HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.601 S Aspen St.006-86
UlwL'w,,-----1);Jl'Jo,ll
Dc(~ e : Februarv 27. 1986
, ,
.
I,ppell ant:
~F""'"
CCl~~ No.: -E.0-Y,
Address: Ptv:' Box 12384, Aspen CO 81612
Phone: 925-9365
Address: r.O.Box 12384, Aspen CO "'" I
HBC Investments '-"
Owner:
601 Aspen Proiect
Hans B. Cantrup
Location of Property: Mine Dum s: Lots 3 throu h20, Block 11, Eames Addition; and
Block 6, Eames Addltion, baun e genera y on e eas y spen ree, on
Shadow Mountain Condominiums. on the east bv unplatted property and Garmisch Street and on
the north by Dean Street. (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.)
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must acco~pny this application, and will be made part of
C^SE NO.: :z:i~- (f'. * .
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL
THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS
This is an application for review of the Planning Office's rejection of the
above project for 1985 Residential Growth Management Plan allocation for 92
free-market studio units for -the site. . No variance, is requested, merely the
opportunity to have the application scored by P & z.
~
*No building permit application was made. The G.M.P. application is of record
and on file in the Planning Office. Correspondence to and from the Planning
Office attached.
11 i)] you be represen ted
/
!
~ (Applicant's Signature)
~~~==================c====a=- c==c======aa==~D=========a=============~~=~~==
Yes -1L-
No
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO
FORH^RD TillS APPLICATION TO TilE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MID REASON rOR NOT
GRANTING:
Sez
A.~~ll ~ ~~ -sl?:.l ~f.:,
~ 5:LQ
Status
PERIUT REJECTED, DATE ~\ "z,bsb
APPLIC1,TTON FILED ~281gv
HAILen 10f'l
.
~'. .
".....--.---,.
"" ~ 8v~ /7JJC
----._._~-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Board of Adjustment
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
~-
RE:
601 Aspen Appeal
DATE:
March 3, 1986
================================================================
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to provide you with a staff
background report to assist you in hearing the attached appeal from
Doug Allen, acting on behalf of Hans B. Cantrup. Doug is asking you
to hear an appeal of an administrative determination made by me, in my
capacity as Planning Director, to rej ect the 601 Aspen Residential
Growth Management Plan (GMP) submission. It is my intention to
provide you with sufficient information such that you will be familiar
with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, and with
the circumstances of this case as they have evolved over the past
several months.
It is very important that you recogniz e what you are being asked
to review in this case. You are not being asked to evaluate the
quality of this project, its merits relative to other proposed
developments or any other physical attribute of the proposal. Instead,
you are to determine whether or not under the regulations which govern
growth management competitions, I acted correctly in finding that
zoning violations were proposed by the applicant and that the changes
proposed to correct these violations were so substantial as to be
contrary to the purpose and requirements of the GMP.
REGULATORY CONTEXT: The 601 Aspen Street Residential GMP project
was submitted for consideration of a growth allotment on December
1st, 1985, along with one other project, known as Sunny Park. The two
applicants requested 92 and 4 free market units respectively. The
annual quota available this year was determined to be 40 free market
units (employee units are exempt from the need to obtain a growth
allotment, but count for all other purposes such as density calculations,
FAR, etc.)
When any application is submitted for review, it is my role as caseload
administrator to review its contents, and determine its completeness
for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) or City Council.
Typically, if I find an application to be incomplete, or to otherwise
require clarification or amendment, I or the case planner contacts the
applicant by letter or phone call to request the needed information.
However, in the growth management competition process, I must be
guided by the following code requirement of Section 24-l1.4(h):
"No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant
to Section 24-11.4(a), amend, modify or change his application
except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or
technical correction only. The standards of Sect ion 24-11.7 (b)
shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial".
Section 24-11.7 (b) goes on to provide both a procedure and standards
for review of amendments to an application. The review procedure
makes it quite clear that the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council can hear amendments to applications which have already
been awarded a development allotment. This procedure certainly does
not apply in this case, since the proj ect has yet to be scored or
awarded a development allotment. However, Section 24-11.7 (b) is
explicit in requiring that its standards be used in determining
whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial, and can be processed,
or substantial and cannot be accepted by our office. The standards
for this determination, as provided by Section 24-11.7(b) are:
1. Any change which would alter the points awarded during
the GMP scoring,
2. Any change in the architecture and site deSign,
3. Any change in the number, size and type of employee units;
and
4. Any modification to the type and level of physical services
and facilities of the project.
If a proj ect has received an allotment, the above standards are used
by P&Z and Council to judge whether an amendment is an improvement
or not, and whether it is appropriate or not, resulting in the Council
confirming or rescinding the allotment. In the case where no allotment
has been awarded staff must work with the applicant before the p&Z
review to iron out the prOblems. The Planning Commission has given us
clear direction not to bring these problems to them, for determination
of the completeness or accuracy of the submission. They only want to
see applications which are complete, and which address the appropriate
portions of the code. Further, in the case of GMP projects, according
to Section 24-11.3(c)(3), "the Planning Office shall reject any
application for development allotment which fails to comply with
the requirements of Chapter 24, zoning...". Therefore, if we identify
such a violation with respect to a GMP application, it must be rejected
administratively.
At this point, the Board might be wondering why the Code sets a
st ringent standard with respect to amendment s toG MP submi ss ions.
Typically, it would appear reasonable to allow an applicant to amend
an application after submission, particularly if the change generally
works to bring the proj ect more in line with City land use policies.
However, it is a well established requirement in GMP processes nationwide
that such developments must have a single annual application date, and
a tightly controlled amendment process. The reason for these limitations
is quite simple and obvious.
The GMP establishes an annual quota, for which there mayor may not
be applications in excess of the quota. In cases where applicants
request more than the available number of units, we have a "competition"
in the truest sense of the word. When there are more units available
than requested, applicants are only judged against the "competitive
threshold (a minimum of 60% of the points must be achieved to gain an
allotment) .
The key ~o making the competition work is that it is a "blind" process.
Applicants do not know how many competitors exist, or how many units
each will request. As a result, all applicants tend to try to over-
achieve, to score the maximum points to obtain the limited quota no
matter who else applies. The obvious winner is the community, which
gets proj ects of only the highest caliber, as compared to the normal
process where applicants are only looking to meet the minimum regulatory
standard.
If we turn the competition process into a bartering system, then
we lose the entire advantage of the competitive system. We would
do better to turn the GMP into a lottery system than to take what
have previously been ironclad commitments, and allow applicants
to say "the competition is pretty good this year, I want to increase
my affordable housing commitment or add to my landscaping, "or,
alternatively," since I have no competition, I think I'll cut back on
the siz e of those guest amenities or withdraw my commitment to pave
that road". It matters not whether this occurs in a year with a quota
limit or if adequate units are available, since in the interests of
equal treatment we should accept or rej ect amendment s using a uniform
set of standards whether or not there is competition.
CASE HISTORY: When the 601 Aspen project was reviewed for completeness,
I determined immediately that it was an unusually complex, hard to
follow presentation. As noted in my letter of December 9, 1985, the
original plans submitted on December 1 showed 92 free market units in
Buildings "A" and "B", at least 20 units in Building C, and at least
30 employee "dorm" units on site. The site development plan for the
proj ect stat ed:
"Building A and B for GMP allowances and Building C units by
right" (note: the Building C units are replacement units for
those to be torn down at the Mine Dumps Apartments; the units can
be rebuilt by right but are considered in the site plan review
aspects of the process) and later "Building C (for information
only) part of development on this site...".
