HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150309
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 09, 2015
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) FOOD & WINE Charity 5K Run Noise Variance
b) Requests Associated with USA Pro Challenge - banners and construction
c) Minutes - February 23, 2015
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #10, Series of 2015 - 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split, First
Reading
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #5, Series 2015, Utilities Development Review Fees
b) Ordinance #7, Series of 2015 - 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen Club & Spa -
Planned Development Amendment
c) Ordinance #9, Series of 2015 - Limits on Variations Code Amendment
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting March 16, 2015
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristin Kenny, Permit Coordinator Special Events
THRU: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing
CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health & Sustainability
DATE OF MEMO: February 23, 2015
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2015
RE: FOOD & WINE Charity 5K Run Noise Variance
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Aspen Chamber Resort Association has requested a special event
permit for the FOOD & WINE Charity 5K Run in the Rio Grande Park on Friday, June 19, 2015.
The Special Event Permit Review Committee has met and reviewed the permit with the
applicant. ACRA has received a conditional special event permit for this event.
ACRA would like to request a noise variance to begin at 6:30a.m., which is 30 minutes earlier
then the allowed time of 7:00a.m.
BACKGROUND: This is the 4 th Annual run and the 5K route will start and finish at Rio
Grande Park. The event is a fund raiser, is open to the public, anticipating approximately 600
participants and there will be a $30 GA entry fee. The run will be staffed by volunteers who will
help manage registration and act as course marshals. Event uses amplified speakers for
announcements and has a DJ playing music. Registration will be available online beginning April
1 and onsite registration will take place Thursday, June 18 in the F&W registration tent. In
addition to the general public, many F&W chefs, wine speakers, and event pass holders
participate in the race. Due to start time of the F&W seminar programming that morning in
which they present or attend, the race start time must begin at 7:00 a.m. In 2014, City received
complaints about event having amplified music beginning at 6:30a.m.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant will deliver letters to business and residents near Rio Grande Park and along the
race route two weeks before the event. Their letter will thoroughly outline the event’s times and
impacts.
Section 18.04.050(B)(1) allowed noises states (3) Special Events or other events to which the
public is invited with following conditions:
P1
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
(1) Sound emanating from outdoor athletic events between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
(2) Special Events or other events to which the public is invited with the following conditions:
(a) The maximum decibel level at the perimeter of the event does not exceed 100 decibels; and
(b) Amplified noise shall be created only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; and
(c) Neighbors within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the site of the proposed sound source are
notified. Such notification must be in writing and be done seven (7) days prior to the starting
time of the event; and
(d) The arrangement of loud speakers or the sound instruments must be such that it minimizes
the disturbance to others resulting from the position or orientation of the speakers or from
atmospherically or geographically caused dispersal of sound beyond the property lines; and
(e) All reasonable measures are taken to baffle or reduce noise impacts on the neighbors; and
(f) Event organizers agree to cooperate with the Police Department in addressing noise
complaints from neighbors, which may include the termination of the event.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial impacts for the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The noise variance would allow the FOOD & WINE
Charity 5K Run to exceed the noise ordinance by an additional 30 minutes, earlier than the
current 7:00a.m. start time for athletic events.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Should Council approve this request, amplified sound will
begin at 6:30a.m. and the race start time will be at 7:00a.m.
ALTERNATIVES: Without an approved noise variance, prior to 7:00a.m., all announcements
/amplified sound will be kept below 60 dba, per Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(A).
PROPOSED MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar, Council is approving the request for
amplified sound to begin at 6:30a.m.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P2
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2015
RE: Requests Associated with USA Pro Challenge
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is being asked to extend the length of time banners are
allowed on light poles on Main Street and in the commercial core from 14 days to 4 weeks.
Council is also being asked to ban construction in the Central Resort Area on Wednesday,
August 19, and a “morning only” (half) day on Thursday, August 20, 2015, the two Pro
Challenge race days.
DISCUSSION: In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Council granted both these requests. The City of
Aspen Municipal Code 26.510.140 Policies regarding signage on public property:
C. Banners and flags on Main Street light posts.
1. Purpose : Banners and flags hung from light posts on Main Street have traditionally been
permitted to celebrate special events of community interest. The purpose of these
policies and regulations is to clarify which events may be celebrated and advertised
through the use of banners or flags hung from the City-owned light posts on Main Street.
