
The Planning Commission was asked to review the proposed changes
at their meeting on December 22, 1987 and make a recommendation
to the City Council by rescoring the project in order to deter-
mine whether:
(1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum thres-
hold he must achieve in each category or for all
categories to receive an allocation; or
(2) The applicant's position relative to the other appli-
cant' s during the competition would have changed.
In addition, the proposed changes to the 700 South Galena project
require a PUD amendment pursuant to section 24-8 .26 (b) of the
Code. This section of the Code states that "such amendments
shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in
conditions that have occurred since the final plat was approved
or by changes in community policy. "
The proposed amendment to the Summit Place project requires a PUD
2
amendment only. This project was not subject to the Growth
Management process since the units were replacement units.
The following describes the proposed changes in both projects.
700 South Galena
The amendments to this site include a reduction in the number of
bedrooms approved for each unit and an associated reduction in
the number of parking spaces. The existing approval is for 4 .
four bedroom units and 20 parking spaces. The request is to
reduce the number of bedrooms to 3 per unit and to reduce the
parking spaces to 16 from 20. None of the commitments for
services or employee housing have been modified. These commit-
ments remain part of the overall PUD agreement.
The proposed design of the project is substantially changed from
the design approved in 1985. The applicant will provide compari-
son drawings at the meeting. The staff comments section of this
memorandum goes into greater detail regarding the design changes.
Summit Place
The existing Summit Place approval is for a triplex with two
bedrooms each and a total of 6 parking spaces. The proposed
amendments are to the design of the building only. The Summit
Street setback is increased by approximately 8 feet. None of the
commitments for services have been modified.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) Environmental Health: Tom Dunlop of the Environmental health
department had the following comments regarding Air Quality:
"Woodburning:
The applicant shall become familiar with City of Aspen
Ordinance 86-5 defining the numbers and types of woodburning
devices that may be installed in the project.
In reviewing the submittal the applicant has represented
three woodburning devices in the Summit Place project, one
in each dwelling unit. Under current regulations the
proposed building can qualify for one fireplace and one
certified woodburning stove. There cannot be individual
woodburning devices for each of the three units. One of the
three units could have a fireplace and one could have a
certified stove. The third unit could not have a wood
burning device.
The 700 S. Galena project can qualify for one fireplace and
one certified woodstove per side of each duplex, since each
3
side of the two duplex units is greater than 1000 square
feet.
Natural gas fireplace appliances may be installed in any
units.
It shall be noted here that the applicant will be required
to fill out a woodburning device permit form when a building
permit is applied for. This office has the form and will
assist the applicant in filling it out. "
The attached memorandum dated 12/7/87 also discusses the
other applicable rules and regulations regarding noise and
contaminated soils. Conformance with these applicable
regulations should become conditions of approval for the
projects.
2) Fire Marshal: The Fire Marshal had no comments regarding the
amendments since the project has not changed with regard to
the commitments made for fire protection.
3) Water Department: Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Depart-
ment stated in the attached letter dated 12/8/87 that he had
no comments regarding the proposed amendments since none of
the modifications changed any of the commitments made in the
original submittal.
4) Engineering: In a memorandum dated December 15, 1987, Jay
Hammond, of the Engineering Department notes that the
scoring for the utility commitments has been based on the
entire Aspen Mountain PUD. He expressed some concern
regarding the commitments of improvements that will occur
only when and if the hotel projects are built. Mr. Hammond
suggests that the developer be obligated to replace district
improvements at their own expense if they are forced to
install utilities or other improvements after the district
work is completed. The Engineering Department supports the
request for height calculations relative to final grades on
South Galena Street. With regard to Summit Place, Mr.
Hammond recommends that the driveway easement indicated on
the adjacent property to the north be clarified as a
condition of approval. (Memorandum attached)
STAFF COMMENTS:
At their meeting on December 22 , 1987, the Aspen Planning
Commission concurred with the proposed staff scoring for the 700
South Galena project. This score was above the threshold and did
not change the project's position relative to other projects
which were competing at the time the project was initially
scored. In addition, the Planning Commission made a recom-
mendation of approval with regard to the proposed PUD amendments
for both projects.
4
PUD Amendments and Growth Management Scoring - 700 South Galena
With the exception of the architectural changes, the proposed 700
South Galena modifications are minor in nature. The bedroom
count is reduced by 4 rooms and the parking spaces are reduced by
the same number. The other changes are architectural in nature.
From a visual perspective the architectural modifications affect
the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed design is similar in
its use of materials to other newer projects in Aspen such as 700
E. Hyman, which use brick and sandstone exteriors and copper
roofing. The two duplexes are 3 stories tall and are requested
to be measured from the finished grade of Galena Street rather
the existing grade on the site. According to the Engineering
Department, the 1974 topographic maps indicate that the historic
elevation is substantially higher than the current site eleva-
tion. In addition, because the City has plans to raise the
street as much as 18" during the 1988 Galena Street Improvements,
this increase would have an impact on the proposed underground
parking with respect to the necessary grade of the ramp. The
final outcome of allowing the height of the project to be
calculated at final street grades means that the building will be
approximately 2 to 2 1/2 ' higher than the 1985 proposal. The
impacts of this are felt by the lots to the south of the project,
although the change does not appear to be substantial relative to
the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Office and Engineer-
ing Department have no objection to the proposed height calcula-
tions, since the Code requires that the height be measured from
the natural undisturbed groundslope which, as noted above, is
higher than the current disturbed status.
The approved site plans for 700 South Galena have a courtyard
area between two L-shaped duplexes and an outdoor spa area in the
southeast corner of the lot. Landscaping surrounds the two
structures and is incorporated into the internal open space on
the site. The proposed amended site plan has two square shaped
duplex structures with the open spaces located in the southeast
corner of the lot and the western portion of the lot. Again,
landscaping surrounds the structures on all sides. In comparison
the amended design provides less of an internal landscaping
design throughout the project, however, it provides a more
focused open space layout. The proposed design offers an
excellent buffer for the surrounding properties to the southeast
of the project as well as offering more open space from the
Galena Street side of the project.
For purposes of scoring the services portion of the Growth
Management criteria, none of the prior commitments have been
changed. The staff feels that the project has basically remained
at the same level with regard to the scoring criteria. The green
space of the project has been increased to some degree but has
not significantly affected the public open space value. Thus,
5
the Planning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that
the scoring remain the same as the 1985 scoring. This means that
the applicants position relative to the other PUD projects
remains the same and that the application continues to meet the
minimum thresholds required.
PUD Amendments - Summit Place
It appears from the past records regarding Summit Place that
setback variances were never granted for the structure. The
setback from Summit Street apparently was tied to an easement
agreement between Cantrup and the City. The setback appears to
be approximately 51 , which is less than the 10 ' minimum rear yard
setback. The approved structure also does not meet the setback
requirements for the front or rear yard. The proposed structure
still does not meet the setback requirements, however it does
push the structure approximately 8 feet to the north, off of the
Summit Street easement. The setback requirements for the L-2
zone district are 10 ' for the front and rear yards and 5 ' for the
side yards.
The 1985 approval was based on the upgrading of the existing
structure on the site. Since the current proposal is for a
totally new design which requires the demolition of the existing
structure the Planning Office's recommendation to the Commission
was that the applicants comply with the zone district setback
requirements. The Planning Commission decided that the appli-
cants are improving on an existing approval and therefore the
proposal is acceptable. The proposal is less nonconforming than
the existing approval with regard to setbacks.
In addition, the driveway easement to the north side of the
property is on the adjacent lot. The applicants ability to use
the easement is currently in question. The Planning Office
recommends that the driveway easement issue be resolved prior to
final approval of the PUD amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PUD Amendments
for the Summit Place project with the conditions as listed below:
1) The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its
entirety after the review for the amended lodge
proposal. That subdivision agreement shall incorporate
the amendments as provided for in this proposal.
2) The project shall comply with all new Environmental
Health requirements as outlined in the memorandum by
Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987.
6
3) Prior to approval by the City Council, the legal use of
the driveway easement shall be clarified to the
satisfaction of the Planning Office.
4) The final plat shall be amended to indicate the setback
variation approval for the Summit Place project.
Since Condition #3 has not been addressed to date, the Planning
Office suggests that the City Council require that legal use of
the driveway easement be demonstrated to the City Attorney prior
to issuance of a building permit for the project.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that City Council
accept the rescoring provided by the Planning Office confirming
the 1985 Growth Management Allocation to 700 South Galena and
amend the PUD with respect to this project with the following
conditions:
1) The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its
entirety after the review for the amended lodge
proposal. That subdivision agreement shall incorporate
the amendments as provided for in this proposal.
2) The project shall comply with all new Environmental
Health requirements as outlined in the memorandum by
Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987 .
3) The correct street address for the project be resolved
by the Building Department or by that entity with
authority to make that decision.
4) The driveway shall be improved to reduce some of the
radii entering the project. This shall be modified to
the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
ch.hadid
7
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1987 RESIDENTIAL GMP AMENDMENT
Project: Aspen Mountain Project Date: 12/22/87
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The construction of a 12" main in Galena Street will,
according to the Water Department "upgrade the distribution
network in the immediate neighborhood by providing increased fire
flows; not only for the proposed complex, but for the central
core area." The valve interconnect in Monarch will increase
service reliability to the project. This improves quality of the
service in the area. (There is no change in commitment since
1985. )
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Replacement of lines in Durant improves system and
minimizes infiltration now occurring in old lines. Plant
capacity is being raised by reduced flow distribution. This
improves quality of service in the area. (There is no change in
commitment since 1985. )
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Storage capacity of runoff waters will exceed the
amount required A diversion structure will be constructed to
"clean" runoff before it is expelled from the site. New or
replacement storm sewers will be installed in Galena, Durant and
Mill Streets This improves conditions in the area. (No change
in commitment has been made since 1985. )
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Fire flows are being boosted by the improvements to
water lines Existing hydrants are being supplemented with four
new hydrants Fire trucks can access on Galena and loop to Mill
and will not have to backout (No change in commitment has been
made since 1985. )
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 2
2 -
COMMENTS: Parking to be provided is at one space per bedroom with
four additional visitor spaces. The parking will be underground
and will adequately serve the needs of the project. This goes
beyond the requirements for parking. The score remains the same
as 1985 The number of parking spaces remains the same relative
to the number of bedrooms.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Galena Street will be realigned, improving traffic
flow. Parking for the general public is being eliminated and not
replaced although fewer traffic conflicts will result when the
parking lot is gone Additional traffic is being added by this
project to streets of limited capacity. (This score remains the
same. )
SUBTOTAL: 11
2 . Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
3 -
COMMENTS: The Planning Office feel the scale and materials
proposed for the two duplexes on 700 S Galena will be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood when the entire Aspen Mountain
PUD is builtout, no variations from the area and bulk require-
ments of the L-2 zone districts are requested. The townhouse
style provides a transitional density between the lodge projects
and less dense residential areas. (The score has not changed
since the 1985 review.)
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Approximately 40% of the 700 S. Galena site will be
open space Landscaping is extensively planned and two duplex
units is a low-density alternative for the site and requires no
on-grade parking and a more residential character is maintained.