The applicant was requesting to put 112 free market and 30 employee
units on a site of 113,500 square feet, when Section 24-3.7(k) sets a
maximum density for multi-family projects in the L-2 zone of 1 bedroom
per 1000 square feet of lot area. This proviSion was clearly exceeded
by the project and consequently, a zoning violation would have been
caused by the development, and it therefore had to be rejected by this
office.
When we sent the letter of December 9, 1985, we received the December
16 response by the applicant, followed by a steady stream of corres-
pondence between us through the ensuing two months. Part of this
correspondence reflects the confusing nature of the original presentation
and the fact that some of the violations uncovered by the Planning
Office could be explained without change to the application. However,
during the course of this process, the following additional events
occurred to further complicate matters:
1. The applicant stated that Building C was no longer part
of the application.
2. The 30 employee dorms were revised in their configuration,
into 17 dorms, each housing 8 persons. The Planning Office
determined that such units were not specifically addressed
in the Code, and would be subject to its "special review"
procedures.
3. We discovered, through a neighbor's comments, that 12,000
square feet in Dean Street which had been labeled "vacated"
and used in the applicant's land area calculations were, in
fact, not vacated, and were, in part owned by Lift 1 Condo-
miniums.
4. The applicant suggested that four additional lots had been
put under option and the 12,000 square feet which had been
lost would be replaced on this other portion of the site.
5. The appl icant engaged an architectural firm to vastly
embellish the original proposal. The staff met with the
architects, and discovered that what had previously been
very schematic plans for architecture, site design and
landscaping were now more definitive, but were also much
more elaborate and substantially changed. Deviations
which were more than technical clarifications include
changes in the building facade, new glass lobby/entrance,
glass pool enclosure, internal space configuration changes
including new conference rooms, and dispersal of employee
units, new building footprints and a new landscaping plan.
In retrospect, it is very clear now that incrementally, the proj ect
which was submitted on December 1st had been changed drastically
through staff meetings and letters of "clarification". It was also
equally clear that the proj ect as proposed on December 1st was quite
premature for review and that the ensueing three months had been
used to get it ready for its public review.
The Planning Office's rejection of the proj ect rests first on the
finding that the "now you see it, now you don't" approach to Building
C is not what was contemplated by the GMP regulations. It is incumbent
upon the applicant to show the "location of all buildings (existing
and proposed) on the development site" (see Section 24-11. 4(a) (2) (aa)).
The elimination of this building changes the project's impacts on all
services and facilities, and affects architecture, site design and
neighborhood compatibility. Therefore, the change is unacceptable,
and the violation of zoning must stand. It is interesting to note
that the other project in this year's competition involves the recon-
struction of 3 units on the site, which are clearly shown on the site
plan and considered part of the development plan for review purposes.
A second finding is that the land area error made by the applicant,
by including land not under his option, cannot be corrected by adding
in land elsewhere. Once again, the concept of adding land area to a
proj ect after its submission has significant implications on site
design and architecture and violates the standards of what constitutes
a significant amendment. In this case the addition merely reconstitutes
the site to its former size, but is a new configuration. In the
future, this precedent could be used to create a larger, smaller
or otherwise different site after the submission date, to benefit the
applicant in the competitive process or to reserve land for future
development.
If the land area in the proj ect is 101,500 square feet, then at
least two zoning violations are caused. First, the project's FAR
is 113,500, in excess of the 1:1 FAR of the L-2 zone. Second, the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit violation continues to exist, and
in this case, would exist even were we to allow Building C to be
eliminated from the development plan. There also appear to be two
setback violations with respect to Building C, although at the scale
of the available drawings, this is difficult to confirm.
ACTIONS REQUESTED OF THE BOARD: As I see this case, there are a
number of determinations which I have made which appear to be appealed
by the appl i cant, whi ch the Board needs to consider, including the
following:
1. Can the applicant eliminate Building C from the development
plan or is this a substant ial proj ect amendment and not
allowable?
2. Can the applicant increase the siz e of the lot back to
113,500 or is this a substantial project amendment and
not allowable?
If the Board determined that the applicant's position with respect to
the above two items is correct, then the application will be processed
by the Planning Commission. This review will be based on the application
as submitted on December 1st, with the above two changes considered as
"technical clarifications". The changes to the project's architecture,
site design, etc. would not result in rejection of the project by the
Planning Office, but merely affect the number of the points to be
awarded to it, and therefore debate as to which changes are acceptable
is in the province of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that
you uphold the positions we have previously taken in considering
the 601 Aspen Street project to be rejected from the 1985 Residential
GMP competition, due to the density and FAR zoning violations it would
involve.
AR.nec.342
,"
"'"j
"
,-,""
OJ, / (')/J rv// /
;L/orrftvJ. .:;r, cyY{(fn.
.Q;t(k""/~y (,r ~(('
6~(NdNM( ..Yfa.j<< ::iJ/"(y.
, )(JG~.f/ .Itu# .Jlm/' .yfM/ .'7tf'1O
.Cl?0N,.6~;"'lW~ dYoY/
(far) .fl,";:,!;!'!'?;?
,'/;0/!1j (w~r) ,9/'.LWl/l,r
February 25, 1986
ALAN RICHMAN, A.I.C.P.
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 601 Aspen
Dear Alan:
It is my understanding that by your letter of February 18, 1986 you
have made such determination as is covered by Sp~tion 2-21 of the City
Code, denying the applIcation and rejecting it from "this year's
competition" (sic) but that by those terms you mean it is rejected
from the 1985 competition. If this is not the case plense advise me
by letter immediately.
Unless YOllr ndministrative deciRton does allow my client's application
for the 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project to be scored together with
the Sunny Park Project at the March 18, 1986 P & Z meeting, my client
does desire to be placed immediately on the agenda of the Board of
Adjustment pursuant to their powers and duties as set out in Section
2-21 to hear and decide appeals from and to. review any orner or
determination made by an anministrative official charged with the
enforcement of the regulations established by the zoning laws.
I think it is clear to everyone involved in this proces~ that the
intent of both the Zoning Code and the Growth Management Plan process
are to achieve the highest quality project with the controlled growth
rate of 3.4% that has been established as a matter of policy by the
City of Aspen. The applicant in this case has made every effort to
improve the project as suggested by the Housing Office and Pl3nning
Office and work within the parameters of the system. Early on the
applicant acceded to your request to not submit an REO application
although he desired to do so.
,r
,.
,
'.OiI"
ALAN RICHMAN, A. loC.P.
Re: 601 Aspen
February 25, 1986
Page Two
Tt Is Quite obvious that both policy changes and technical changes to
the Ci ty Code are needed. In fact, during this process the Emil I oyee
Housing component of the Code has heen suhstautially changed as has
the point system with the int<,nt of improving both pro~ects and the
system.
At a recent meeting the question was raised as to phasing of the 92
units. WhIle it is the strong preference of the applicant to
construct all 92 units in one phase, we understand that there is a
v<,ry real possibility that 97 units may not be allocated in anyone
year and will thus look at a phasing of the 92 uni ts.
z:;~r:"
Douglas p.(A}1~n
DPA/pkm (/
ec: Hal SchIlling, City Manager
Paul Taddune, CIty Attorney
Steve Burstein, Project Planner
,
!
, ,
.~ ..