2. Eligibility : Banners hung from the Main Street light posts shall be permitted for
anniversaries of local nonprofit organizations beginning at the organization's tenth (10th)
year and for events that are considered relevant to a large segment of the local
community
6. Duration: The display of banners and flags on the Main Street light posts shall not
exceed fourteen (14) days or the duration of the event, whichever is less.
Banners are allowed on light posts in the commercial core when associated with an approved
special event, also for only 14 days.
Staff is requesting Council allow banners celebrating the Pro Challenge to be hung on light posts
on Main street and in the commercial core for 4 weeks. Staff feels that with the magnitude of
press coverage, national and statewide as well as the impact on the community, that the extended
time period is warranted.
The City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.56.010 adopts the Construction Management Plan
and Section 4.0 of the Construction Management Plan outlines the hours of construction and is
allowed from June 1 st through Labor, limited to 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday.
P3
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
Construction in the Central Resort Area is not allowed during Food & Wine. Staff is requesting
Council extend the construction ban for the Pro Challenge (this year it is scheduled for August
19 th and 20 th ) so that there will be no conflicts between bicycle racers, spectators and
construction crews. Staff is requesting all day on Wednesday, August 19 th and a morning only,
or “light” day on Thursday, August 20th.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council approve both of these requests.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not want to approve the staff recommendation, banners will
be hung for the allowed 14 days. Staff does not feel there is an alternative to not allowing
construction in the Central Resort Area August 19 th and 20 th as it is a safety issue.
PROPOSED MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar, Council is allowing the banners for
the Pro Challenge to be hung on light poles around the city for 4 weeks and is also approving no
construction in the Central Resort Area on August 19th and morning of 20 th .
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P4
VI.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #25, Series of 2015 – Contract – Winter & Company – Residential Design Standards
Update ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Minutes – February 9, 2015 .............................................................................................................. 6
Resolution #24, Series of 2015 – Contract Change Order for R.A. Nelson ...................................... 6
PUBLIC HEARING FOR POLICY RESOLUTION - Resolution #15, Series of 2015 – amend Section
26.212 and 26.220 of the Land Use Code ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ordinance 5, Series of 2015 – Utility Development Review Fee Amendment ............................................ 6
Ordinance #9, Series of 2015 – Limits on Variations Code Amendment ..................................................... 6
Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 9
Resolution 23, Series of 2015 ..................................................................................................................... 10
Resolution 22, Series of 2015 ..................................................................................................................... 13
P5
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins, Romero
and Daily present
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION
1. Peter Fornell asked about the progress with reviewing the cash in lieu program. There was a
study in 2011 and the results were not a surprise. It was recognized as a serious problem and no
action has been taken. The amount is only mitigated for 70 percent of what is requested in
development. The City is asking the community to come up with extra FTE’s to meet the
numbers. The employee generation study is completed and the results are what we expected.
One disappointing result is not taking a look at residential mitigation or generation. In regard to
the affordable housing certificate program, when accepting cash in lieu for 60 to 70 percent the
private sector can’t do that. If you want to see the program die continue to take 60 to 70 percent
of what it cost to complete. No one will buy certificates and development will come to a halt.
It’s time this board puts this on the top 10 list and takes a good hard look at what you are asking
for.
2. Jerry Bovino said our job is to keep Aspen beautiful. That is why we have a municipal code. The
worst we could do is carve one off variances to the code. Developers are smarter than we are.
We need to rewrite the code so it fits the current needs of the City. It should be uniform for every
developer that comes here. People are not opposed to development but bloated stupid
development that makes Aspen ugly for our grandchildren. Make the code something that is
good for everyone in Aspen.
3. Walt Madden encouraged Council to vote no on ordinance 9 at first reading. Ordinance 9 feels
like a knee jerk reaction to the charter amendment petition. He encouraged Council to stop
spending time on that and start legislating code amendments we need in town.
4. Tim Reed said Council creates policy and staff and the city implement them. Over 1000 voters
expressed disappointment in the process. Let this go to a vote and come back to an ordinance
after the vote.
5. Bert Myrin asked Council to vote no on ordinance 9 tonight. Spend time on the substance of the
code instead of the process. Try some things to address the substance.