Utilities will be underground and Lodge Improvement District
improvements completed. (The score has not changed since the
1985 review. )
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Insulation is proposed to exceed required Code
R-values. Plantings and berming will be incorporated in the
landscaping. (The score has not changed since the 1985 review. )
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
4 -
COMMENTS: The realignment of the Dean Street pedestrian/bike
trail will terminate one block east of the 700 S. Galena
location but be directly accessible to the units in the lodge.
A new trail is being provided for mountain access. (The score
has not changed since the 1985 review. )
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The overall PUD has open space in excess of 50% of the
site Technical open space of the hotel site exceeds 25%. The
700 S Galena site will be 40% open space. A considerable
amount of landscaping will be very visible to surrounding
residents to the south. (The score has not changed since 1985. )
SUBTOTAL: 13
3 . Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project is within two blocks of the Rubey Park
Transit Center and the Durant Avenue Bus routes. (The score has
not changed since 1985. )
5 -
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) .
The Planning office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project is within two blocks of the Commercial
Core (The score has not changed since 1985. )
SUBTOTAL: 6
4 . Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . 1
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
Two (2) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
1 Please note that the employee housing rating system has
changed since the 1985 scoring of the Aspen Mountain project. The
applicants commitment however, remains unchanged. For the purpose of
this rescoring we are using the old scoring system.
- 6 -
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted
units:
Studio: 1. 25 residents
One-bedroom: 1. 75 residents
Two-bedroom: 2 .25 residents
Three-bedroom or larger: 3 . 00 residents;
Dormitory: 1. 00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each five [5]
percent housed) .
RATING: 16. 8
COMMENTS: 33.25 free-market residents will occupy the four units
at 700 S. Galena plus the eight units in the hotel. 24 employees
will be housed in deed-restricted units. Total project popula-
tion is 57.25, of which 24 employees is 42%.
(42% - 5% = 8.4 x 2 pts. = 16.8 points) (The score has not
changed since 1985
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each
fifteen [15] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: 16 . 8
5 . Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) . 2
2 Please note that the employee housing conversion portion of
the scoring no longer exists in the current criteria. We have
continued to award the applicant with these points however, since they
were applicable for all applicants in the 1985 scoring.
- 7 -
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed-restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 1
34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 3
67%-100% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 5
RATING: 4
COMMENTS: The total employee housing program for the lodge and
residential components of the PUD is to house 198 employees in
converted units (Alvina House, Copper Horse, ABC Apartments) and
new units (Ute City Place) . Approximately 158 of the 198
employees can be housed in converted units (80%) .
6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING: N/A
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, AND 4: 46.8
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: 4
POINTS IN- CATEGORY 6: - - - - - - N/A - - - -
TOTAL POINTS: 50.8
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
hadid. scoring
8 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: December 15, 1987
RE: 700 Sout h Galena GMP and PUD Amendment, Summit Place
PUD and Subdivision Amendment
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
I would offer the following comments :
1 . 700 South Galena
a. GMP Amendment - Attached is a suggested scoring sheet
for engineering - related concerns on the request to amend
the GMP. I would further offer the following:
Water and Sewer - I have indicated a maximum score in
these areas in consideration of the overall plan for
improvements by the Aspen Mountain Subdivision . 700
South Galena itself has no direct obligation to provide
extensive neighborhood improvements to these utilities
and I am somewhat uncomfortable with scoring the
proposal for many improvements that will occur only
when and if the hotel projects come on line.
Site Design - Again, I have suggested a maximum score
in this area anticipating the projects coordination and
participation in the proposed district improvements on
both Galena and Mill Streets south of Durant. The
applicants , while indicating their willingness to
coordinate improvements and scheduling to accommodate
district work, are vague in citing the pending Trump
litigation as a potential hindrance to their
cooperation . Perhaps conditions obligating the
developer to replace district improvements at their own
expense should they be forced to install utilities or
other public improvements after the district work is
completed would be appropriate.
Trails - The proposed improvements are not the distinct
obligation of 700 South Galena.
Fire Protection - Engineering has dropped fire
protection as an area of review and would recommend
that comments be sought from the new Fire Marshal.
b. PUD Amendment - The only comment we would offer on the
Page Two
700 South Galena
December 15, 1987
PUD amendment involves the applicant ' s request for height
calculation relative to final grades on South Galena. We
would support this request for several reasons :
- The proposed district improvements include potential
changes to existing street grades in the area of 700
South Galena. The street could be raised as much as 18
inches (though probably less) and the relative grade of
the street is important to the parking access.
- The existing site is not at native grade and the
evidence on our 1974 topographic maps indicates that it
was substantially higher than the current site.
- Final grades on the street will take into account the
relative positions of existing structures.
2. Summit Place PUD and Subdivision
Amendment - We would offer just two comments regarding
Summit Place.
a. We recommend the driveway easement indicated on the
adjacent property to the north be clarified as a
condition of approval.
b. The amendment of the Aspen Mountain Trail easement
would appear to present no problems.
JH/co/700SoGalenaGMP
Enclosure
cc: Chuck Roth
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1988
Councilman Gassman moved to approve the extension for the Hotel
Aspen for 90 days; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor,
motion carried.
GMP/PUD AMENDMENT - 700 South Galena/Summit Street
Cindy Houben, planning office, told Council this is a request for
amendment of two projects within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
700 South Galena project requires rescoring of the growth
management application, which was originally scored in 1985.
Both 700 S. Galena and Summit Street require PUD amendments. Ms.
Houben told Council staff and P & Z recommend approval of the PUD
amendments with conditions. P & Z also recommends Council accept
the rescoring of 700 S. Galena project. This is the same score
that was given in 1985 ; the project has not significantly
changed in the items that are scored in the growth management
process.
Ms. Houben told Council staff feels the residential portions can
be dealt with separately from the hotel project as staff
encouraged that the residential portion be separate from the
hotel to break up the single ownership in the mountain. Ms.
Houben said with the appropriate conditions placed on the
application, the commitments originally provided by the applicant
will be maintained.
Ms. Houben told Council 700 South Galena is two duplexes with 4
units. There are some minor modifications, changing bedrooms
counts from 4 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms in each unit as well as
changing the number of parking spaces from 20 to 16 spaces, which
is relative to the number of bedrooms provided. Ms. Houben said
the architects will show Council the approved project as well as
the amended project. Ms. Houben said the major issue with 700
South Galena is whether to calculate the height of this project
from either street grade, existing grade, or undisturbed natural
slope, and how the height of a structure is calculated.
Ms. Houben told Council staff supports the requests of the
applicant, which is that the project be measured from final grade
of Galena street. Galena street will be undergoing improvements
with the improvement district. The maximum height that will
increase in that area is 18 inches on the street, according to
the engineering department. The reasons the applicants are
requesting to build to grade are safety factors, getting into the
parking ramp and not having the slope of ramp exceed 10 percent,
drainage on site, visual perspective from the right-of-way, and
open space rather than a dug out open space.
Ms . Houben told Council the best information staff has are the
1974 topographic maps. The code states one is to work from an
18
( Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25 , 1988
undisturbed natural slope to calculate where building heights
should start. This site has been changed over the years and the
natural grade has changed. The applicant is relying on the 1974
topographic maps in terms of being within the height limit in the
area. Ms. Houben said with the estimated 18 inch height dif-
ference on Galena street, the buildings could be 2 to 2.5 feet
higher than what was approved in 1985. It appears the height
approved in 1985 was taken from the 1974 topographic maps. Ms.
Houben said from a site visit, it is apparent the site has been
changed. The natural undisturbed slope appears to be higher than
the 1974 topographic maps. Ms. Houben said it is a good com-
promise to allow the applicants to work from street grade
because the slope has been disturbed over the years. Ms. Houben
said the 1974 topographic maps show this as 7958 feet at the
highest point on the parcel. Ms. Houben said if one took a
natural grade , by looking at the cut , it would substantially
higher.
Ms . Houben told Council Summit Place requests some changes
regarding the setbacks that were granted as well as the architec-
tural design of the building. The proposal is an upgrading of an
existing approved design. This is a less non-conforming struc-
ture than the existing proposals. The applicant' s request still
does not meet the setbacks for the zone district. Staff and P &
Z recommend approval of this project with conditions.
Michael Thompson, architect , presented a drawing of the two
duplexes for 700 South Galena. Thompson said these units relate
nicely to the reconfigured Galena street. There is a hidden
area for the driveway with a full parking garage underground.
There is an open space area between the buildings which is
visible from the street. The courtyard is at street grade and
the buildings are sunken into the hill to lessen the perception
of the buildings . Thompson showed elevations of the building
and 28 feet height in relation to the property line. Perry
Harvey, representing the applicant, told Council if the street is
raised 12 inches , they would like to be able to raise the
building 12 inches, up to a maximum of 18 inches. Harvey told
Council the engineering department has not finished their
studies of what they want to do on Galena. Harvey said they want
to raise the building so there is not a vertical drop off to the
garage so that people will use the garage.
Don Bain, representing George and Joan Anderman, told Council his
clients have a house immediately to the east of this property.
Bain submitted to the record photographs and other documents.
Bain said if the building were built as shown, they would have no
problems with it; however, they have a serious problem with the
r uncertainty of how the elevations may be measured if a floating
base from which to measure the 28 feet is selected. Bain said
19
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1988
the applicants have indicated they will limit this to 18 inches,
which is a concession, but the Andermans are entitled to have the
elevation measured from the actual existing grade on the land.
Bain said the applicants should take the land as they find it,
and that is natural grade. The plan as shown is satisfactory,
but if the building goes up 18 to 24 inches, it will cause a
problem for the Andermans.
Bain pointed out the prior approved plan had a higher elevation
on some of the gables, but it was a steeply gabled building with
a different visual effect than this proposal. Bain said the
impact on the developer not raising the house if the street is
raised will be to raise the pitch of the driveway to no more
than 13 percent. Bain pointed out the prior plan from another
applicant did have a 13 percent grade. Bain said this approval
should be postponed until the street grade is determined, or the
applicant should be required to stay with the elevations shown to
Council.
Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council anticipates a 45 day
design phase from approval to go ahead with the contract .
Councilman Isaac asked why the Andermans have not paid their
assessment for the special improvement district. Bain said the
Andermans want to see what the city is going to do. The Ander-
mans did not want to agree to something that will automatically
ruin their view. Councilman Tuite said if Council guarantees
the difference will not exceed 18 inches, would be Andermans be
satisfied. Bain said they would not be satisfied with 18 inches.
Bain said this project may not get built, and his clients need
some certainty. Bil Dunaway pointed out the existing law allows
one to build to natural grade, which would result in a higher
building. Bain stated the buyer of property takes grades as he
buys it.
City Manager Bob Anderson asked if the road goes up 18 inches,
would the applicant be satisfied keeping the elevations as
currently planned. Harvey said there are other complicated
problems like ground water. Harvey said "if the applicants have
to deal with that kind of grade, it is inconvenient expensive and
not the best solution for the use of that garage, which is going
to contain 16 underground parking spaces. Harvey said this
project is entirely within the zoning code. Harvey said they are
willing to make a concession and not to go the natural undis-
turbed grade but will go to the street as it is reconfigured.