J"
Aspen/Pitkiq~.Pla:nning Office
Ji'T'z', ':'
13 0 sO.~,.thJgal~~a~s tre e t
',,\:'" . - . : . ~
aspen, colorado 81611
February 18, 1986
Mr. Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Doug:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 6, 1986,
regarding the 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project. Your letter has
not changed our determination that the project be rejected from this
year's competition for the following reasons:
1. Your interpretations of Sections 24-l1.4(h) and 24-11. 7(b) are
inaccurate in the context of the GMP process, both literally
and as it has been historically applied. Section 24-l1.4(h)
of the Aspen Municipal Code states that:
"No applicant shall, after submission of his
application pursuant to Section 24-11. 4(a),
amend, modify or change his application except in
insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification
or technical correction only. The standards of
Section 24-11.7(b) shall determine whether or not
a change is deemed insubstantial."
There are at least two circumstances in which this Section can
apply to an application which is proposed to be amended. First,
an applicant could be asking to amend an application which has
been scored by the P&Z and received an allocation from Council.
In this case, Section 24-11.7 (b) is explicit in providing both
standards and a procedure for rev iew of the proposed amendment.
This case does not apply to the 601 Aspen project since the
application is in the submission stage and has neither been
scored nor awarded a development allotment.
A second circumstance is when an applicant asks to amend a
project before it has been scored or awarded an allocation.
In this case, it is clear that the procedure of section 24-
11.7(b) does not apply, since the procedure refers to a Planning
Commission hearing and recommendation to Council on rescinding
the allocation. However, Section 24-11.4(h) is explicit in
Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
Page 2
February 18, 1986
requiring that the standards of Section 24-l1.7(b) be used in
determining whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial, and
can be processed, or substantial, and cannot be accepted for
review by this office. As noted in my letter of January 29, the
change in the land area clearly affects standard 1 of Section 24-
11.7(b) in that it would affect the points which would be awarded
to the project (i.e., site design and green space) and standard 2,
in that it ~lould affect the site design. Therefore, the change
is substantial and cannot be accepted by this office. There
have also been numerous other proposed changes to the proj ect
over the past 2 1/2 months, including changes to the architecture,
landscaping and similar design features which also cannot accepted
be for the same reason.
2. Since the proj ect site only contains approximately 101,500
s.L, the project is in violation of zoning by proposing at
least 92 st udios and 17 dorm bedrooms, a total of 109 bedrooms,
which requires a land area of 109,000 s. f. as per Section 24-
3.7(k). The fact that this year's quota for residential units is
only 40 units has no effect on this violation. As you know, the
Municipal Code permits the Council to award the full compliment
of units to a project (see Section 24-11.3(b) of the Code) and,
therefore, the proj ect as presented must comply with underlying
zoning requirements.
3. Your letter of February 6, repeatedly indicates that no matter
what your application states, or what the drawings show, we
should evaluate the project based on subsequent "clarifica-
tions". This seems like a reasonable approach on its, face,
but given the fact that this application has been under review
since December 1, and still includes many of the violations noted
in my earlier letters, we have made our best effort to resolve
the conflicts between the later representations and the original
application. It is unclear at this point that the representations
in your most recent letter regarding setbacks and similar violations
can actually be accomplished and still achieve the building program
you have established as of December 1st.
4. One example of the kind of inconsistency from the original
December 1 submission to the current program is the number of
units to be inCluded in Building C. On December 1st drawing
A-6 was submitted depicting 20 units in Building C, stating
that these were "apartment lodge units by right (for infor-
mation only) part of total development on this site but not
part of GMP presentation". An accompanying floor area calculation
for this building indicated that it was to contain a total of
31,900 square feet.
It is quite clear from the statements in the original application
that the following assumptions were being made:
Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
Page 3
February 18, 1986
o The Mine Dump apartment units were to be demolished and
replaced. These units would be exempt from competition
as replacement units, but were included in the original
development scenario for the site.
o There was assumed to be adequate site area to accommodate
Building C, in addition to the 92 studios and the employee
dorms in Buildings A and B.
In a subsequent letter to this office on December 16, you substan-
tially amended your application by stating that while the Mine
Dumps Apartments would be demolished, 3300 square feet of that
complex would be retained as three dorm housing units for
employees. At that point, Building C appeared to have been
eliminated from the presentation. This interpretation is reinforced
by your statement in the February 6 letter that "Building C is
not part of this application but was merely shown for illustrative
purposes...". It is now my understanding that in verbal represent-
ations you have entirely eliminated any building program for the
Building C site, and that it will not even contain the proposed dorm
units.
Looking back, there have been incremental changes to the appli-
cation, from the original representation that Building C is
"part of the total development site" to Building C will contain
3300 square feet and include 3 dorm units to "Building C is not
part of this application". This type of approach to a growth
management competition process is inconsistent with the requirement
that all applications be submitted on a single date to allow for
fair competition for the available quota and makes it impossible
for staff to accurately evaluate the submission. If we take the
position that your original December 1st presentation should
stand, exclusive of any allowed technical clarifications, then
there are 112 free market units and 17 employee dorms on the
site. The total of 129 bedrooms is well in excess of the maximum
allowed on the site, regardless of whether your site contains
113,500 or 101,500 square feet.
To accurately evaluate land use proposals, we must know, up
front, the kind of site plan we are evaluating to determine,
not only conformance with underlying zoning, but also the number
of points to be awarded to the project. Once the project is
submitted, it is unfair to other competitors, and contrary to the
rules of the system, to allow substantial modifications to be
made to the proj ect. The above is just one of several examples
of alterations that have been made since the December 1st deadline
which cannot be accepted by this office. Similar analyses could
be made for the architectural design, landscaping and employee
housing components of the application. Together, they illustrate
that the application, as submitted on December 1st, was premature,
and requires additional study by the applicant before it is to be
A,,",
'-'
Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
Page 4
Februa ry 16, 1966
subject to the public review process.
In summary, the planning Office continues to consider this application
to be rejected and is not scheduling it for review by the Planning
Commission on March 18. Our review of this project has ceased, and we
have initiated a refund of unspent monies. At the direction of the
City Manager, we will not charge you for all of the hours we have
spent to date, in the interests of taking as fair an approach as
possible to this difficult situation. When the refund check is
available through the Finance Office, a letter will be attached
explaining the billing procedure we have used.
.~ L/iJ-
Alan Richman, AICP
Planning and Development Director
AR:nec:ltr.8
cc: Hal Schilling, City Manager
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Steve Burstein, Project Planner
,
(I}1 / u,)) ,-,// /
.,j/orff'W'J.::7-' ,'yytr~?l'
/;r/lk-7f?l(/:f/- at .,.hU(l
(;~rO'dNMr .':lJh;a .c/Ji(y,
?/l G;,,1( , li"';'1 . Arrt. ,9;~1( y;?,o?<
~/,6?? C;~":'7'ffr/r, rf/o//
(yay) ,9.",;: dUy/('J
ex;,?;;>"' ~'(oJ}QI ~or. ~ol'I'
./,':.y.';(" -Jf/,,)! ,Y.:..,'J-,:~,;J,Y'{
February 6, ]986
ALAN RICHNAN
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 601 Aspen Residential GNP Project
Dear Alan:
This letter is in specific response to your letters of January 28 and
January 29, 1986. Due to the questions and confusion that have arisen
since the initial submission of this application relative to the size
and configuration of the development site I think it is very salient
to point out some pertinent matters. (I) Although our application
continues to be for 92 free market studio units, it j s my
understanding that the position of the Planning uffice is tbat not
more than 39 units are available for allocation under the December 1,
\98S submission. (2) The applicant has not specifically asked for
future year allocations but submitted a project consisting of 92 units
with an expected adjustment to be made depending upon the nun~er of
units which City Council is to allocate upon final consideration after
the applicant is entitled to an allotment pursuant to the scoring
systeM. (3) The applicant worked from a city map reflecting that a
p0rtion of Dean Street was "vacated" when in fact it was not a true
vacation of a street but a court award of a portion of Dean Street to
the L,itt One Condominium Association.