6. Torre stated he supports the previous speakers. Not sending this to second reading will be the
best move for this Council. He said regarding the election he was dismayed when Council chose
to do an all mail ballot election. Polling places are vital to the community. The biggest charge
for Council is to encourage voter turnout. There is a middle ground. We don’t need to run all the
precincts we have previously. City Hall will act as a voting center. He recommended a second
center possibly at Schultz. In 2013 voter turnout was 35%. What can we do about that. It starts
with access. Sending a ballot to everyone is a great move. One third of the people who were on
the PMIV and requested a ballot sent the ballot back. 100% of the people who went to the polling
place voted. He is asking Council to consider setting up additional voting centers.
Mayor Skadron said he agrees with what Torre said. When this came before Council he objected to
mail ballot. Polling places are the essence of community and helped to create the fabric we cherish so
much. Does Council want to move to a hybrid system.
Councilman Daily said he respects what Torre brought to us. He had similar feelings when this first
came up. He likes the sense of community coming together to vote. If there is a way to move
towards a hybrid system he is happy to work with the Mayor.
Mayor Skadron said he is concerned about voter clarity. With multiple options there is a question of
when voting happens. His preference would be not the hybrid system but return to the old way.
Councilwoman Mullins stated she supports the hybrid but would support anything that gets more
voter turnout. Allowing voters several options increases their participation. She supports polling
places going away. Things do change and we need to provide other options.
P6
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
3
Torre said the trend is going towards mail in and the concern is to have similar systems. Getting a
ballot mailed has been available for a while. The only change here is one will be mailed to everyone.
It is hard to make heads or tails of who is voting. This will be the first all mail ballot for the City and
he suggests we run the hybrid system for this year. We won’t know that info until we test that out.
Councilman Frisch said the county, state and federal process are all doing same thing. If there is a
way for this election to be a hybrid we do need neon signs saying don’t expect this for the future. We
should try to get on the national process. Trying to get as many people to vote as possible. Polling
places won’t be there forever.
Torre stated the snow is back. He noticed there are places where large snowplows can’t access.
Specifically between Galena and Mill and he is asking Council and the City Manager if it would be
possible for resources for a bobcats to help with trouble spots.
7. Mick Ireland stated mail ballot is the most important statistic in a highly transient town where
about 20 percent of any given mailing is returned. A good many voters think a ballot is coming
and it can’t be forwarded. The hybrid system merits some consideration. The issue over
ordinance 9 is to continue it. Council might be well advised to continue it till after the election.
The ordinance exempts parking from the home rule charter. It might be better to wait until the
people have spoken. The ordinance concedes the point people are qualified to vote on land use
decisions. Rather than two competing versions let the people speak and come back. We need a
compressive approach to parking rather than a variance. When Base 1 was approved statistics
were conjecture not facts. It bears some examination. He proposes a framework to go forward to
look at the problem as a whole not a project by project basis.
8. Steve stated it is inappropriate to proceed on ordinance 9. It looks and smells like a tactic to screw
up the initiative.
9. Jasmine Depocter – stated she completely agrees with Mick Ireland.
10. Marsha Goshorn said the idea of a mail in ballot good. Many people came and dropped off their
ballot in the envelope for the November election.
11. Doug Wilson begged Council to postpone any action on Ordinance 9.
12. Cark Hecht said last November trash bins at the post office were stacked full of ballots.
13. Janine Kirk agrees with Bert and Mick. She hopes Council postpones ordinance 9 or votes no.
There have been social dances in the rio grande for the last 9 years. She appreciates the city
offering that. The numbers have gone from 20 to 50 and there is no other venue in this town.
She is asking Council to reconsider letting the rio grande crew use something other for a staging
area. She would like to use the room until December. Councilman Frisch said this came up
before and it is more than the use of the room than can be supplemented by a trailer. Jack
Wheeler stated the building is not being used for library contractors. They are re-waterproofing
the garage and remodeling the rio grande to accommodate the building and engineering
departments. The remodel is starting in April and will continue through summer. They stopped
taking reservations April 1 to give time for alternative space for activities. They tried to come up
with other ideas and are still working on that. In order to build engineering into that space they
need six months to renovate the space to accommodate them when they get there.