Councilman Gassman said as long as the eventual height is within
28 feet of natural undisturbed grade, that is what the code says
and that is what this building should meet. Bain said if this is
capped at 10 inches, his clients could live with that. 18 inches
(` is too much.
20
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1988
John Sarpa, representing the applicant, told Council they were
able to meet 4 out of the 5 concerns listed by the Andermans.
Sarpa said at 18 inches, this building is below the previous
design. Joe Wells pointed out there were two prior approvals of
this project. Both approvals were tied to the current defini-
tion of the Code, and it was assumed that the project would be
built in compliance with the definition of natural grade .
Regardless of what the city decides about the road, this will be
a lower project than the currently approval project.
Councilman Isaac moved to approve the PUD amendment for 700 South
Galena with the 4 conditions as outlined in the planning office
memorandum and that this project be constructed with an 18 inch
cap on the street. Motion DIES for lack of a second.
City Attorney Taddune recommended Council require any amendment
or additional conditions to this project be recorded independent
to a major rewrite of the PUD agreement.
Mayor Stirling moved to accept the 700 South Galena amendments
confirming the 1985 growth management plan allocations, to amend
the PUD with 5 conditions, 1 through 4 of the planning office
memo, and #5 there be a 12 inch cap in the issue of grade related
to the new street improvements. Motion DIES for lack of a
second.
Mayor Stirling moved to approve the amendments to the PUD for
` 700 South Galena with 4 conditions in the planning office
memorandum, adding condition #5, that the applicants be required
to go no higher in their grade than the final grade of the newly
improved Galena street; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in
favor, motion carried.
Council was all in favor of accepting the rescoring for 700 South
Galena.
Perry Harvey told*.*Summit Place is a change in design; the heights
are lower , the setbacks are~ better than originally planned.
Charles Cunniffee, architect , showed plans of the existing
building, told Council they are proposing to replace the existing
units with construction better suited for the site . The
applicants are proposing 3 two-bedroom units, three stories,
south facing. These units fall within the height restrictions;
there is some variation in setback required.
Mayor Stirling . asked why not make correct the encroachment if
the applicants are going to tear the existing building down.
Harvey told Council this lot is substandard, 5400 square feet.
l Harvey said the plan does not work if the building is brought
entirely into conformity. Harvey told Council the applicants
21
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1988
have pushed this as much as possible to get a livable unit .
Harvey said even the PUD did not deal with setback variations.
Joe Wells told Council there was no easement and the area was
under one ownership when the project was started. In the review
process, the engineering department insisted on an easement ,
which is what established the southerly property line. Wells
told Council the applicants failed to note the variation that
resulted from this.
City Attorney Taddune told Council the city wanted a right-of-
way. If Cantrup continued Summit street , there would be a
problem with the front setback. Taddune said the city decided
an easement would be granted so there would be no impact on the
front yard setback. Cindy Houben, planning office, told Council
on the PUD plats that were filed, noting the variance was
neglected. This needs to be indicated on the plat.
Councilman Gassman moved to approve Summit Place , with the 4
conditions in the planning office memorandum, and the requirement
of recording this document; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Ms.
Houben recommended since the driveway issue has not been resolved
that it be done prior to issuance of a building permit. All in
favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #4, SERIES OF 1988 - Colorado Department of Highways
Jay Hammond, city engineer , reminded Council at their last
meeting they discussed a list of issues to be included in a
resolution to the department of highways. Hammond told Council
the EIS is currently in the scoping phase and alternatives. This
is an alternative for the city to provide the department of
highways with information. Hammond said they will be in Aspen to
deal with this end of the highway in February or early March.
Hammond said there are recommendations in the resolution for a
variety of alignments, including the direct connection, the
existing alignment, the Alan Blomquist proposal, and a one-way
pair alternative. The resolution discusses landscaping and
aesthetic considerations, including the idea that the city may
sell open space land necessary for the highway as a means of
generating revenue for landscaping. The resolution also contains
alternative funding possibilities, pedestrian bicycle trail
continuity and safety, transit amenities, HOV and bus lanes, and
supporting the Aspen to Brush Creek section as the first
priority, and flexible design considerations like reduced speed,
reduced pavement widths, reduced right-of-way.
Councilwoman Fallin said the sale of open space has to be
contingent on approval by the electorate. Hammond said he
addresses the issue of whether the city can sell open space in
�., order to fund landscaping. Hammond said how the department of
22
1i 4t
Aspen/Pitk� - laiaing Office
130 seu#h ,rgale:na treet
��N,V
aspen , col0144 d.o' 81611
April 29, 1988
Joe Wells
608 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Joe:
This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988 regarding
the approved height of the 700 South Galena project. The minutes
are somewhat confusing regarding the City Council 's actual
motion, however, I believe that the height question is clear. My
notes from the City Council meeting reflect that the Council
motioned for approval of 700 South Galena with the following
conditions:
1. The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its entirety
after the review for the amended lodge proposal. That
subdivision agreement shall incorporate the amendments as
provided for in this proposal. The amendments for 700 S.
Galena shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office
prior to issuance of a building permit.
2 . The project shall comply with all new Environmental Health
requirements as outlined in the memorandum by Tom Dunlop
dated December 7, 1987.
3 . The correct street address for the project be resolved by
the Building Department or by that entity with authority to
make that decision.
4. The driveway shall be improved to reduce some of the raddi
entering the project. This shall be modified to the
satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
5. 700 South Galena shall be no higher than the allowed height
in the zone district as measured from the finished grade of
Galena Street.
I have attached the minutes of January 25, 1988 and highlighted
the motion which indicates condition #5 has been approved. If
you have any additional questions regarding the amendment
approval please let me know.
Sincerely,
l/KU►' -
Cindy M. Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
ch.joew
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
December 22, 1987 Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
II. PUBLIC HEARING - GMP Amendment Rescoring
A. 700 S. Galena
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. 700 S. Galena/Summit Place GMP/PUD Amendment
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Aspen Fire District SPA Conceptual/Precise Plan
V. ADJOURN MEETING
A.COV
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain GMP Amendment
Parcel ID# 2737-182-85-001>005
DATE: November 24, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Savanah Limited Partner-
ship requesting GMP Amendment to design changes proposed in two
of the residential projects in the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivi-
sion. These are the 700 South Galena project on Lot 4 (the total
number of bedrooms has been reduced from 16 to 12 and on-site
parking has been reduced from 20 to 16 spaces) and the Summit
Place project on Lot 2 (the footprint for the triplex has been
modified so that the building can be pulled back slightly from
the Summit Street easement) .
Please review this material and return your comments to this
office no later than December 14, 1987 in order for this office
to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z.
Thank you.
H E 5 IF r A':) a 1' C-7 s /y R L.e ^�m d�h y
F,3 n. i Ate►rhri� -- '2e r.�o�•s._.y , 1G � /446 0Ed..
,���--r r �� i a... n�S i� ►�T S Ti try. /f�} z i�N r � s1�� c r r y /!-�-+�
To SGlavl< j tiEsF �'Aa.ie �tr
�► i t it i c r ,�I4�� ��..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Amendments to the Residential
Projects
DATE: December 22 , 1987
----------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Amendments to 700 South Galena and Summit Place
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership
LOCATION: 700 South Galena and Mill Street
ZONING: L-2
HISTORY: The Aspen Mountain PUD was approved in 1985. This PUD
approval included five lots. Two lots were approved for lodge
projects, two for residential projects and one, Top of Mill, is a
pending residential project. At the time of approval, the
project was evaluated in terms of its separate components, but
the growth management scoring looked at the development as one
project. The commitments for infrastructure, services and some
amenities are tied to the PUD as a whole, and not specifically to
one of the five projects, and were scored as such.
The applicants request approval to make amendments to two of the
residential projects prior to submittal of the amendments to the
Lodge projects. The Planning Office does not have any objection
to this approach since we have always supported the individual
identity of the projects within the PUD in order to break up the
massing of the buildings and give each project individual
character. The proposed amendments to the two residential
projects are substantial with regard to the design of the
structures. The architectural design of these projects is quite
different in style from the structures approved in 1985. The
purpose for the changes is tied to the preference of the new
owner as well as the current trends in architecture in Aspen. .
The proposed townhouse-style - structures appear - to 'be -what the
market ,is dictating at this time. The proposed projects are in
keeping with the type and style of townhomes that we have
recently seen being constructed in town.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicants are requesting to amend two of the five projects
in the Aspen Mountain PUD. These projects are 700 South Galena,
a four unit project (two duplexes each containing two 3 bedroom
units) and Summit Place a triplex containing three 2 bedroom
units.
700 South Galena is a project that was required to obtain
allotments through the Growth Management process. Any changes
that are proposed for this project must be evaluated by the
Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to section 24-11. 7 (b)
of the Code. The Planning Commission will be asked to review the
proposed changes at tonight's meeting and make a recommendation
to the City Council by rescoring the project in order to deter-
mine whether:
(1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum thres-
hold he must achieve in each category or for all
categories to receive an allocation; or
(2) The applicant's position relative to the other appli-
cant's during the competition would have changed.
In addition the proposed changes to the 700 South Galena project
require a PUD amendment pursuant to section 24-8.26 (b) of the
Code. This section of the Code states that "such amendments
shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in
conditions that have occurred since the final plat was approved
or by changes in community policy. "
The proposed amendment to the Summit Place project requires a PUD
amendment only. This project was not subject to the Growth
Management process since the units were replacement units.
The following describes the proposed changes in both projects.
700 South Galena
The amendments to this site include a reduction in the number of
bedrooms approved for each unit and an associated reduction in
the number of parking spaces. The existing approval is for 4
four bedroom units and 20 parking spaces. The request is to
reduce the number of bedrooms to 3 per unit and to reduce the
parking spaces to 16 from 20. None of the commitments for
services or employee housing have been modified. These commit-
ments remain part of the overall PUD agreement.
, The proposed design of the. project . is substantially' changed from
the design approved in 1985. The applicant will provide- compari-
son drawings at the .meeting. The staff comments section of this
memorandum goes into greater detail regarding the design changes.
2
Summit Place
The existing Summit Place approval is for a triplex with two
bedrooms each and a total of 6 parking spaces. The proposed
amendments are to the design of the building only. The Summit
Street setback is increased by approximately 8 feet. None of the
commitments for services have been modified.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) Environmental Health:
Tom Dunlop of the Environmental health department had the
following comments regarding Air Quality:
"woodburning:
The applicant shall become familiar with City of Aspen Ordinance
86-5 defining the numbers and types of woodburning devices that
may be installed in the project.
In reviewing the submittal the applicant has represented three
woodburning devices in the Summit Place project, one in each
dwelling unit. Under current regulations the proposed building
can qualify for one fireplace and one certified woodburning
stove. There cannot be individual woodburning devices for each
of the three units. One of the three units could have a fire-
place and one could have a certified stove. The third unit could
not have a wood burning device.
The 700 S. Galena project can qualify for one fireplace and one
certified woodstove per side of each duplex, since each side of
the two duplex units is greater than 1000 square feet.