RelAtive to Section 24-11.4(h), the language is as stated 1.n your
letter but following that language and in the same section the
standards for interpretatiol1 of that section are set out as being in
another section of the Code, 24-11. 7(b). Referring to 24-11. 7(b),
there are four criteria to be used in determining what is
"insubstantial and for purposes of clarification or technical
correction". Although the Code does not clearly address our situation
as this application has not yet been awarded a development allotment,
I think the Intent is clear from reading both sections tor,cther that
the four crIteria of 21,-11. 7(b) apply to the applicant at .1ny tlP1C
after the Decemher I submission through the awardiug of a development
allotment and thus would apply in our present situation.
Alan Richman
RF: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project
February 6, 1986
Page Two
24-11.7(b)(I)-does not apply in this situation as no points have yet
been awarded this project.
24-II.7(b)(2)-relates to architccture and site design. Conceptually,
the buil ding's footprint size and height have not been changed from
the original submission.
24-11. 7(b) OJ-the applicant has not suggested any change in the
number, size and type of employee units, (bnt the H0using Office has
suggested some fmprovements to the employee hOllstnp, c.onfiguration,
which, if acceptable to P & Z will be accepted by the applicant).
24-11. 7<b) (4)-the applicant l1as suggested no change whatsoever in the
type and level of physical services and facilities of the project.
Even if thi s application were to come within any of the four above
criteria, a hearing wonl,] be requircd bv the Planning and ZonIng
Coml1'ission to "determine the appropriateness of the amcndtnent to the
original plan." The language relates to "rescoring" but I presul'le
that a reasonahle interpretation of this section' would be that the
Initial scoring the application would be for two purposer., (1) to see
if the application meets the minimum threshold and (2) to see if the
applicant's position changes relative to other applicants. Inas~uch
as the applicant previously stipulated tl1at this application would be
considered after the Sunny Park appl ication the only pertinent
criteria would be to detcrmine if the minimum threshold was met by the
"amended plan".
Assuming for the purpose of discussIon only and without conceding the
point thnt the site only contnin~ 101,500 square feet? there continues
to be the confusion ahout "Building C". Building C is not part of
this applicatIon but was merely shown for Ulustrative purposes so
there would be no question about the computation (Of open space. The
92 stm:li.os require 92,000 square feet of lot area. As yo', mentioned,
the question of land required for the dormitories is stiU nnresolved
as it is your position that it is not covered in the Code and must be
dealt with by spedal review. Thus there can presently be no
violation. Also, there is still the pending unresolved question of
how many 'mIts are potentially available for any or all 10PC,
applicatIons.
,.....,
.....~
:)
Alan Richman
Re: 601 Aspen Residential
February 6, 1986
Page Three
GNP proj ec t
Without conceding that there are setback violations, the applicant
states unequivocally that the buildings will be b,d It within the
proper sethacks, once they are finally determined hy the Building
Department. The "setback violation" is not a violation because fire
escapes are allowed to protrude into the setback and are not in
violation of the zoning code. The open space will ~eet the 25% open
space requirement.
County Com~i ssioners' Resolution 85-44 was passed subsequent to the
option in favor of the applicant and without the applicant's consent.
Irhile we do not agree that placing the parking underground is not an
improvement to the existing situation, we feel this matter can be
resolved. The entire thrust of the city in attempting to alleviate
city parking problems has been directed toward reMoval of surface
parking Rnd creation of garage or underground parking to minimize the
visual impact. The applicant's proposal to create aJl weather
underground parking is a suhstantial improvement over surface parking
with its related snow removal problems.
By way of preface to my response to the remaining items In your
January 29 letter, it was OUT distinct understandlnr, based upon
conferences prior to January 21, 1986 with yourself, the City Attoney
and your statement at the Planning and Zoning meeting on January 21,
] 986 that the 601 Aspen application would be continued indefinitely at
the January 28 P & Z meeting and that the applicant wouJ r1 thus' be
allowed sufficient time to work with the Planning Office to provide
the detail requested regarding the remaining items discnssed in your
letter.
In summary, there is no preJu(lI.ee to any other applicert or the public
in allowing this application to be scored. Tn fact proper and
equitable planning process requires that the applicant be entitled to
have this application scored on March 18, 1986 together with the Sunoy
Park app] ication. He wi II dil igently work with your office bet"eeo
now and then to furnish any further clarification reasonably requested
in order to attempt to achieve cooperation to move this excellent
project forward.
OfuY ltr lly yours, /"'7,,', 1/, /"
" /)/ - ,
/' /j/ ,':'
~1 {J{I/<- (~~~~'-_/
'DOUglas/,PP~. Allen
DPA/pkm I
,
....'-...".
'-'
Aspen/Pitkin Plan~ing Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
January 29, 1986
Mr. Doug Allen
Courthouse Plaza Building
530 E. Main
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project
Dear Doug:
The purpose of this letter is to amplify the comments I provided to
you in a letter yesterday. To reiterate, the conclusion of that
letter was that the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project has been rejected
by this office, as provided by Section 24-11.3(c) (3) of the Aspen
Municipal Code. Following is a more detailed explanation of the
reasons supporting this decision.
In the letter of January 28, I indicated to you that the addition of
Lots 3-6, Block 11, Eames Addition to the project site is not an
insubstantial modification for purposes of technical clarification
but instead is a significant change which would have major effects on
the proj ect 's abil ity to meet the compet itive threshold. Therefore,
the 12000 sq. ft. of lot area included in Lots 3-6 cannot be considered
part of this application, leaving the site with approximately 101,500
square feet of land area. This conclusion leads to the following
problems:
1. The project consists of 92 multi-family units in buildings A
and B, 17 employee dorms, and an unspecified number of
units in Building C. Section 24-3.7(k) of the Code sets a
maximum density for mUlti-family projects in the L-2 zone of
1 bedroom per 1000 square feet of lot area. Taking only the
units in Buildings A and B, the project would need at least
109,000 square feet of lot area. This finding makes moot my
interpretation in a letter to you of December 20, 1985 that
the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the dorm units
would be set by special review under the "bedrooms unlimited"
category. Each of the dorm units constitutes at least one
bedroom, which taken together with the 92 studios, results
in a violation of Section 24-3.7(k) of the zoning code.
2. In several locations within the application materials it is
stated that the size of the proposed project will be 113,500
'..."
Doug Allen
Page 2
January 29, 1986
square feet. This buildable area constitutes a floor area
ratio in excess of the 1:1 allowed in the L-2 zone district,
and therefore is a violation of Section 24-3.4 of the zoning
code, the area and bulk requirements chart.
3. There appear to be two setback violations with respect to
Building B. These violations include the requirement that
since this building is located on a corner lot it has two
front yards, one of which must, and does, have a setback of
10 feet, while the other of which must, and does not have a
setback reduced by 1/3 of the 10 foot requi rement (see
Section 24-3.7(f)(3)). The site plan provides a 5 foot
setback on Aspen Street when a 6'8" setback is required.