14. Blanca O’Leary stated over 1000 signed on for the petition to keep aspen aspen. It might make
more sense to wait for the May election results.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilwoman Mullins asked what the schedule for the employee generation study is. Barry
Crook, managers office, replied the community development portion is set for a work session at
the end of March. Staff is meeting with housing on how to take the cash in lieu forward.
Councilman Frisch said he thought the cash in lieu affects residential and commercial. There is a
P7
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
4
community buy-in on the commercial aspect. The hard part is are we multiplying by the right
number. There is heartburn with the residential numbers. How many square feet equal an FTE.
We know one component. Chris Bendon, community development, said there are two projects,
APCHA and community development. It is on hold for clarity around the residential study. They
should have the report out around March first. Councilman Romero asked what report Peter was
referring to. Mr. Bendon said they have seen a draft but have not sent it out publicly.
Councilman Frisch asked where we are on the cash in lieu number. Mr. Crook said that study
was quite some time ago. There are questions on the methodology. Councilman Frisch
responded the gap methodology and it didn’t fly. Mr. Crook said there is a slightly different gap
proposal with a historical cost basis approach. Mr. Bendon said Council wanted to look at the
two things together. Cash in lieu was put on hold until the employee generation study came back.
Councilman Romero said the RHETT collection in 2014 was six or seven million. Councilman
Frisch said that will go in to how it is handled.
2. Councilman Frisch said the snow is good and smiles are big. Be careful in the back country. We
have one of the highest avalanche regions in the country.
3. Mayor Skadron said next weekend is the power of four mountaineering race. It is also the first
Aspen uphill event. There will be vendors at gondola plaza along with the first Aspen uphill ski
swap dedicated to ski mountaineering from 11 to 3 at the plaza. At four there will be a film
screening highlighting the history of Aspen at the Ute.
BOARD REPORTS
Mayor Skadron stated RFTA set the IGA for senior programs. They are working on the draft rio grande
corridor access control plan. RFTA manages the bike path and the trail is a protected corridor. There are
things RFTA must do to protect that and they are on top of it.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #24 – contract change order R.A. Nelson
Evan Pletcher, asset, told the Council transit one and two areas have an issue with roof drainage onto the
sidewalks creating ice and dangerous scenarios. There are also drainage issue with the concrete.
Councilman Romero asked if this is an existing condition. Jack Wheeler, asset, said they have been
talking about this since 2011. There was one issue with someone falling. This was in the budget for
2014. They increased the scope in December to add the roof structure over the walkway.
Councilman Romero said they approached the existing contractor and secured an attractive bid and
proposal to complete the work as a change order so we don’t have to see a second contractor. Mr.
Wheeler said the work was priced in the past and this is a better price and a more inclusive scope of work.
Councilwoman Mullins stated the memo mentions Council had approved the repairs previously but the
work was never completed. She asked if the money was previously budgeted. Mr. Wheeler said the
money carried forward to 2015. There is a typo in memo but it is a carry forward. It was approved two
years ago and carried forward to 2014. It did not get implemented in 2014 and carried forward again. It
was taken out to bid but they received no bids.
Mayor Skadron asked them to run through the numbers. Mr. Wheeler said the available carry forward is
134,000 dollars. The contract is for 130,000 and the rest is contingency.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if the reason it was not completed is there were no bids. Mr. Wheeler
replied yes, it went out to bid with the regrading project.
Resolution # 25 – residential design standards update
Chris Bendon, community development, stated the design standards were adopted in the mid 1990’s. The
result was a set of objective standards applied to residential design. They are silent on style but require
P8
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
5
certain aspects like garage placement and porches. This is a freshen up of those standards. There were
six or seven responses to the proposal. Staff selected Winter and Company. They have great experience
in Aspen design guidelines. They are comfortable with Aspen and resort areas. The questions in the
memo regards scope options and a significant question centered on scope expectations. This is a simple
freshen up. It is a basic framework that allows creativity in architecture and the ability to achieve
exemptions on certain properties. Some standards work well and some need retooling. It is not a
reconsideration of larger scope issues. Staff is not going back to a design board. If that is the expectation
we would be busting the budget. There might be folks in the design community who want the larger
conservation. If Council wants that Staff would rebid the proposal.