Natural gas fireplace appliances may be installed in any units.
It shall be noted here that the applicant will be required to
fill out a woodburning device permit form when a building permit
is applied for. This office has the form and will assist the
applicant in filling it out. "
The attached memorandum dated 12/7/87 also discusses the other
applicable rules and regulations regarding noise and contaminated .
soils. Conformance with these, applicable regulations should
become conditions of'approval for the projects.
2) Fire Marshal:
The fire marshal had no comments regarding the amendments since
3
the project has not changed with regard to the commitments made
for fire protection.
3) Water Department:
Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Department stated in the
attached letter dated 12/8/87 that he had no comments regarding
the proposed amendments since none of the modifications changed
any of the commitments made in the original submittal.
4) Engineering:
In a memorandum dated December 15, 1987, Jay Hammond, of the
Engineering Department notes that the scoring for the utility
commitments has been based on the entire Aspen Mountain PUD. He
expressed some concern regarding the commitments of improvements
that will occur only when and if the hotel projects are built.
Mr. Hammond suggests that the developer be obligated to replace
district improvements at their own expense if they are forced to
install utilities or other improvements after the district work
is completed. The Engineering Department supports the request
for height calculations relative to final grades on South Galena
Street. With regard to Summit Place, Mr. Hammond recommends that
the driveway easement indicated on the adjacent property to the
north be clarified as a condition of approval. (Memorandum
attached. )
STAFF COMMENTS:
First, the Planning commission must score the 700 South Galena
project to determine if it meets the threshold and if its
position in the scoring changes relative to other projects which
were scored at the time the project was initially scored. Then,
the Planning Commission must make a recommendation with regard to
the proposed PUD amendments for both projects.
PUD Amendments and Growth Management Scoring - 700 South Galena
With the exception of the architectural changes, the proposed 700
South Galena modifications are minor in nature. The bedroom
count is reduced by 4 rooms and the parking spaces are reduced by
the same number. The other changes. are architectural in nature.
From a visual perspective the architectural modifications affect
the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed design is similar in
its use of materials to other newer projects in Aspen such as 700
E. Hyman, which use brick and sandstone exteriors, and copper
roofing. The two duplexes are 3stories tall and are requested
to be measured from the finished grade of Galena Street rather
the existing grade on the site. According to the Engineering
4
Department, the 1974 topographic maps indicate that the historic
elevation is substantially higher than the current site eleva-
tion. In addition, because the City has plans to raise the
street as much as 18" during the 1988 Galena Street Improvements,
this increase would have an impact on the proposed underground
parking with respect to the necessary grade of the ramp. The
final outcome of allowing the height of the project to be
calculated at final street grades means that the building will be
approximately 2 to 2 1/2 ' higher than the 1985 proposal. The
impacts of this are felt by the lots to the south of the project,
although the change does not appear to be substantial relative to
the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Office has no
objection to the proposed height calculations, since the Code
requires that the height be measured from the natural undisturbed
groundslope which, as noted above, is higher than the current
disturbed status.
The minutes from the January 22, 1985 scoring of the 700 S.
Galena project are attached to this memorandum in order for the
Planning and Zoning Commission to have the opportunity to reflect
on the original design considerations which influenced the
favorable scoring of the design portion of the project. As
mentioned earlier, the applicants will provide comparison
drawings at the meeting.
The approved site plans for 700 South Galena have a courtyard
area between two L-shaped duplexes and an outdoor spa area in the
southeast corner of the lot. Landscaping surrounds the two
structures and is incorporated into the internal open space on
the site. The proposed amended site plan has two square shaped
duplex structures with the open spaces located in the southeast
corner of the lot and the western portion of the lot. Again,
landscaping surrounds the structures on all sides. In comparison
the amended design provides less of an internal landscaping
design throughout the project, however, it provides a more
focused open space layout. The proposed design offers an
excellent buffer for the surrounding properties to the southeast
of the project as well as offering more open space from the
Galena Street side of the project.
For purposes of scoring the services portion of the Growth
Management criteria, none of the prior commitments have been
changed. The staff feels that the project has basically remained
at the same level with regard to the scoring criteria. The green
space of the project has been increased to some ,degree but has
not significantly affected the public open space value. Thus,
the •Planning 'Office recommends that the scoring remain the same
as the 1985 scoring. This means that the applicants position
relative to the other PUD projects remains the same and that the
application continues to meet the minimum thresholds required.
5
• y
;.,
PUD Amendments - Summit Place / rL
It appears from the past records regarding Summit Place that
setback variances were never granted for the structure. The
setback from Summit Street apparently was tied to an easement
agreement between Cantrup and the City. The setback appears to
be approximately 51 , which is less than the 10' minimum rear yard
setback. The approved structure also does not meet the setback
requirements for the front or rear yard. The proposed structure
still does not meet the setback requirements, however it does
push the structure approximately 8 feet to the north, off of the
Summit Street easement. The setback requirements for the L-2
zone district are 10 ' for the front and rear yards and 5 ' for the
side yards.
The 1985 approval was based on the upgrading of the existing
structure on the site. Since the current proposal is for a
totally new design which requires the demolition of the existing
structure the Planning Office's recommendation is that the
applicants comply with the zone district setback requirements.
In addition, the driveway easement to the north side of the
property is on the adjacent lot. The applicants ability to use
the easement is currently in question. The Planning Office
recommends that both the setbacks and the driveway easement
issues be resolved prior to any further review of amended PUD
requests for this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the PUD Amendments for the 700 South Galena
Project with the conditions as listed below:
pJ 1) The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its
entirety after the review for the amended lodge
proposal. That subdivision agreement shall incorporate
'j the amendments as provided for in this proposal.
UJ
2) The project shall comply with all new Environmental
Health requirements as outlined in the memorandum by
Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987.
We apso recommend that. the Planning Commission accept the
rescoring provided -by• the Planning Office and recommend to 'the - C
City Council that the applicants be able to amend the .1985 Growth 6--).� Management. application for 700 South Galena as proposed. We e�61,tg,
further recommend that the Summit Place PUD Amendment proposal be . /.-
tabled based, on insufficient information regarding -setback
variances and the driveway easement.
ch.hadid
6
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1987 RESIDENTIAL GMP AMENDMENT
Project: Aspen Mountain Project Date: 12/22/87
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The construction of a 12" main in Galena Street will
according to the Water Department "upgrade the distribution
network in the immediate neighborhood by providing increased fire
flows; not only for the proposed complex but for the central
core area." The valve interconnect in Monarch will increase
service reliability to the project This improves quality of the
service in the area (There is no change in commitment since
1985. )
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the' proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service. -the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed 'by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Replacement of lines in Durant improves system and
minimizes infiltration now occurring in old lines. Plant
capacity is being raised by reduced flow distribution. This
improves quality of service in the area. (There is no change in
commitment since 1985. )
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Storage capacity of runoff waters will exceed the
amount required A diversion structure will be constructed to
"clean" runoff before it is expelled from the site. New or
replacement storm sewers will be installed in Galena, Durant and
Mill Streets This improves conditions in the area. (No change
in commitment has been made since 1985. )
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
f protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Fire flows are being boosted by the improvements to
water lines Existing hydrants are being supplemented with four
new hydrants Fire trucks can access on Galena and loop to Mill
and will not have to backout. (No change in commitment has been
made since 1985. )
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the provision of .an adequate number of off=
Street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, . convenience- and safety.
RATING: 2
2 -
COMMENTS: Parking to be provided is at one space per bedroom with
four additional visitor spaces. The parking will be underground
and will adequately serve the needs of the project. This goes
beyond the requirements for parking The score remains the same
as 1985 The number of parking spaces remains the same relative
to the number of bedrooms.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Galena Street will be realigned, improving traffic
flow. Parking for the general public is being eliminated and not
replaced although fewer traffic conflicts will result when the
parking lot is gone Additional traffic is being added by this
project to streets of limited capacity. (This score remains the
same. )
SUBTOTAL: 11
2 . Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project. and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points.) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
3 -
COMMENTS: The Planning Office feel the scale and materials
proposed for the two duplexes on 700 S. Galena will be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood when the entire Aspen Mountain
PUD is builtout no variations from the area and bulk require-
ments of the L-2 zone districts are requested. The townhouse
style provides a transitional density between the lodge projects
and less dense residential areas. (The score has not changed
since the 1985 review.)
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Approximately 40% of the 700 S. Galena site will be
open space Landscaping is extensively planned and two duplex
units is a low-density alternative for the site and requires no
on-grade parking and a more residential character is maintained.
Utilities will be underground and Lodge Improvement District
improvements completed. (The score has not changed since the
1985 review. )
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Insulation is proposed to exceed required Code
R-values Plantings and berming will be incorporated in the
landscaping (The score has not changed since the 1985 review. )
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways -and the provisions of links 'to existing parks and"trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
4 -
COMMENTS: The realignment of the Dean Street pedestrian/bike
trail will terminate one block east of the 700 S. Galena
location but be directly accessible to the units in the lodge.
A new trail is being provided for mountain access. (The score
has not changed since the 1985 review. )
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The overall PUD has open space in excess of 50% of the
site Technical open space of the hotel site exceeds 25%. The
700 S Galena site will be 40% open space. A considerable
amount of landscaping will be very visible to surrounding.
residents to the south. (The score has not changed since 1985.1
SUBTOTAL: 13
3 . Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project •is- within two blocks of the Rubey Park
Transit Center and the Durant Avenue Bus routes. (The score has
not changed since 1985 )
5 -
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) .
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -= Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The project is within two blocks of the Commercial
Core (The score has not changed since 1985. )
SUBTOTAL: 6
4 . Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) . 1
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
Two (2) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) point for. each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy -.limitations:
.1 Please note that the employee housing rating system has
changed since the 1985 . scoring of the Aspen Mountain project. The .
applicants commitment however, remains unchanged. For the purpose of
this restoring we are using the old scoring system.
6 -
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One-bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two-bedroom: 2 .25 residents
Three-bedroom or larger: 3. 00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each five [5]
percent housed) .
RATING: 16.8
COMMENTS: 33.25 free-market residents will occupy the four units
at 700 S Galena plus the eight units in the hotel. 24 employees
will be housed in deed-restricted units. Total project popula-
tion is 57 25 of which 24 employees is 42%.
(42% - 5% = 8.4 x 2 pts = 16.8 points) (The score has not
changed since 1985. )
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] point for each
fifteen [15] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL: 16.8
5. 'Conversion* of 'Existing Units (maximum five [5] points) .2.,
2 Please note that the employee housing conversion portion of
the scoring no longer. .exists in the current criteria. We have
continued to award the applicant with these points however, since they
were applicable for all applicants in the 1985 scoring.
7 -
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed-restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
1% - 33% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 1
34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 3
67%-100% of all low, moderate and middle
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed-restricted 5
RATING: 4
COMMENTS: The total employee housing program for the lodge and
residential components of the PUD is to house 198 employees in
converted units (Alpina House, Copper Horse, ABC Apartments) and
i new units (Ute City Place) . Approximately 158 of the 198
employees can be housed in converted units (80%) .