Furthermore, without lots 3-6 being part of the property, no
rear yard setback for this property is shown. These two
setback problems cause two violat ions of Sect ion 24-3.4 of
the zoning code.
In addition, there are two other zoning violations which we believe to
be in effect, although these cannot be confirmed due to the lack of
clarity in this application. These violations are as follows:
1. There is proposed 92 multi-family units in Buildings A and
B, 17 dorm units, and an unspecified number of units in
Building C. This latter building is shown to include over
31,000 square feet of floor area, and in drawings su~mitted
to this office, a total of 20 units are proposed for the
building. The total of 112 studio units requires a deduction
of 112,000 square feet of lot area, according to the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit calculations of Section 24-3.4.
As noted in our letter of December 20, there will be some
further deduction of lot area required for the dorm units,
to be set by special review of the Planning COllllnission.
However, since the 112 free market units have al ready
counted against more than the entire site area, there is no
area left to count against the dorm units, resulting in
another violation of Section 24-3.4 of the zoning code.
2. No take-off of the open space calculation has been provided
for verification by the Chief Zoning Official. Areas shown
on the site plan as open space include land within City
right-of-way on Aspen Street, land in the 4 lots not included
in the site, and land used for parking and other development
purposes. It does not appear that the site meets the 25%
open space requirement, although this calculation cannot be
verified at this time.
Beyond these violations of the zoning code, there are many other
problems with the project which have made our review very difficult to
. .
.....,
-
Doug Allen
Page 3
January 29, 1986
accomplish. We have been working with representatives of the project
on a regular basis for the last two months to clarify these problems,
and yet still see the following as unresolved:
1. Board of County Commissioners Resolution 85-44, with respect
to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan provides that:
"ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at
least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street
within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit
related uses. The agreement shall be in the form of a
recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin
County and the City of Aspen". The proposal within the 601
Aspen application to remove the existing parking lot and
replace it subgrade is not consistent with the intent of the
condition to maintain "the existing lot" and to provide
for transit related uses.
2. We have yet to receive much of the requested detail regarding
the project's off-site employee housing proposal.
3. We have yet to receive a list of adjacent property owners
for the required notifications to occur.
4. We have yet to receive a response to our inqulrles as, to the
owner's agreement with the Lift I Condominiums that their
tennis court be maintained until May 1, 1986.
5. We remain unclear as to your intent for the Mine Dumps
parcel as there have been conflicting statements as to
whether some units would remain on the property, or if the
BUilding C development will go forward as proposed.
6. The materials submitted by the project architects provide
for many significant deviations from the project as it was
originally conceived. Deviations which are more than
technical clarifications include changes in the building
facade, new glass lobby/entrance and glass pool enclosure,
internal space configuration changes such as new conference
rooms and dispersal of employee units, new footprints, and
new landscaping plan. while we are pleased to see the
project evolving into a better defined concept, it is
difficult to determine the nature of the project to be
reviewed and scored in the GMP process.
In summary, it is premature to review a project which is in an evolution-
ary stage, and which exhibits a significant number of zoning viola-
tions and site plan problems. I encourage you to continue to work
r
""""'"
'._;P
Doug Allen
Page 4
January 29, 1986
with the site, to develop a project which fits the zoning criteria and
can be judged accurately in the growth management system competition
next year. As always, I would be glad to assist you in the coming
work effort.
Sincerely,
~ CLJ)
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR/nec
~
,.
<
-,
....,I
... ,.
.I
.f' \:-j ,~'"
Aspen/Pitkin: IJlanning Office
:/ ';" \,<~~'~::!,:~~' .> ~'<" %-'
130 so,!Jthfgalena,':street
". " .....
asp en, co 10 r ado 8 1611
January 28, 1986
Mr. Doug All en
Courthouse Plaza Building
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, Co 81611
RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project
Dear Doug:
This letter is in response to your letter to me dated January 24, 1986
which was in response to my prior letter to you dated January 20. In
your letter, you indicated that you had already provided us a survey
of the property to be included in the 601 Aspen development. I have
reviewed this survey and compared it to the drawings included in the
601 Aspen Residential GNP application. It is quite clear that you
have added Lots 3-6, Block 11, Eames Addition to the development site
since the original SUbmission, in order that the site would have
suff icient area to accommodate a proj ect of the size propo sed.
,
Section 24-11.4(h) provides that "no applicant shall, after submission
of his application pursuant to Section 24-l1.4(a) amend, modify or
change his application, except in insubstantial part and for purposes
of clarification or technical correction only". A change in the size
and configuration of the site does not constit ute an insubstantial
modification for clarification or technical correction. Such a change
would clearly affect the points which would be awarded to this applica-
tion, affecting the site design and green space, which are scoring
criteria for all residential GMP projects. Therefore, this clarifica-
tion cannot be accepted by the Planning Office.
Without the addition or these four lots to your site (approximately
12,000 sq. ft.) you do not have sufficient land area within the
development to support the number of units proposed. You have therefore
violated the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard of the
underlying zone district, which, pursuant to Section 24-11.3(c)(3)
requires that this project be rejected by the Planning Office.
Therefore, this project is hereby rejected by this office for consider-
ation in the current residential GMP competition.
We will initiate as soon as possible a refund procedure for the
application fees submitted to this office which have not been expended
to date. We will contact you when the refund check is available.
-
-
Doug Allen
Page 2
January 28, 1986
Please let me know how we can assist you in the future in preparing an
application for this property.
Sincerely,
,~~
Alan Richman
Planning and Developnent Director
AR/nec
"",
(/)r / 0.,1 r-.///
J'o-t'1Yf/b1 ~7~ ~VY-lrB?b
.r;Jkr:,NI':Y al -J'a~"
-'
r;~(~J'/ANMI' /J-1hYff ,'d'Jr:l'
, ;'17 G/"f/ .//0,';'1 . Aul. ,';lfMI Yi,,,,,
4"",. r;~,{,M4' dY6//
(,Jt?J) pc~,:,I;JYYI
,'/:<:0:1'/ (J't?,J') JJ<~j:.9.r.r;,r
January 27, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Calena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 601 Aspen
Dear Steve:
The question was raised last week concerning the inclusion of area
within the vacated alley in Block 6, Eames Addition because of Section
24-2.5 of the Code. However, the alley in Block 6 was vacated by
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1967, several years prior to the enacting
of Section 24-2.5.
That Section provides that ~ubsequent to the effective datc of the
Section such vacated land shall not be included in the calculation of
allowable density or required open spaces. As thc vacation was prior
to that effective date this vacation is included in the allowahle
density and the required open space area of the development tract.
(~(jrd2Ii) ly, /?f1/~' /
, / / '~
----/"'f (9(/1 c~. ,~
1>ouglaS!. Allen
DPA/pkm
bee: Hans Cantrup
Mark Danielson
,--
"""
'-"
ing Office
January 20, 1986
Mr. Doug Allen, Esq.
Courthouse Plaza Building
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, 00, 81611
Re: 601 Aspen Residenti al GMP proj ect
Dear Doug,
Attached is a memo written by Steve Burstein to me, containing
findings with respect to the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project.
The memo finds that land area shown in the application is, in
part, actually owned by the Lift 1 Condominiums, while the
remainder has not been vacated and is, therefore, still in public
ownership. The effect of these findings is that there does not
appear to be sufficient land area included in your sUbmission to
support the number of units which has been requested. If this is
in fact the case, the application must be rejected pursuant to
Section 24-11.3(c) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code, since you
would be unable to comply with the underlying zoning regulations
for the site.