Councilman Frisch said his personal take is the built environment is focused on downtown. The
residential aspects are working well and the historic aspects have been taken care of. There is a pretty
good system and it works. Mr. Bendon stated this is for non-historic properties.
Councilwoman Mullins said she does not quite agree with Councilman Frisch. Winter will do a great job.
25,000 dollars is a good fee. It should have a lot of public participation and that may inform if it is a
refresh or a rework. A rework may be necessary to address all the different styles in town. The standards
right now don’t apply equally to each property. It needs looked at in depth. It can start with a refresh and
have public outreach and see what the response is. We very badly need a rewrite of the historic
guidelines. They still do not contain a strong landscape section and are weak in addressing
AspenModern. In the future she will suggest rewriting those. It sounds like a good contract for now and
a wait and see reaction. Councilman Frisch said there are three components; size, look and feel. He
asked if her concern is about one of these or other aspects. Councilwoman Mullins replied her concern is
varying architecture and some standards are fairly strict like the front door has to face the street. They do
not apply equally to all styles. It need to be more flexible or more detailed.
Councilman Romero said he agree with Councilwoman Mullins comments. His sense is staff is bringing
this forward based on friction and neighborhood architecture styling across town. It is hard to apply one
set of rules across these different personalities. They are not applied uniformly and create frustrating
conversations. This particular rule seems to be a duck out of water. Mr. Bendon said there are some fixes
Staff would have liked to have brought forward years ago. They shared frustrations with the development
community and Staff feels they can be dealt with. Councilman Romero said there is some level of reform
to make it simpler, cleaner and less regulation over all would be ok. It would allow for some needed
flexibility within the program and allow for creativity that is one of our hallmarks.
Mr. Bendon asked if there is any commentary on the optional scope. The graphics in the current
standards have been very valuable and is an add on item.
Councilman Frisch stated we are all trying to figure out how to encourage the condo market to redevelop.
Anything that comes up with ideas that respect town character and see things move forward I’m for.
Multi family is money well spent.
Councilwoman Mullins is in support to include the graphics.
Councilman Romero is also ok with the graphics and does not think they need to take on multi family
right now.
Councilman Daily said the recommended first step is necessary. It is not expensive or time consuming
but will be helpful to the community. Other areas that need updates and further work are a second step.
He would like Staff to think about the direction they need from Council to move ahead on those.
P9
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
6
Councilwoman Mullins said to keep the standards within the land use code.
Councilman Frisch said to go with this and see where it goes.
Mr. Bendon recommended Council adopts this with the 5,000 dollars for the graphics.
• Resolution #25, Series of 2015 – Contract – Winter & Company – Residential Design Standards
Update
• Minutes – February 9, 2015
• Resolution #24, Series of 2015 – Contract Change Order for R.A. Nelson
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
Ordinance 5, Series of 2015 – Utility Development Review Fee Amendment
Lee Ledesma, utility department, told the Council 2015 is the first year with the utility development fees.
Prior to now they were absorbing the smaller reviews in house and outsourcing the larger ones. At the
end of 2014 when the 2015 fees were adopted the table with the remodels was adopted incorrectly. It was
shown as a per ecu rate instead of a .05 ecu. The majority of the remodels are a .05 on average with a flat
review fee less than 50 dollars. Unfortunately Staff needed to come back to get the fee fixed. The minor
and major review rates are correct as presented.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if it was a typo or omission. Ms. Ledesma replied it was a typo in the
remodel section. Everything presented on the revenue and expense side represent .05 not the per 1 ecu.
Not correcting the fee would impact the numbers in the long range plan by about 60,000 dollars.
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 5
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING
TITLE 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 2.12.100,
BUILDING AND PLANNING.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Ordinance #9, Series of 2015 – Limits on Variations Code Amendment
Jessica Garrow, community development, said this will limit the amount of variation an applicant can
request. Second reading is scheduled for March 9.