6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING: N/A
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, AND 4: 46.8
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5: 4
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6: N/A
TOTAL POINTS: 50.8
Name of P&Z Commission Member:, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
hadid.scoring
8 -
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
j :ant- tit
To: Cindy Houben '
Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director �S9
Environmental Health Department
Date: December 7, 1987
Re: Aspen Mountain GMP Amendment
Parcel ID # 2737-182-85-001-005
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is
a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office.
This department performed a land use review on February 9, 1987
on this application. The review of this submittal will be in
conjunction with that review.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
is in conformance with Section 1-2 .3 of the Pitkin County
Regulations On- Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy section
to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever
feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage
disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public
sewers".
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This is in
conformance with Section 23-55 of the Municipal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system".
.AIR QUALITY: •
Woodburning: - - - - - - - -
The applicant shall become familiar with City of Aspen Ordinance -
86-5 defining the numbers and types of woodburning devices that
may be installed in the proj.ect.
In reviewing the submittal the applicant has represented three
woodburning devices in the Summit Place project, one in each
dwelling unit. Under current regulations the proposed building
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
Aspen Mtn. GMP Amendment
December 7 , 1987
Page 2
can qualify for one fireplace and one certified woodburning
stove. There cannot be individual woodburning devices for each
of the three units. One of the three units could have a fire-
place and one could have a certified stove. The third unit could
not have a wood burning device.
The 700 S. Galena project can qualify for one fireplace and one
certified woodstove per side of each duplex, since each side of
the two duplex units is greater than 1000 square feet.
Natural gas fireplace appliances may be installed in any units.
It shall be noted here that the applicant will be required to
fill out a woodburning device permit form when a building permit
is applied for . This office has the form and will assist the
applicant in filling it out.
Demolition Activities:
The applicant shall comply with Regulation I, Section III, D, 2,
h titled "Demolition Activities" of the Colorado Air Quality
Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, Revised
March 1983.
ap Further the applicant shall comply with Regulation 8 of the
regulation mentioned above titled, The Control of Hazardous Air
Pollution. Asbestos. This will only apply to the existing Summit
Place building demolition. Future demolition of other buildings
will also be required to comply with this section prior to their
being torn down.
It will also be the responsibility of the applicant to remove mud
and dirt carryout from the projects onto the City streets. This
may be accomplished by the use of a mechanical sweeper using
water to minimize dust. The dirt picked up shall be deposited
back on the project property.
NOISE:
Compliance: with Chapter 16. of the - Aspen Municipal Code titled
Noise Abatement will be required. During demolition. and construc-
.
tion the "Industrial Zone" standard will apply. After construct-
ion when occupancy is initiated the lower decibel levels of the
"Lodge Zone" will apply. .'
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
Not applicable to this submittal.
Aspen Mtn. GMP Amendment
December 7 , 1987
Page 3
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
This is a recommendation to the applicant and not dictated by any
rule or regulation.
Should any mine tailings, waste rock or mine dumps be uncovered
during the excavation phase of this project the applicant should
contact this office. The intent of this request is to offer
advise regarding proper handling and disposal of the material
which may contain heavy metals.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: December 15, 1987
RE: 700 South Galena GMP and PUD Amendment, Summit Place
PUD and Subdivision Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
I would offer the following comments:
1 . 700 South Galena
a. GMP Amendment - Attached is a suggested scoring sheet
for engineering - related concerns on the request to amend
the GMP. I would further offer the following:
Mater and Sewer - I have indicated a maximum score in
these areas in consideration of the overall plan for
improvements by the Aspen Mountain Subdivision . 700
South Galena itself has no direct obligation to provide
extensive neighborhood improvements to these utilities
and I am somewhat uncomfortable with scoring the
proposal for many improvements that will occur only
when and if the hotel projects come on line.
Site Design - Again, I have suggested a maximum score
in this area anticipating the projects coordination and
participation in the proposed district improvements on
both Galena and Mill Streets south of Durant. The
applicants, while indicating their willingness to
coordinate improvements and scheduling to accommodate
district work, are vague in citing the pending Trump
litigation as a potential hindrance to their
cooperation . Perhaps conditions obligating the
developer to replace district improvements at their own
expense should they be .forced to install utilities or
other public improvements after the district work is
completed would be appropriate.
Trails - The proposed improvements are not the distinct
obligation of 700 South Galena.
Fire Protection - Engineering has dropped fire
protection as an area of review and would recommend
that comments be sought from the new Fire Marshal.
b. PUD Amendment - The only comment we would offer on the
Page Two
700 South Galena
December 15 , 1987
PUD amendment involves -the -appl-icant 's request for height
calculation relative to final grades on South Galena. We
would support this request for several reasons:
- The proposed district improvements include potential
changes to existing street grades in the area of 700
South Galena. The street could be raised as much as 18
inches (though probably less) and the relative grade of
the street is important to the parking access.
- The existing site is not at native grade and the
evidence on our 1974 topographic maps indicates that it
was substantially higher than the current site.
- Final grades on the street will take into account the
relative positions of existing structures.
2. Summit Place PUD and Subdivision
Amendment - We would offer just two comments regarding
Summit Place.
a. We recommend the driveway easement indicated on the
adjacent property to the north be clarified as a
condition of approval.
b. The amendment of the Aspen Mountain Trail easement
would appear to present no problems.
JH/co/700SoGalenaGMP
Enclosure
cc: Chuck Roth
CITY OF ASPEN
CITY ENGINEERING EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
MUNI CODE SEC. 24-11.4 pg.1508.12
Project: 400 c C`�'PM� Date: I -i _97_
1. Public Facilities and Service=s (maximum- of - twel_ve (12) --
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two (2) points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS: f oar
aWlC-
0. 1 S
b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2) points) .
Consideration 'of the- capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed. development and, if a
public sewage disposal- system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS: ( S
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two (2) points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer:
RATING: Z
COMMENTS: �
f
d. Parking Design (maximum two (2) points.) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect. to visual impact, amount of paved
surfac�e,i convenience and safety.
j ti,ri;�otp, �cC�t�1Aw n c��r'e��wvCts
RATING:
f'. Roads (maximum two (2) points) ..
Consideration of the capacity of . major street linkages -to
provide for the- needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing - -traffic' patterns or
overloading the existing street . system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING:
COMMENTS: Fx T' P-►'l '�X`r`a`�
2 . Quality of Design (maximum fifteen (15) points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Site Design (maximum three (3) points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the .extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation and increased safety and privacy.
t1 ( RATING: 3
COMMENTS: vA- e "` A 1 `
�u
b. Trails (maximum three (3) points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
l RATING:
COMMENTS:
3 . Proximity to Support Services (maximum (6) points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its proximity to public transportation and community
commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula.
a. Public Transportation (maximum three (3) points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing City or County bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking
distance from an existing City or County bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking
distance of an existing City or County bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: `
b. Community commercial facilities (maximum 3 points) .
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking
distance of the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project._ is located within six (6) blocks walking
distance of the commercial facilities in'town.
3 -- Project is located within two (2) blocks walking
distance of the commercial facilities in town.
"For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250)' .feet in -1 inear .distance.
(� RATING: /
��COMMENTS: Vt `So.O
4 . Bonus points (maximum 2 .2 points) .
Bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total
points awarded under scoring categories may be granted if
the project has exceeded the provisions of the subsections
and has achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
recognition . ( See Muni Code Section 24-11 . 4 ( 5) p.
1508.18) .
RATING: -
COMMENTS:
U,C.QRP2F__RROCBF TG
t Regular Meej ing Pla=ing and Zgaing Commissio t .January. 22. 1985
Aspen Grove addition special review; seconded by Pat Fallin. All
in favor ; motion carried.
PUBLIC .HMING
19-8-4- RESIDENTIAL GROh TH ANAGEMF T SCORING gESSION
Harvey opened the public hearing. Markalunas joined the Commis-
sion.
Colette Penne , planning office, corrected the available quota.
First, the building department' s records did not include two
constructed residential units. In addition, Ute City Place' s
allocation has expired. There are eight additional units for
the quota. The total available quota is 32 units. Annual quota
is 39 units. The prior year off-set is minus 8. The expiration
of Sunny Park and Ute City Place is plus 11. 1984 construction
is minus 10. The grand total is 32.
Penne explained the scoring process. She will present the
pi-anning office' s rationale for the reccr:- nded scores. The
applicant will make a pre3--t ation limited to fifteen minutes.
And, the applicant can only technically clarify his presentation.
The applicant cannot bring forward new information. Each commis-
sioner scores. She will then tally the scores. The competitors
have to obtain at least 30% of available points in each category
and 60% of the total overall points. Any applicant who falls
below the percentages is disqualified from the competition.
The applicants who meet the minimum threshold are prioritized by
the ice skating method.
The project at 700 South Galena has been revised. Eight units have,
been relocated to the lodge. There will be four units in a two
duplex configuration on the site. The Gordon PUD competed last
year. Gordon in conjunction with the Aspen Club is competing
this year . The proposal is to move six lots on the Aspen Club to
the Gordon site. 601 Aspen is located on the property above Lift
One Condominiums. The request is 40 residential units with
an off-site housing proposal. All three projects will have
subsequent reviews. The Aspen Mountain project will be reviewed
in *the on-going PUD process for the entire project. Eight residen-
tial units` are part of. the hotel ,project. The Gordon-Callahan '
project is subject to ' f*ull subdivision, PUD, and GMP exemption
for the employee units proposed on site. 601 Aspen is subject
to full subdivision and a GMP exemption for the. off-site employee
units.
The scores are summed up on page three of the planning office
memo dated January 22, 1985.
Aspen Mountain PUD:
It is difficult to score the 700 South Galena site as an isolated -
project. She considered the entire PUD for the infrastructure.
service capabilities and architectural design questions. - She did
RECORD OF_ PROCF�EINGS
Regular. Meeting Plannning and_Zoning Commission _anuary_22, 1M
not isolate, for example, the architecture of 700 South Galena.
Open space for the entire PUD is 50% . On 700 South Galena
the open space is 45% . She weighed the different elements.
For something overwhelmingly good about the 700 South Galena site,
she gave the applicant an extra point. Generally, she considered
the entire PUD. The water service, sewer service, storm drainage,
fire protection, parking design, and roads were considered in the
context of the overall PUD. The effects of these solutions were
considered for the both the hotel site and the 700 South Galena
site . Remember eight units are located on the hotel site,
four units on the 700 South Galena site.
She addressed quality of design. This project has been through
conceptual PUD. It will also be handled during preliminary
residential discussion. The project must be an acceptable
standard design or it would not be as far in the process as it
is. 45% of the Galena site is open space. There is extensive
landscaping. The two duplex units are low density alternatives
for the site. Less on-grade parking is required and parking is
proposed underground. The proposal is more residential in
character. Utilities will be underground. The improvements of
the lodge district are completed. The site design is excellent.
Planning recommends a score of three.
Energy is standard. Trails stop a block. east of 700 South
rye Galena. The trail improvements and systems are excellent. There
are the mountain access and the continuation of the Durant
pedestrian-bicycle trail . Easements will be given and trails
will be built. The trail solution is excellent.