The attached memo also notes that Parcel C may not contain the
land area which was designated in the original application. This
question also needs to be addressed before the application can be
submitted to the Planning Commission.
I r eq uest that you sutrn it to the Planni ng Off ice no later than
January 27, 1986, at 5:00 P.M., a survey of the property, with
area calculations certified by a licensed surveyor. The land in
the survey cannot include any property which was not shown in the
application submitted on December 1, 1985, or any property on
which you do not presently have an option.
Until this matter is resolved, review of the 601 Aspen
Residential GMP submission by our office and the Planning
Commission must be delayed. Therefore, your project will not be
considered by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January
28. The Sunny Park application, which is the other competitor in
..."'~....
..""
......"
Doug All en, Esq.
January 20, 1986
Page 2
the Residential GMP for 1985, will be reviewed by P&Z on January
28, to comply with the Municipal Code requirements that
residential projects be scored by P&Z in January. The failure of
the 601 Aspen project to meet this deadline is dUE to your
inability to provide us with sufficient materials to review this
application.
Please feel free to call me if you require any assistance in
responding to these matters.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
~D-J.
Alan Richman, AICP
PI anni ng and Development Di rector
AR:jlr
"
r
I.
.~ ':i
......
-
I
~ .r~, '
Asp e n / Pit kin;.. Plan n i n g 0 f fie e
.. ""'~"'-"
:;:.'1'........,....;./;;.. ,. ..r ;.,,,,
130 sQutb' galena~~s tree t
...,.. -~- ". '. .
aspen/colorado 81611
December 20, 1985
~lr. Doug Allen
530 East I'lai n Str eet, 1st Floor
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Doug:
\'le are in receipt of your letter dated December 17, 1985, concerning
the 601 Aspen Residential GI1P application. !'Ie continue to find the
application very difficult to interpret, and the following information
appears to be necessary:
1. ~draWing showing the conceptual floor plans for the dormitory
units to be located in Buildings A, B, and the I!ine Dumps.
The plans should clearly demonstrate ho., the pro[X>sed dorms
. t into the space pro[X>sed for these units.
2. Floor plans for the two off-site employee housing sites, so
that the number of people to be housed can be evaluated.
Describe the number of units .,hich exist on the site, and
the size (s:juare footage, bedroom count) for each unit.
3. Reiterating earlier comments, Ordinance 20, Series of 1985
requires the submission of complete applications for any
other associated review procedure in conjunction with your
GMP submission. l~hile a complete rezoning request has been
submitted, a subdivision application has not been submitted.
Review Section 20-10 of the Code and submit 10 copies of a
complete pacKage immediately, including maps at the required
scale.
4. It still appears that the disclosure of oHnership requirements
have not been met. It may be advisable for you to contact
the City Attorney and demonstrate to him that you have the
right to apply for all of the land in question.
lIithout conceding the sufficiency of the submission, we have decided
to send this application out for referral purposes and to schedule it
for review by the Planning Commission on January 28th. However, it
should be emphasized that referring this application should not be
construed by you or your client as a final determination that the
submission is complete, or that all zoning issues have been satisfact-
orily resolved. Instead, we intend to get a reading of your application
through the public process and to reserve the right to find, based on
,
Doug Allen
,
"""
-
Page 2
12/20/85
any discoveries made, whether or not your proposal is technically
sufficient.
In referring this application I am making the following determinations
regarding your dormitory employee housing proposal: {'- ~._~.I
1. The City's zoning regulations do not specifically permit/the fM"%
result which you are trying to accomplish. Therefore, we
have made the interpretations below in an effort at allowing
a public determination of the appropriateness of your
(]roposal. However, it may ultimately be necessary for you
'to process one or more code amendments to specifically
accomplish your end objectives.
The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the 18 dormitory
units you propose on site will be set by Srecial Revie\oJ.
Section 24-3.4 of the Code provides for the minimum lot area
per dwelling unit for "bedrooms unlimited" to be set by
Special Review, and this definition of a unit with more than
3 bedrooms is the closest I can come in the Code to your
eight person dorms. I must 1~2rn you that based on the
Special Review, we may find that your dorm proposal cannot
be fully accommodated on site. The only other alternative
is that since the Code does not desionate minimum lot area
per dwelling unit for dorm units, l"e~use the 6,000 gJ. ft.
requirements provided in Section 24-3.4 for individual uses
in the zone. In this case, 6,000 91. ft. x 18 dorms Hould
deduct more lot area than you have remaining on'the site
after your 92 tourist units are considered.
?
'W~ ~.
0~!t- ~
m I\S~4 J5
~~. ~( '3
] .
~
Since boardinq houses are an allo\-;ec use in the L-2 zone,
and in Section~4-3.1[c) boardinghouse is defined in conjunc-
tion with dormitory, we will consider the dormitory to be an
allowed use in the zone.
During the course of the referral and revieH process. we may find that
additional clarifications or materials are necessary for our revieVl.
You should be al<lare that compared to other applications we have received,
your submission is most confusing and lacking in the type of detail we
would normally expect of such a large development pro[Osal. Your
prompt attention to any requests l<le make will help us to meet our
agenda deadl ines.
l\R/ ne c
Sincerely,
,~
Ala n Ri chma n
Planning and Development Director
'I/~ .'i '"
rY}
.
4~
Aspen/Pitll,."j,~,"~~,;rK,w",,'..,.,.. iog Office
130 s......'.~J.treet
."tf.'f.~'d~''':lr 81611
aspen ;~'~5~~~~u
'it'
""
.....,
January 13, 1986
Doug Allen, Esq.
530 East Main St., First Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Doug,
I am writing this letter to request further information concerning the 601
Aspen Residential GMP application. Based on the discussions on January 9,
1986, at the Housing Authority's meeting and the technical clarification
meeting with yourself, Hans Cantrup, Sam Hyatt, Robert Holmes, Elyse
Elliott and myself, the following information appears necessary to
evaluate the project. Please note that some of this information has
already been requested in Alan Richman's letter of December 20, 1985, but
ha s yet to be provided.
1. A drawing showing the conceptual floor plans for the employee
dormitory units and common areas, in a common and sufficiently large
scale, as discussed and given conceptual approval by the Housing
Authority on January 9, 1986.
2. Floor plans (to scale), site plan and parking plan for the Ki tzbuhel
Lodge and Flower Garden Apartments.
3. Disclosure of Ownership and a letter by the owner authorizing the land
use applications for the Kitzbuhel and Flower Garden buildings.
4. Surveys of all properties being considered in this application.
5. More detailed site plan showing, at a minimum, conceptual landscaping,
contouring of open space and sidewalks.
6. East and North elevations of the 601 Aspen project (Buildings A and B)
detailed to the extent discussed at the afternoon January 9th meeting.
7. Reply as to whether the vacated alley south of Juan Street has been
used for purposes of calculating FAR or open space, as this is
prohibited according to Section 24-2.5 of the Municipal Code.
As you know, the 601 Aspen GMP application is scheduled to be reviewed by
p&Z on January 28, 1986. This information should be submitted to the
Planning Office at the earliest possible date to allow the referral
agencies and Planning Office the opportunity to review it. I believe the
.-,'
t
,...~,
-
-
Doug Allen, Esq.