This will limit variation requests but allow some flexibility for Council to consider on a case by case
basis. It would apply to existing or new planned developments. For height, Council could approve up to
two feet above the limit and a ten percent increase in floor area. Beyond that a public vote would be
taken. Staff feels flexibility is important. For example, in terms of height an existing building needs a
new roof and add insulation but it will be six inches higher than the zone district allowance. This gives
Council an out to approve the additional six inches in height that is necessary. In terms of floor area we
see projects approved in the 1970’s and 80’s and would like to expand. It should be considered on a site
specific basis and Council should have the ability to approve it. P&Z approved specific expansions that
the units could do. This flexibility is important. For housing mitigation this amendment would apply to
all properties except essential public facilities and those going through the AspenModern program. The
current code states Council has to set the mitigation requirement. Commercial and lodging mitigation is
set at 60 percent. The AspenModern code requires the property owner to negotiate with the City. This
P10
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
7
has resulted in 11 designations in the last four years. The other 25 designated properties took 37 years.
The program is successful and working and a model that other communities can do. Parking is not
proposed in this amendment. Flexibility on a site by site basis is important. If someone goes above and
beyond on transportation mitigation Council should be able to consider that.
There are differences between the charter amendment and this proposed code amendment. The goal is to
have Council provide direction to Staff on what they would like to see changed. The first is related to
non-conformities and the charter amendment exempts the replacement of non-conforming structures and
this code amendment would do the same thing. The difference is the charter amendment is broad and
applies to properties broadly and not a specific review. If a non-conforming structure wanted to expand it
could not occur without a public vote. With this code amendment they could expand in these thresholds
or request a hardship variance through the board of adjustment. For AspenModern, with the charter
amendment Council could continue negotiation but if it increased height or floor area, decreased parking
or housing it would trigger a public vote. The code amendment would not trigger a vote. For essential
public facilities, with this code amendment the practice of Council establishing the mitigation requirement
would continue. The charter amendment is limited to commercial and lodge zone districts inside the
round a bout. The code amendment is limited to existing and new planned developments and applies
equally to all property. Staff is also requesting P&Z be designated as the board of adjustment.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff thinks it is legitimate to have some flexibility at the Council table to
accommodate some design challenges. Obermeyer needed slight variations in height that had to do with
topography. In order to make sense of the architecture you had to deal with the undulating topography.
There are lots of sites with complicated slopes and are difficult to deal with architecturally. Staff is not
suggesting this code amendment affect parking there is a more thorough discussion that should happen
around parking. There is a work session in March focused on transportation management.
Councilwoman Mullins said the Molly Gibson is a site with several different underlying zones if you
stipulate only 10 percent FAR or two feet in height what if there is a choice of applicable zones. Mr.
Bendon said they will have that answer for second reading. Split zone properties are difficult.
Councilwoman Mullins asked him to comment about parking and she does not think we should be
addressing parking. We need to be thinking about a more comprehensive policy as modes of
transportation are changing. She prefers to come up with a bigger policy decision on parking. This has
been described as a knee jerk reaction and she does not think it is. This is a response to the community
concern. We’ve approved several projects with no variances. In terms of voting no on moving this to
second reading, when she voted no on Base 2 one of the outcomes is there is no additional public
comment. She wants to make sure everyone who wants to comment on this has a chance.
Councilman Frisch said it sounded like if we were for this ordinance it would nullify the ballot question.
No matter what we do up here there will be a vote we have to title. It is going forward whether we want
to or not. His overall view is a lot of people who signed it wanted to shout out this is the only option we
have and we want to take it. Staff is responding to Councils request that doesn’t ham string the
community and is a more thoughtful way. Council could have put their own proposal on the ballot. Is
there is a way to come up with what serves the community best and act in good faith with what we have
heard in the community. The idea of allowing flexibility for a little height and FAR only just raises the
bar to a new max. The flexibility makes sense. The reason we are stuck here is this town gets a lot of
buyer’s remorse. We need to figure out how we tackle this and it is not just another up zone. Mr. Bendon
said developers will make a conscious decision as to what they put forward and some of that is what they
have to go through. They understand it is a two foot variation and they might focus on developing a
project that conforms to the code and not unload with additional trips to council. If it is really a
discussion of two feet and it is necessary they will do it. Two feet is nominal in terms of their project.
They will only come if there is a real technical necessity to their request. Councilman Frisch said if there
was a poll taken to buildings that are objectionable there are buildings filled with variances that are no
problem. It seems there are buildings that don’t have any variances and have lots of consternation.
There are a lot of buildings that give issues that met the code. That is the issue. If height needs to be
P11
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
8
changed we should be talking about that. Will there be further steps taken to get to the real issue. Mr.