The overall PUD has open space in excess of 50% of the site.
Technical open space, excluding pool areas, exceeds 25%. The 700
South Galena site has 45% open space. The proposal includes
little building density. There is considerable landscaping
that will reduce the visibility of the duplexes to surrounding
residents. The design is excellent.
She presented a map with the proximity to support services. A
block measures 250 linear feet. Planning scored three points for
proximity to public transportation and three points for proximity
to community commercial facilities. These items are not' discre-
tionary. . • The project is • within -two blocks of the Rubey •Park
Transit Center and within two blocks of the commercial core.
For employee housing, the staff calculated the total residential
population, both free market and employee, and then determined
the percentage of employees. The applicant receives two points
for each 5% of employees - housed. The final tabulation is 16 . 8
points. The conversion of existing units receives 4 points.
The total employee housing program for the lodge and residential
components of the PUD houses 198 employees in converted units:
the Alpina Haus, the Copper Horse, and the old and new Aspen
Business Center Apartments. Approximately 158 of 198 employees
can be housed in converted units. The total score for categories
UZ UN
TU
Regular _Meeting Planning and Zoning,Cgmmi sci o=, January 22. _1985
one, two, three, and four is 46 .8 points. Category five received
five points. The total score is 50 .8. Threshold is 43 . 8.
Joe Wells, representative for the applicant, commented the
Commission is fairly familiar with the project. He posted
drawings, elevations, and plans for 700 South Galena. The lodge
drawings are in the submission. The eight residential units
proposed for relocation to the lodge from the original 700 South
Galena proposal are in the west wing, as indicated on the site
plans.
Following the award of the previous allocation the applicant had
to tie down conceptual PUD approval. It became clear as the
applicant. became more entrenched with the 700 South Galena review
that the applicant had to significantly modify the original
proposal. The modifications negated the viability of the original
proposal. Through no fault of the applicant, the applicant was
caught in a "catch-22" and felt obliged to make substantial
changes to the original proposal. There is no mechanism in the
code for reviewing this proposal within the context of an amend-
ment. The applicant has filed with the application a letter. It
requests. this application be processed as an amendment. The
( applicant acknowledges the changes made in the original proposal
are substantial. The code prohibits substantial changes without
another review. The planning office is uncomfortable that
someone ties up an allotment and negatively redesigns a proposal
so the final proposal bears no relationship to the original. The
language in the . code directs the commissioners to deal with a
substantially changed GMP proposal through rescoring. The
Commission subsequently submits a recommendation to Council.
The applicant already has an allotment. An existing allotment is
a less risky proposition than no allotment. The time for objections
by other applicants has passed for this allocation. That guarantee
does not exist with the competition for a new allotment.
Harvey understood the planning office is treating this application
as new. Wells explained just explore the application tonight.
The city has not defined or determined the application as an
amended or new application. Harvey asked Af the Commission
can make that determination. Wells understood the planning
office is treating the application as a new application. The
scoring process is the same for a new application and an amended
application.
Wells briefly described the Galena project. The original design
involved a single multi family building with twelve units and three
stories. The site was modified to accommodate the Galena Street
alignment, a city request. The site is skinnier in width ana
longer in length. The site is approximately 4 ,500 square feet
smaller. The height of the building complies with underlying
zoning, a condition of the original approval for 700 South
Galena. The height limit for flat roofs is 28 feet and no more
than 33 feet to the mid point for sloped roofs. The building
RECORD -Of ,PROCEEDING,S
Regular. Meeting Pl a Lag and-zones na_Cgmm_i nnion .�,7 n nary 22. 1985
complies with all the requirements of the underlying zone district.
The present 700 South Galena project is two L-shaped buildings
with two dwelling units in each building. These two buildings
frame an internal courtyard, an entry for pedestrians. Each
unit has its own private entry way. There is one elevator for
each duplex. The elevators run to the parking level . The
parking lot accommodates sixteen parking spaces with an option
for four guest parking spaces. There is 45% open space even with
the four spaces. The guest parking is a convenience. The
applicant is amenable to maintaining the open space and deleting
the parking spaces at a later stage in the review process.
The two structures are two and three stories. The facade is
compatible with the architectural vocabulary of the lodge without
mimicking the lodge. The lower levels are treated with stone,
the upper floors are treated with cedar shakes. The roof is
shingled. There are generous balconies around the perimeter of
the site.
Harvey questioned the hotel and residential management. The
proposal states the availability of limousines and vans. Are the
residential units part of the rental management operation? Will
t. the residential units be sold? Wells replied the units will be
condominiumized in traditional fashion. He cannot answer whether
or not the units will fall within the management of the lodge
operator . The applicant commits to provide shuttle service as
part of the auto disincentive program. That system will be
available to the owners of the residential units. Harvey asked
if the operator has the option to incorporate the residential
units into the lodge operation. Wells replied the applicant has
not finalized its decision for the operator because of problems
with the bankruptcy. Management issues cannot be finalized until
the bankruptcy is resolved. The units will be more luxurious
than previously proposed. He doubts the units will be placed in
a management pool because the units are approaching the million
dollar range. Short term rental income is insignificant for
million dollar units. The previous proposal anticipated incorpo-
rating the units.
Peyton asked if the residential units are separate from the lodge
how will' the residential residents be able to use the lodge' s limo
service system. Wells replied the applicant made a commitment to
provide the limo service. If there is no way to work an agreement
with the lodge, then the applicant will provide the service
for the project. Harvey remarked parking may not be an issue. The
Galena proposal provides one parking space per bedroom plus four
guest parking spaces. Auto disincentive may not be an issue with
this project.
Harvey asked for public comment. There was no comment.
Wells commented on the score. He is basically pleased. He did
not intend to debate every category that failed to receive the
�C9�_O�.�$QCE�11.�r1GS
Reg ular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission . January 22. 1985
maximum points. He addressed the score on the conversion of
existing units. Planning office evaluated the entire employee
housing proposal. He does not object to this approach. The
applicant made a representation to convert 100% of the units
associated with the residential proposal. The planning office
chose to compare the employees to be housed as part of this
residential proposal with the entire employee housing program.
On that premise, only 80% of the entire project is housed in
converted housing. The applicant does not object. But the
scoring system assigns five points for providing 67% and 100%
converted housing. The planning office' s recommended score is
four points.
Tygre made a comment on page 36 of the submission. There is
a reference to an occupancy rate. How was that rate calculated?
The peak occupancy rate appears low for sixteen bedrooms. Wells
replied the factor has been established by the planning office.
A four bedroom unit translates to five people. The source of the
figure is the planning office. Harvey recalled studios translate
to 1 .75 people, four bedrooms translate to five people.
The Commission scores the application.
( Peyton asked if the commissioners are scoring concurrently with
the 700 South Galena units the eight residential units in the
hotel. Harvey replied yes. The request is for twelve residential
units, four at 700 South Galena and eight within the hotel. Most
of the information on this project was reviewed during the
preliminary lodge PUD review. Wells offered the drawings for the
commissioners' perusal . Whether the two projects should be
scored separately was discussed. The planning office felt that
was not necessary because most utilities for the residential
and lodge portion of the PUD are virtually the same.
Bil Dunaway, publisher for the An2en Times, remarked that Penne' s
memo does not describe the Aspen Mountain Project. Historically,
the first page of the planning office' s memo included a resume
or cover page on the project. There is no cover page. There is
no information on the units, the address, etc. Penne agreed she
did not include a project profile for any of the applicants.
Dunaway argued this is a .public hearing. The public could be
unfamiliar with the projects. - There i-s no information for
the public. Penne agreed with the point. Chuck Brandt, counsel
for the applicant, commented that memos are not usually distributed
to . the public and the application is on file in the planning
office. Dunaway replied in the past there has always been a
cover sheet attached to the planning office ' s score sheet.
Penne collected the scores.
Gordon-Callahan 2UD_
Harvey requested back up material on the proposal.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Fire District Conceptual/Precise SPA Plan and GMP
Exemption for Essential Public Facilities (Public
Hearing)
DATE: December 22, 1987
I. PROJECT PROFILE
A. Location: The Fire Station SPA contains Lots O, P, Q, and R
of Block 87, Townsite, and City of Aspen. The proposed addition
is at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue on Lot Q between the Fire Station and
the Thrift Shop.
B. Zoning: Public/SPA as established in Ordinance 51 (Series of
1982) .
C. Ownership: The parcel is owned by the City of Aspen and
leased to the Fire Protection District.
D. Applicant's Request: The Aspen Fire Protection District
wants to build an office addition to the fire station approxi-
mately 700 square feet in size.
II. BACKGROUND
Ordinance 51 (Series of 1982) rezoned the Fire Station property
to the Public zone district with a SPA overlay. Area and bulk
requirements for the property were established in Section 1 of
the Ordinance as follows:
Minimum Lot Width: 120 feet
Minimum Front Yard: 5 feet
Minimum Side Yard: 0 feet
Minimum Rear Yard 0 feet
Maximum Height: 28 feet
. ,Minimum Distance Between '
Principal and Accessory
Building: ' 0 feet
Percent of Open Space
Required for Building Site: 15%
External Floor Area Ratio: 1: 25: 1
The Thrift Shop was approved as part of the rezoning application
1
in 1982 . An office for the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief and
housing was anticipated in the Fire District's long-range
planning; however, no approval was given at that time. A concep-
tual design for the office and some second floor housing was
prepared by architect Jerry McCarthy but not approved. A lease
agreement between the City, Fire Protection District and Thrift
Shop was executed in 1983 specifying that the City must consent
to the construction of the office and apartments for Fire
District purposes.
City Council agreed as the owners of the property to the Fire
District's application on November 4, 1987.
III. Other Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee
gave conceptual review approval for the office design on November
24, 1987 subject to the condition that the applicant further
study (1) the proposed open space off Hopkins Avenue and (2)
different coloration of the concrete blocks prior to submittal of
a final review application. The applicant returned to HPC on
December 8 with revisions to increase the front yard setback,
reduce front porch overhang and explain the applicant's reluc-
tance to use colored concrete blocks.
IV. PROBLEM DISCUSSION
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth commented in his
December 15, 1987 memorandum with regard to platting
requirements, adequacy of the storm drainage design, and on-
site parking. He states it would be appreciated if the
parking restrictions on Hopkins were removed and those
spaces returned to public use.
2. Parks Department: Bill Ness noted in his November 23,
1987 memorandum that the Parks Department is satisfied with
the applicant's construction schedule and landscaping plan,
including the lighted walk-way and drywell. He suggests the
possibility of an automatic irrigation system for the small
park area.
3. City Attorney: Paul Taddune noted on December 17, 1987
that a plat should be filed for the property as one was
never filed pursuant' to the 1982 actions.
B. Staff Comments: The Planning Office has the following
comments with regard to the review criteria for an SPA plan and
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System, for construetion of essential public facilities. The Planning Director and
City Attorney determined because of the prior consideration of
this project, its relative simplicity and the direction the Code
2
rewrite is taking, that the conceptual and precise stages of SPA
can be combined for this application (making this a two step
rather than four step review process) . Therefore, we have used
the standards for review of precise plan in Section 24-7.7 of the
Municipal Code. We will next review the application according to
the provisions of the GMP Exemption in Section 24-11.2 (e) of the
Municipal Code.