January 13, 1986
Pa ge 2
afternoon meeting was helpful for all of us to better understand the
proposal. the City's review process, and many of the principle technical
concerns regarding the project.
Please let me know if I can provide you any assistance in the submission of
these clarification materials.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
l ,kvf i~ ~(;;;k ~~
Steve Burstein
PI anne r
SB : jl r
Attachment
'.-
,,-.,
.9JOF,'f'hd .9 .JY"an:
,r:rlt&>?,"N'Y "d' ...//:".
""'-",
e,~/4'/&'Mfe .91':;;; ,rJJ4p,
\'/7 G;;.dt ."/l,.~n ,#mt. .r/;~/t y(?,,,,,,
J&o/N...r:;;,~M~ d'/6'//
(.ftJ.,) ,9<Q,f'.,t;l"tYJ
5'Q;I!;J: /' (.,tJ.,) .W'.5-.M.,?,f'
December 17, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Planinng and Zoning Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South'Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hans B. Cantrup/601 Aspen GMP Application
Dear Alan:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify (I) the employee housing
component of the above' application as well as (2) the designation of
tracts I, II and III on Pages 1 and 2 of the Ownership Certificate
furnished by Pitkin County Title, Inc. as part of the application.
The property referred to in I as Hine Dumps is reflected on Sheet A-I
of the submission as C; the property referred to in II 8" Barbee is
reflected on Sheet A-I of the submission as A; and the property
referred to in III, Parking Lot is B on Sheet A-I. The "RarhE'e"
property which you asked about yesterday is another piece of property
presently owned by the Barbee family and which is located generally to
the west of Garmisch Street and to the north of Dean Street.
Relative to the employee housing component of the application, I
enclose an 11 X 16 blowup of the detail of the typical dorm
arrangements on the ground floor of J.o.th. Building)( f. Sf\<l- R.:*: Each dorm
is proposed to house 8 employees in each unit of 1,200 squa re feet.
There will be 11 of these studio-type units in Building A and 4 in
Building B for a total of 15 units housing 120 employees.
In the Mine Dumps buildings that will be existing after the demolition
and consisting of 3,300 square feet there will he two units of 1,200
square feet each in one building and I unit of the same size in the
other building housing a total 22 employees for a total of 144
,.,1.",. h,..., 00 ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ A .
r-,
"'"
.
.
~
.... /
"''''
Mr. Alan Richman
Re: Hans B. Cantrup!601 Aspen GMP ^prJication
December 17, 1985
Page Two
Relative to the existing off-site component of the emplovee housing
there is no major renovation contemplated except ~s may be required to
be in compliance with City Code and UBC. We would lIke to leave the
existing configuration to allow for as much privacy for each employee
as possible but will remove walls as necessary so as to meet or exceed
the minimums required by the employee housing regulations.
Please call
application.
it.
me if any further clarification Is n~eded on this
I will promptly furnish it or meet with you to discuss
,//V"~lY y, our'/nJ/J
Lh4"-1 (~^---
"~gl~'8 r; Allen
DPA!pkm
bee: Hans Cantrup
'.
....,
....-J
.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
, :;...
asp en, co 10 r a,d 0 ~" 81611
~ . . ~
December 9, 1985
Hans B. Cantrup
Box 123 e4
Aspen, CO 81612
Dea r ~:ans:
l'i e h a v e co m pI et e d il pre 1 in; i na r y c h e c k 0 f you r res ide n t i ill or 0\'1 t h
management quota Eyster.l application kno~1n as 601 Aspen. Section 201-
11.3(c)(3) requires the Planning Office to reject any application
~lhich fails to comply with the zoning regulations of the City of
Aspen. Pursuant to this section, we are compelled to reject your
a ppli cation f or the f olIoldng rea sons:
l.A(ThC L-2 zone has a minimum lot arca per c1\H'lling unit
~~eqllirer.lent of 1000 Eq. ft. per studio unit. Your site,
J which contains in e::cess of 113,000 s::j. ft., cOlllcl therefore'
support 113 studios. HOllever, your plan shows 92 free
~{; ~market units in builcHngs t\f<B, at leart 20 units in Builrlinq
" f' C. and at least 30 employee "dorm" units on site (excluclinn
11'~ l&"\-flM() those on the l'ine Dumps zite, ~lhich' I can't fir;cJ)., The 142
units requirE a lot size of at least 142,000 fXJuare feet.
J.'A' rj' It iE e:{tremely difficult to read your clrill'lings, but it
Y"r JIifj' - appears that you have violated the 28 foot height 1 imit of
V y~N', e L-2 zone due to the columns on each buildi~ as~cll a~' I ~
*. :M \l the 10 foot rear yard setback for Building B,' /0'~ Mp,;.d i! 1/ 1
. Q/d >jk /(A'V J .1~/U.JC61!.-c" - 01\
, 3. our enployee housing proposal appcilrs t'o be inconsirter~t
, with the use tilbles. The L-2 zone permits the construction
/l j. ,1 j.A1J of a boardina house. but not a donli tory. In the> c1ef initions
~. VJ~,~" section of the Coc1e (24-3.J). dormitory is mcntionecl in tHO
~o ~ places, at subsection (c), along \'lith toarcling hOllse and
':.t ~' roominCl house, and by itself at subsection (gg). Fo,,'evcL
, .). :<1 ~Ihen looldng at the use tables, boarc1il'g hou~;e, roonirCl
'/?ocoW' j:t'.z/ house and dormitory are all aUm/eel iT' the CC zonc. ,,'hile
flVI~ ~onlY boarcling hCl's('s arc allollce' in the L-l and L-2 zonC'.
.':~ ~f1 ' and boarding houses and dormitories only in the L-3 zone. It
,~.P" appears that ~le mu!:t therefore differenticte betHecn a
. boardino hO~I!:'e and a clormitory, with the lattcr llse bf'in')
prohibited In the L-2 zone.
4. P.s required by Sectic>n 24-11.3 (J), you must submit conplHe
it,~ .M /cJld~ c.... ~ ;J ~ ( .&1~, 7,
,
\/ JU" fi""l"l' I ;)~tJ" , I~(,)"
f,;...-'t'iw1~~~' II ,e>, ~, x
~.I' ,~ ....
,
applications for your .."ubc1ivision and 8040 greenline revie~IS
at the same time as your (,NP submiss10n Hi made. You have
submitted no information in this regard.
,~
l'''''''\
"'-/
In general, your presentation is unclear, confusing and not ~lell
documented, and as result, would likely score well below the competitive
CO threshold. For example, it is nearly impossible to evaluate the site
J design without a clear site drawing, including a lcmdscaping plan.
" Similarly, to review the a.rchi tP~'fal(compatibility wi th such schematic
drawings is nearly impossible. T e application does not describe
your employee housing program. exce(t to Galculate the,'numbers for us.
--, -(/1' .44,p':{fj:/iA q A.{
. IIIII! Please keep in mind that the requirement fpf' hqusinCj 1S more than an(jJ
;~~texerCise in quantity; it must also be an evaluation of quality.'C;["
.' j(lryrically, applications describe the I'lay in which the units function. "tV
.I ~If a dorm ~lere c"llo~led on the pite. ",hat type of COHlr.10n areas Diviner, /.:~?
'J C r,ebathing) will be providec' and how will to<!d s~.Lv_i.f~ be obtained?/' '<p
o l'lhat portion of the ~line Dumps Hill be retaiiiea? ihilt is beinC; proposecjl(50D }.