Bendon replied a lot of what happens in town are code compliant for when they were approved. The code
has changed. What you are seeing is it takes a few years for approved projects to be built. What you are
seeing downtown is not a result of variances but a code that allowed for those heights. It has been
changed. Councilman Frisch said he looks forward to a flexibility conversation.
Mayor Skadron said the parking component should not be part of the ordinance. Councilman Frisch
replied he believes parking was added to the charter amendment because it was a variance. We need to
have a discussion about parking. Mayor Skadron said there is a desire in the community for less cars but
we demand development to deliver parking. Mr. Bendon said there is legitimate flexibility Council can
provide on parking mitigation. Councilwoman Mullins said we should not have something set in stone
for parking. We do need less cars in town.
Councilman Daily stated these are important matters for this community and he is glad we are having this
conversation. This is good for the community and will result in better planning and projects. He does not
believe absolute limits are healthy or responsive to government. He likes the direction Staff has gone. He
is not saying the specifics are the right ones but tighten down the limits to a reasonable framework and
allow some reasonable discretion. He would hate to eliminate any discretion. It is healthy and limits the
risk of abuses. The message is keep it to the code. It is healthier for our community than absolute limits.
This Council isn’t looking for broad unfettered authority. This makes our life easier and we can do our
job better if reasonable limits are there. Council has approved four lodge projects and all are healthy for
the community and help improve the lodging inventory. All have been done without abusing the code.
So far the response of this Council has been measured. To a certain extend we have been elected to
exercise a certain level of measured and reasonable judgment. As Cavanaugh explained it, we are talking
about thoughtful government. This Council has endeavored to meet that objective but we won’t hit it on
every issue. A measured area of discretion in the long run healthy for our community. To put absolute
limits on development is not healthy. We will have a better built community if there is measured
discretion in Council.
Councilman Romero stated Councilman Daily hit the nail on the head and it was well said. There is a
conversation of whether to put the amendment into action and is Council guilty of interference. It is just
reactionary and knee jerk. Council attempted to examine how we can do this in a way that is good faith
and send a message that was proactive. He shares the sentiments that absolutes especially embedded in
the charter is the wrong venue and takes away an important level of thoughtful governance. There is lots
of good thinking and sensibility behind the charter amendment work but a bit of anger and frustration. He
thinks it will be strongly supported. The guidance he has been trying to focus on are the next steps. It is a
trust issue.
Councilman Frisch said if the charter amendment passes, regardless of when we pass a code amendment
the ballot issue will supersede. If it doesn’t pass is it in the community’s best interest to have this code
amendment or wait until after the election. If it doesn’t pass is this the one we want binding or is it better
to pause and reflect. Is the code amendment March 9 better than one if we wait. I do believe there are a
lot of people who want to see some action but don’t like the charter amendment. There are a lot of good
ideas but the charter is not the right venue. It still doesn’t solve the problem of fix the code.
Mayor Skadron asked for floor area if there is an additional10 percent how you control this from
becoming the basic request of the applicant. It is not unlikely there will be some unforeseen hardship but
what we will see is the applicant will argue there is a hardship. Ms. Garrow said there will be a set of
criteria Council can use to determine if there is a hardship. Mr. Bendon said it is an additional request
requiring additional review with additional exposure and risk. Height is much more sensitive and much
more limited. He’s not sure if it’s the approval or the ask that irritates people more. The ask is irritating
to folks. Minimizing that may make Council’s job easier. Mayor Skadron asked what technology around
modeling programs are we using. Should it be a requirement they use these tools to help the community
P12
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
9
see the impact. Mr. Bendon replied it should be an absolute requirement. There is a lot of technical
logistics to fit within the City model. There will be additional effort this summer with an intern. Mayor
Skadron asked how to keep this from becoming a basic request. What tool is there to prevent it from
becoming a request. Mr. Bendon said there should be an argument as to why a project is deserving a
variance. Yes there ought to be some limits around the request. Mayor Skadron said some flexibility to
work around site specific conditions be incorporated without a quantative component. Mr. Bendon said
they have that effectively now. An applicant can come in and ask for anything. There are inherent
acceptable limits. This puts benchmarks there. We will take the application in but those requests are
subject to a public vote. Mayor Skadron asked if there is a sufficient degree of confidence the flexible
components of the floor area portion won’t be abused the way it is perceived variances have been.