Criterion 1: Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring
developments in terms of use, density, height, bulk, open space,
landscaping and other site and architectural design features.
Response: The site design concept is to locate a small one-story
building approximately 58 feet back from the Hopkins Avenue
property line, add stone pathways and seating areas to the 1,806
square feet open space, and retain five parking spaces off the
alley. Five trees and two juniper bushes were removed from the
rear portion of the site to permit utility installation (at the
applicant's risk) , in anticipation of development. The open space
has been called the Willard Clapper Park; and as such, we believe
it should continue to serve as a quality little pocket park with
greenery and a place to sit. The small size of the structure and
its large set-back should continue the pocket park character of
the property. Revised plans for HPC bring the structure back
slightly, making the open space area approximately the same as in
the 1982 plans. It is unfortunate that only one of the five
trees will be relocated, the others will be lost. However, there
is_ little room for much more planting than presently exists. We
suggest that shrubs along the front wall be planted, similar to
u landscaping in the 1982 plan. The flagstone treatment (3 feet
wide) is appropriate in keeping the impervious surface to a
minimum. The five "path lights" should be low bollard type
incandescent lights that will be in character with the area. The
Park's Department suggestion to install automatic irrigation
appears reasonable so to retain a pleasant green space.
With regard to the architecture, staff agrees with HPC that the
basic concepts are appropriate. There does not appear to be an
opportunity for the design of this structure to bring the entire
four lots (and three buildings) into better visual harmony with
the Commercial Core Historic District. Surrounded by two
concrete block buildings, brick and stone on this small addition
would look audacious and out of place, as argued by the archi-
tect. We still encourage consideration of colored block so to
not overly_ amplify the cold gray character of -the Thrift Shop
building, while- the addition's design features will mainly repeat
those of the Thrift Shop. We find the height, massing and bulk
of the addition to be principally compatible with its neighbors.
All of the area and bulk requirements set• by the SPA Ordinance
have been met, according to the applicant.
3
The Fire District office use is certainly compatible in this
location next to the Fire Station. Please note that the housing
has been deleted from this plan compared to the 1982 plan. While
that housing may have been an amenity to the District, the
reduced bulk as it relates to the park space is also positive.
Criterion 2: Whether sufficient utilities and roads exist to
service the intended development.
Response: Because of the central location of the addition,
utilities and roads are adequate.
Criterion 3: Whether the parcel is suitable for the intended
development, considering slope, ground instability and the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood
hazards.
Response: The land is flat and outside any mud flow, rock fall,
avalanche and flood hazard areas. A large drywell has been
installed in the front open space to handle runoff from the Fire
Station roof and the office development. The Engineering Depart-
ment noted that the storm water runoff system appears adequate.
Criterion 4: Whether the applicant has creatively employed land
planning techniques such as setbacks, clustering, screening,
buffering and architectural design to preserve significant view
planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the suers of the project
and the public at large.
Response: The proposal is basically satisfactory in setbacks,
architectural design, and open space amenities, in staff's
opinion. The area and bulk requirements set in Ordinance 51
(Series of 1982) establish the parameters for development of this
SPA site; and those requirements have not been exceeded.
Criterion 5: Whether the proposal is in compliance with the
Aspen Area General Plan.
Response: The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 does not identify the
Fire Station site as public; however, it was later zoned public.
The intention of the public land use category in the 1973 Plan is
"to allow for utilization of these lands by the public sector
where appropriate expansion of. community facilities. . .are •necess-
. ary. " It appears that the Fire Station addition fits . this
intended use; however, no public' facilities plan or program has
been developed as part of the General Plan to address the over-
all community needs for public facility expansions by which this
proposal should be evaluated. '
Criterion 6: Whether the development will require the expendi-
ture of excessive public funds to provide services and facilities
4
for the site or surrounding neighborhood.
Response: No substantial increase in public services should be
needed in response to this development. The Engineering Depart-
ment has expressed concern over the Hopkins Avenue parking spaces
reserved for the Fire Station which could be changed to public
parking. Two spaces are so posted in front of the Fire Station.
The Planning Office believes that clear demarcation of the 5
spaces in the rear of the site will help the parking situation;
however, volunteer firemen probably still need places to park
when called to a fire. It would seem especially difficult to
create more on-site parking for firemen even though desireable.
Criterion 7: The project represents an essential public faci-
lity.
Response: The applicant has stated that this addition is needed
for office space for the Fire Chief, District Secretary, and Fire
Marshal. The Fire District is a not-for-profit public entity
providing an essential service to the public. Addition of the
Fire Marshal position has substantially improved the community's
ability to deal with health and safety concerns, and freed the
Building Inspector to concentrate on Building Code issues. Fire
protection facilities expansion is not a growth generator and is
in response to the demands of growth. It appears that the space
needs and convenience of location qualifies this project as
eligible for the GMP exemption, as discussed in Bob Walker's
November 15, 1987 application letter.
Criterion 8: Mitigation of project impacts on various services.
Response: Minimal impacts on water and sewer would result. The
applicant states no new employees will be generated by the
addition. The parking situation has been addressed above in this
memorandum. Staff is satisfied with this project's drainage
control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal and
minimal impacts on air and water quality.
V. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval of the
requested SPA plan and GMP exemption for essential public
facilities to build the Fire Station office subject to the
following conditions:
1. An SPA Agreement shall be filed by the applicant pursuant to
Section 24-7.8 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the
City Attorney, addressing: size of *the addition, use - of the
addition, schedule for completion of construction and landscaping
improvements, and City's approval as property owner.
2 . Prior 'to 'issuance of a building permit a final SPA plat for
the entire SPA parcel owned by the City shall be filed with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office to the satisfaction of the
5
City Engineer and following the requirements of Section 24-8. 12
of the Municipal Code. Included in the plat shall be:
(a) a site/landscape plan showing the SPA area and bulk
requirements, building location, parking spaces, open space
area, landscaping, flagstone paths and benches as presented
with additional shrubs along the south elevation, and path
lights specified to be low bollard type fixtures with
incandescent lights; and
(b) south and north elevations as given final approval by
the Historic Preservation Committee.
3 . Five parking spaces off the alley shall be clearly demarcated
with bumper blocks; and two of the spaces shall be assigned to
the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal.
sb. firedis
s
6
p�aoP£-c� L/NE /20.3G•
`0 J_ P.. •± K- /. /! tom. - - --
I \
` 1.
pl�FtfAA/d FARTHEST L/NE_.
-
I ,
Ex.iYf. Go NC.GPF�/ � •'
F
OFF/GC 4r10/T/oN Y. /6 042, SF /
i
A Alf 2w--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0--A7L-Z7
"WEW
IAI
71
-4 41-
WA L,
A-/Z2
I
j
$ACZ J WALL
Mo2'(AfL lei F%
comic.. PJL.IG.. �{��c4N W/ ToY
-- '5�,HOe
0
v
n
y
._ .� . L-A
. l
I .
N
� Y � l � a� O" 4' '�" ��•8� 2,•Gs�
AA, • M.o, M.O
o .
i
�/ER iGY
hDCJTH �LC- VAT
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer
Date : December 15, 1987
Re: Aspen Fire District SPA Conceptual/Precise Plan
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. If the application receives approval, the applicant must
submit a final plat which follows the requirements of Section 24-
8 .12. Two mylars must be submitted, one for recording with the
Clerk and Recorder, the other for the records of the City
Engineer.
2 . Adequate provision has been made for storm water runoff.
3 . The applicant is encouraged to provide as much on-site
parking as possible . We would appreciate removing parking
restrictions on Hopkins and returning those spaces to public use .
k'
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR/cr/caseload.18
��'ill•,r'r /�rr(lh 1.1'tCr. r1C T.—
L
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
Oct. 26, 1987
Conceptual Submission
Aspen Fire Protection District Office Addition
Site Location:
Portions of Lots Q,R, Block 87, 420 E. Hopkins, City of Aspen, Co.
Background Information:
The Aspen City Council of Aspen, Colorado adopted Ordinance No. 51 on
Nov. 8, 1982, rezoning Lots O,P,Q, and R in Block 87 from CC to Public/
SPA which provided for "the expansion of two uses which benefit the
community, those being the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop."
The original proposal is shown on drawings prepared by J. R. McCarthy,
Architect, dated Aug. 11 , 1982 which show three additions to the site:
1 .New Fire Barn Bay
2. Thrift Shop Building
3.Fire Station Office/Fire Station Housing
The Fire Barn Bay of 1347 SF, single story, was constructed.
The Thrift Shop of 1424 SF, single story, was constructed.
The second floor of the Thrift Shop, designated "Future Office, 1000 SF"
was not constructed.
The Fire District Office/Housing structure consisting of 504 SF of office
space on the first floor and 1646 SF of living space on the second floor
was not constructed.
In addition five parking spaces are provided at the rear, alley, side of
Lots Q and R.
Further, open space and planting, including trees and shrubs, is provided
in the area bounded by the Fire Barn, the Thrift Shop, the Office
Structure (unbuilt) and Hopkins Ave.
Revised Conceptual Plan:
The Fire Protection District Offices in this revised proposal consist of
723 SF, on one story, located between the existing east Bay of the Fire
Barn and the west side of the Thrift Shop. This differs from the original
proposal in the following aspects:
1 .One story instead of two is proposed,
2.The living area has been eliminated,
3.The front (south wall) of the proposed Office is- located -an
addit-iohal five feet -towards -Hopkins Ave.
Sheet One of the attached construction drawings gives information
regarding set backs,- parking, height, floor area, and open space for the.
proposed Office Addition. This data is in conformance with the require-
ments set forth in the 1982 Rezoning.
P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN, COLORAQO 81612
r—,0, r,,. I-:
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3426
It is the intention of the Fire Protection District to retain the park/
open space as recommended in the original SPA approval. Any trees, planting,
or furniture which may be disrupted or destroyed by the construction
process will be replaced or repaired and the park returned to its present
condition less the area occupied by the proposed Office Addition.
It is also proposed that ground level illumination be provided along the
pathway leading from Hopkins to the proposed Office Addition.
The Fire Protection District feels that the Addition should be similar in
character to the existing Thrift Shop structure; i .e. , grey 8x8 grid
concrete block with similar window and door details. Because of office
use requirements the storefront fixed glass of the Thrift Shop is not being
used, rather operable units are proposed. The height of the Addition
south wall matches that of the Thrift Shop (14 feet). Elevations are shown
on Sheet Five of the construction drawings.
Res ctf ly mit e ,
obert L. Walker,
Project Architect
P.O..BOX 1269 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
Cr
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 9274262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
Request for Exemption from Nov. 15, 1987
The Growth Management Plan
Aspen Fire Protection District Office Addition
The AFPD requests that its Office Addition be considered for exemption
from the Growth Management Plan as provided for in Sec. 24-11 .2(e) of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
The criteria for exemption are addressed below:
1 .The project represents an essential public facility.