'(811<4"4.. for the off-site units in terms of upgrade? Hha tyr:e of units eXii- <T.!)
'L. in these buildings and ~lhat is being proposed? I"he, re is the proo /J~2A
that you have an option or interest in these prope ti~'s? 0, ~ n ~:;;
)JvJ)l. ,<jt ~qd/l(,t,..r~ W ""..
The al'rlication is al so deficient in several oth(,r vhy importa/nc ~,7
respects. For exal'1ple, the re\'ie~l of Eervices and facilities in t'he /
area is also uncle?r. Letters are proviced from the referral aqencies '
(-Dindicating thilt ~later and seHN service in the areil is adequate.
'5 HO\~e\'er. the application then propose!:' an improvcnent to the scervic('
\~ to sone incleterminate level. He neec to knoH e::ilctly ~Ihat i!:' proposed
for the uP9rade if you el:pect to achieve the rlaxjmurr. score in this
area. 1';e also need a true drainage plan, not a letter from a consu1t~T!t
sayinCl he is willing to prepe.re sane. Finally, we need a technicc1
analysis of road capacity, particularly on 1\Epen Street. 1f:4 Farking
spaces are proFosed to be provided on site. on a street ",hich is icy.
nar row and quite steep, and yet you e:(pect little impact [rom aeleled
traffic. A more convincing arCllment could be mildE if a presentation
\'Iere made of mitigation techniques which ~lill be emr1oyea.
(ijFinallY, there remain many questions about the oHnership of the
f entire pcrcel. and your right to apply for thi5 development. I \~oulel
, suogest that your rights anc1 obligiltions (i.e. Ski Company parkinc.
tennis co~rts replacement; Barbee land inside and octside of the City)
~! be nore clearly defined for t!s.
~v~l. J"Q, .
'I II) Since Sectiun ~4-11.7(c)(3) reqdr s that this vrr,]icutie'n be reject!'c,
'~' \'Ie are in the process of nakino out ,I r<'['me, ct,ccl: to you. Pl case
) 2:GViEC us if you aIso vant to ',lithc:raH your rc;:'.ord.r~; rcqu(;[;t 00 th2t
Ie cal' refund that check as 1,,'('lJ.
I would be happy to noet ycu and YOl:r rerresentilt ivC' <,t ycur cor.verd,'!'ce
to uiscuss 1:'.'1 fin(1inos. Pleas!" let me knOll \,;h(:n 'IOU 1'lOulel like to
have such a meeting. - "
')
.
,
"
.......
-
Sincer"ly,
m'L- ~
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR/nec
3
,
..
-
ft:",,,,dNkfe .9~ ,q;~.
'-'PtlG;ut .~/tU" .4ee/. .9;~t ,9"20",
,if~H. c;:,~?U.rh d'/O'//
(8tJ,f) .9J':j:d'd'CC
,'3';W':Z'/ (8C8) .9<~.j:.9.Y.9d'
!iJt'H~k .9 ~~
,r::rfa::,Nt<;y 17./ <.z1:rD
December 16, 1985
ALAN RICHMAN
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hans B. Cantrup/601 Aspen
Dear Alan:
Hans requested that I draft a letter in response to your letter of
December 9, 1985 to him regarding hIs Growth Ilanagement System
application for the above. I will address this response in the same
chronological order as your letter.
In order to clarify the points addressed in paragraph I of your
letter, the application does reflect 92 free-market studio units in
Buildings A and B. The existing Mine Dumps buildings are scheduled to
be demolished except for 3,300 square feet as shown on the at tached
drawing which will house 22 employees in a boardinl' house, rooming
house, dormitory configuration, referred to herein as "dorm" at 150
square feet per employee. In Building A there will be 13,200 square
feet of employee housing all in a dorm configuration to house' 88
employees and in Building B, 4,800 square feet of dorm housing to
house 32 employees. Thus with 92,000 square feet for the studios and
21,300 square feet of dorm space there is a total of 113,300,square
feet against total land area of 113,500 square feet.
Sheet A-9 of the application shows a height of 28 feet for both
Building A and Building R. The (mechanical equipment), elevator
shafts exceed the 28 feet as they are allowed to do by Code and thus
there iR no violation of the 28-foot height limitation in the Code.
No height variation will be requested. It is our understanding that
when a project fronts on more than one street we may designate the
front of the building and thus the rear and side thereof. The front
of this project is to the north and thuR the rear yard setback for
Building B is to the south and does not violate the 10-foot
limitation. The westerly portion of Building A has fire escape
projecting 4 feet into the 5-foot side setback as allowed by Code, aR
does the easterly end of Building B.
't' .'
-.
-
ALAN RICHMAN
Re: Hans B.
December 16,
Page Two
Cantrup!601 Aspen
1985
Regarding paragraph 3, it is correct that in Section 24-3.1 of the
Code, dorm is mentioned in two places and the definition of "boarding
hpuse. rooming house, normi tory" is not totally consistent. Reading
the two definitipns together, a dormitory is a portion of a building
where "lodging" or "group sleeping accommodations" is provided for
housing six or more persons for compensation but no more than eight
persons. Inasmuch as "hoarding house. rooming house. and dormitory"
are considered interchangeably together in one definition it appears
that such interpretation as that mentioned in your paragraph 3 should
not be made until a Code clarification is made. Dorm use does not
appear to be prohibited by Zoning Code in the Lodge Zone where it is
very obviously the most appropriate type and location for such in
connection "ith proj ects as this. It is my understanding tha t dorm
use is or was allowed in the Sardy House, Skiers Chalet. Aspen Inn,
Holland House, Mountain Cha let, Dormey Vous. Snowflake and in the
Continental Inn, none of which are in the CC or L-3 Zpne.
On page 3 of the submission request was made for both subdivision and
green line review, although green line review is not applicahle to
this "pplication for BuildIngs A and B as shown on Sheet A-I of the
submission.
Article II of Section 24 of the Code does not reqllJre det"n
concerning the employee housing at conceptual stage. only that the
number and type of units be designated. It was our understanding from
the second pre-application conference that employee housing
requi rel'lents would probab Iv be re-vamped by the present ly pending
proposed Code amendments to the employee housing portion of the Code.
In summation, I think we have clari fied the most serious points of
concern you stated in your letter and can easily address the others at
our meeting today.
~tIlY Yo~
~ttllen
DPA!pkm
1
..---
!>>~9. ~
~rd~
~94-~~.
58tJ rffrrd ~ Jt.<eec. !FWd!F~
~. ~ tf/6'//
(31:18) .9.?S-d'd't:lt:l
March 19, 1986
Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission
City Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 601 Aspen Board of Adjustment Hearing
scheduled for March 20, 1986
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to request that the hearing presently
scheduled before the Board of Adjustment on the March 20, 1986 agenda
be continued to March 27, 1986. The reason for this request is that
by letter from Alan Richman to myself delivered at 4:30 o'clock p.m.
yesterday, it appears that the applicant and the Planning Office have
reached an accommodation whereby the applicant's project will be
eligible for scoring pursuant to the 1985 GMP competition and thus the
necessity for appeal from administrative decision will be moot.
However, pending complete final agreement we do desire to remain
available in the Board of Adjustment process on a continuance basis.
In all likelihood I will be able to advise you Friday of this week or
Monday of next week to eliminate the item from your agenda but in the
meantime would like to have it continued for one week.
~]' '00".
,)~,""U
DPA/pkm
~ytu.,..I" (8t:l8) .9.?S-.98.9d'