Response: The Office Addition provides needed office space for the Fire
Chief, District Secretary, and Fire Marshall , all of whom
provide an essential service to the community. Existing office
space is inadequate as well as dispersed.
2. The project provides facilities in response to growth and is not itself
a growth generator.
Response: The general growth of the community has necessitated an increase
in the complexity and responsibilities of the Fire Department
and the enforcement of the fire codes.
The Office Addition provides work space as a direct responce to
this growth for those involved in maintaining the safety of the
community. Since the Addition will be used by the existing
Fire Chief, Secretary, and Fire Marshall , thus adding no new
employees, it does not by itself generate growth.
3.The facility is available for use by the general public, serves the needs
of the community, and is a :not-for-profit venture.
Response: By their very nature the Aspen Fire Protection District and the
office of Fire Marshall serve the needs of the community; i .e. ,
protection from and prevention of life and property damaging
fires as well as general emergency and rescue services. The
Office Addition provides needed space with which these respon-
sibilities may be more efficiently and effectively executed.
The Addition is accessible to the public in the same way that
any. governmental facility would be: it exists for the benefit
of the community, providing an essential .space in which the
above mentioned officials may work and respond to community
needs. The AFPD operates as -a not-for-profit organization
4.Mitigation of project imacts on various services.
Responses:
a. .Water and sewer: The Addition of 723. SF contains one toilet
and one bathroom lavatory. The 'imp.act on water and sewer use
are negligible.
b. Parking demand/new employees: Since the number of employees
using the Addition is not being increased but merely being
transferred from existing (inadequate) space in the Fire
P.O Box 12369 • ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
T, T.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
PHONE (303) 9274262
BOB WALKER
PHONE (303) 923-3428
DARRYL GROB
Station and City Hall , there is negligible impact on off-
street parking; the five existing spaces at the rear of the
site will be retained.
c. Drainage control : Site drainage is not affected by the presence
of the Addition. There are no surface water flow paths that
would be affected by the Addition. Water collected by:the
additional roof area is to be handled by a large drywell on
the park site and engineered to be adequate for the roof of
the east bay of the Fire Station as well as the Addition.
d. Fire and police protection: The Addition is to be constructed
of one-hour materials as dictated by the building and fire
codes. Its location in close proximity to the fire and police
departments would ensure adequate protection in this regard.
e. Solid waste disposal : The Office Addition would generate
primarily paper waste. There is an adequate refuse disposal
area to the rear of the Thrift Shop for this purpose.
f. Impact on air, water, and land resources: The Addition con-
tains no wood or coal burning devices and will not contribute
to the pollution of city air. The Addition has no proximity
to any stream, river, or lake and in general has negligible
effect on water resources other than the above mentioned
bathroom facilities.
Retention of the park/open space in accordance with the re-
quirements of the 1982 Rezoning Ordinance ensures the existence
of open space in the City Core as originally intended by the
public/SPA overlay.
g. Compatibility with surrounding areas: Please refer to our
enclosed letter of Architectural Design Intent.
*Rec u mit d,. Wa ker,
Project Architect
P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN. COLORADO 61612
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923.3428
Construction Schedule/Landscaping Nov. 15, 1987
Aspen Fire Protection District Office Addition
The proposed schedule for the AFPD Office Addition once construction
commences is 10-12 weeks to completion of the building. This schedule
may be subject to delays caused by winter weather.
At this time all trees and shrubs have been removed or relocated to
their permanent positions. The benches will be stored for winter.
Reinstallation of the benches as well as re-seeding of the grass will
be done in the spring of 1988 (April/May) as weather and frozen ground
conditions permit.
The bell located at the front of the site will remain in its present
location. Moving the bell would be potentially damaging, costly, and
unnecessary insofar as the layout of the park is concerned.
Res P ull ted
obert L. Walker
Project Architect
P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
r
,� t���f" I 'f 1'1'1 'YT♦ tC. �l T'
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
Architectural Design Intent Nov. 15, 1987
Aspen Fire Protection District Office Addition
As stated in our Conceptual Submission letter dated Oct. 26, 1987, the
Aspen Fire Protection District wishes- to procede with the approval
process for an Office Addition located between the Fire Station and the
Thrift Shop. Aspen City Ordinance No. 51 (series of 1982) rezoned lots
0, P, Q, and R of Block 87 to "Public/SPA" to provide for the expansion
of the Fire Station and construction of the Thrift Shop. Included in the
conceptual plans for the Thrift Shop was a two story office/housing
structure of 2150 SF as well as requirements for building floor areas,
open space, heights, and setbacks.
The District wishes to complete the Office Phase of the construction
with some revisions to the 1982 Plan. The present plans call for a single
story office structure only of 723 SF with the front (south wall) located
an additional five feet towards Hopkins Ave. Heights, setbacks, and open
space requirements are in accordance with provisions set forth in the 1982
Rezoning Ordinance.
The design of the building is intended to be an extension of the Thrift
Shop as it is now constructed. Identical materials will be used; i.e. ,
a facade of 8x8 grid concrete block to be painted grey to match the Thrift
Shop. The Office facade facing Hopkins will be at the same height as the
Thrift Shop parapet (14 feet). Window detailing and trim color will also
be similar to that of the Thrift Shop with the exception that the Office
windows will be operable.
We feel that the location of the Office Addition between the Fire Station
and the Thrift Shop limits the use of materials to those of the structures
which are connected to it at either end of the south facade. The facade
itself is 26 feet long by 14 feet high and is the "public face" of the
building. The north facade faces the alley to the rear of the lot, looking
at the back of the gas station building. The south facade of the Office
bridges the space between the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop, both
structures being constructed of painted concrete block. While other build-
ings adjacent to the- Fire Station ( Isis Theater) "and the Thrift Shop (new
structure -replacing Little Cliff's old building) are of brick. it was.felt
that introducing brick between the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop would
be an anomaly. In reality the Office Addition reads as a .facade connecting
the. buildings on either side. Therefore it seems that precedence for,-com-
patibility lies with . its immediate neighbors. T.hese• are the Addition'.s
direct historical antecedents in both form and use.
P.O. BOX 12369 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
The siting of the Office Addition bears consideration. In order to main-
tain the park/open space originally intended in the rezoning ordinance,
the Addition has been sited to the rear of the lot. The open space as it
now exists is bounded at the north end by a short wood fence which only
partilly blocks a rather dismal view of the back of the gas station buil-
ding. Even though there is some planting with trees and shrubs, the park
seems more of a narrow vacant lot without any particular character other
than a way to get between the buildings from Hopkins to the alley. The
Office Addition closes off the lot, in effect making the park a part of
Hopkins Ave. rather than a slot from street to alley. This device is
often used in creating urban open space where most of the building facades
are at or close to the street line.
Because of its location to the rear of the property as well as the screen
of trees in the park in front, the Office Addition is somewhat hidden, not
revealing its presence unless one is standing directly in front of it.
The Addition does not wish, nor is there a need, to call attention to
itself.
We hope'.that.this will clarify our intentions with regard to the design
of the Office Addition.
*Resctfu s m' t d,
. lker,
Project Architect
P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN.COLORADO 61612
T•
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER f,JQI ZONE;f Q_3)_927.4262 j
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
i
Historic Preservation Committee Dec. 2, 1987
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colo.
Conceptual Revisions
Aspen Fire Protection District Office Addition
To the Committee:
After reviewing the written transcript of our conceptual approval meeting
of Nov. 24, 1987 and meeting with the AFPD Board, we are proposing the
following revisions to the AFPD Office Addition:
1 . The Committee expressed concern about both physical and visual encroach-
ment on the park/open space by the south facade and the front overhang.
Revised proposal : We will move the entire building 1 '- 8" back towards
the alley. This does not encroach on the required parking space of 18' .
In addition we are reducing the building depth from 25'- 3" to 241- 6"
by moving the south facade back away from Hopkins 1 '- 9". We are also
reducing the overhang from 4'- 1" to 21- 6". This revision places outside
front line of the structure (the overhang) 9"farther towards Hopkins
than the original proposal of 1982. The required open space fronting
Hopkins is 15% of the lot area or 1805.4 SF. We have provided 1806 SF.
2. The Committee felt that the height of the building should be addressed.
Reply: We feel that the parapet should remain as designed; i.e. , to
align with the top of the Thrift Shop. Wefeel that this parapet helps
to screen the back of the building in the alley behind the addition and
therefore visually defines the park more clearly.
3. The Committee felt that the addition should be less a part of the Thrift
Shop visually as well as having a "softer" look.
Response/revised proposal : In general we feel that there is nothing
wrong with the design as it now stands. The use of the terms "natural"
and "soften by using wood" seems to be somewhat influenced by personal
preference and may not be* a legitimate design parameter. The most out-
standing buildings in ,the core area of Aspen (the -Wheeler; the Brand
Building, Ute City Bank, the Jerome, the Court House, and the new buil-
dings at Cooper and Hunter) employ -little. wood on their exteriors.. Any
wood trim .used is painted. The severity of these structures is mitigated
by the use of texture, color, and ornament in the brick and stone which
are the primary materials in these buildings. as well as in the painted
detailing of the cornices and the window-and door openings. The Thrift
-P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927.4262
DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428
Shop is acknowledgedly a visually severe structure and the Committee
felt that this severity should not be extended to the Office Addition.
We do not agree with this in principle (it seems to us that it may not
be appropriate to introduce a third facade into this group of three
buildings) . However we feel that since the Committee expressed such a
strong concern about color as an antedote to the Thrift Shop coldness
we should reconsider this aspect of the design. We would therefore
propose the following revisions:
a. We will retain the 8x8 grid concrete block but paint or stain the
block a terra cotta or similar color; samples to be approved by the
Committee. Budget Considerations preclude the use of integral color
(too few blocks for a run) , or cut stone or brick. We will also have
more color options with the paint or stain.
b. The overhang fascia will be either of painted wood or painted sheet
metal (similar to the material used on the Hotel Jerome porch cornice) .
in a warm dark maroon or burgandy color (not a bright red like the
Fire Barn).
c. The windows, doors, and trim will be painted the same color as the
overhang fascia.
The resulting facade will appear warmer by contrast to the grey of the
Thrift Shop. We hope that these revisions will answer the concerns of
the Committee.
Respectfully sobmittYd,s
jRobert L. Walker,
Project Architect
P.O. Box 12369 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
i l
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: J0 1f) _C�C>�' I e �� vC� Date:—!Z / OL/ 7 -
1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and,_ if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
i
COMMENTS:
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
# RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
2 -
RATING:
COMMENTS
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING:
COMMENTS
w
SUBTOTAL:
2 . Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
3 -
i t
o -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENTS
4 -
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
COMMENTS
a
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING:
- 5 -
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
3 . Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points) .
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points) .
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
6 -
i
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING:
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL:
4 . Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points) .
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11. 10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
' guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted
units:
Studio: 1. 25 residents
One-bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two-bedroom: 2. 25 residents
Three-bedroom or larger: 3 . 00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
7 -
t
percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points) . RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5
3 . PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4 . PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
8 -