Councilman Daily agrees that we don’t want this 10 percent to become the new baseline. Some ability to
vary due to a site specific constraint and that language is appropriate.
Councilman Frisch said what is the additional hurdle to stop the two feet or 10 percent from showing up.
How do we stop that from becoming the new minimum. We tried to bring down the unlimited ask in
lodging from an unlimited number of floor to four and were shot down. Mr. Bendon said we don’t want
the 10 percent to be enticing or part of base line right. Councilwoman Mullins is concerned it will set a
new bar and needs a good argument why it won’t. It needs beefed up more for second reading.
Mayor Skadron said board of adjustments is currently a citizen committee Staff is talking about giving
those powers to HPC and P&Z. Mr. Bendon said their duties would be assigned to HPC and P&Z. HPC
deals with variances quite a bit. There is a value as a board member in how the process works and BOA
doesn’t get that since they meet very infrequently. P&Z and HPC are fully equipped to deal with this.
Mayor Skadron said he concurs with Council and this should go to second reading. To others who made
earlier comments, he whole heartily endorses the principle behind the charter amendment. The issue he
has is in governance and a healthy community equates to good governance. He can’t support a process
that impedes the democratic process. The issue is about governance and if democracy is based on
everyone participating and making decisions it is important to move forward. By allowing this to go
forward we will have debate in council chambers. Support speaks to good governance. A way of
governing that keeps our community strong.
Councilman Frisch said for affordable housing what Staff is recommending is if you want to change the
levels don’t do it through variances do it through the code. Mr. Bendon said there are physical anomalies
of a parcel that can affect height or floor area but not affordable housing. Affordable housing is a global
level not a project to project one with the exception of essential public facilities and AspenModern.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance 9, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 9
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY
OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE LIMITING DIMENSIONAL AND OTHER VARIATIONS, AND
ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance 9, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 – Second Alternate for HPC and P&Z Commissions
Linda Manning, city clerk, told the Council this is the public hearing for the ordinance that would allow a
second alternate for the Historic Preservation and Planning and Zoning Commissions.
P13
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
10
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said this is very important. The housing board has had this problem. Adding a
second alternate keeps the process moving.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance 8, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Resolution 23, Series of 2015 – Regarding the FERC Permit, Pursuit of Micro Hydro Projects and
Reaffirming the City of Aspen’s Position Regarding the Protection of its Water Rights.
Jim True, city attorney, told the Council at the January 27, 2015 work session council provided direction
to come forth with a resolution to formalize some of the positions regarding the castle creek energy
center, micro hydro and the protection of water rights. The resolution specifically addresses those issues
and allows the current FERC preliminary permit to expire. This is based on direction provided by
Council in April of 2014. The FERC attorney advised FERC that we are not pursuing the energy center
any further. There was a resolution that adopted the settlement in the water right abandonment case.
Staff did considered the possibility of using that permit for micro hydro projects on both Castle and
Maroon creek. Staff is recommending not using that permit and if we are going to pursue micro hydro we
do so on separate permits. The City will allow the current FERC permit to expire on February 28, 2015.
The resolution also addresses the pursuit of micro hydro on Castle and Maroon creeks. The purpose of
pursing micro hydro is threefold. To generate power by developing renewable energy resources, maintain
healthy stream flows in the two creeks, and protect City water rights and supplies. Staff is recommending
pursuing the Maroon creek micro hydro project immediately and authorize the FERC attorney to file a
preliminary permit or other approval process with FERC. Staff is not recommending staff or attorney file
a permit request on castle creek but simply continue to study it. The resolution provides a statement
regarding the City’s long standing and well established intention to protect its water rights. It reaffirms
the City’s determination to protect, develop, use all of its water rights to their full decreed extent for all
decreed uses and purposes and firmly states the City has no intention and it should not be deemed that any
of these actions would be considered as abandoning those water rights.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Dick Butera stated his presentation is not about his property. He said he is here to remind council
the history of past funding of previous councils attempt to build a hydroelectric plant under castle
creek and the attempt to do it again under the guise of micro hydro. The past council in
cooperation with the water department has spent 13.8 million dollars on the failed project. If
asking why water rates were raised in 2011 through 2017 by six percent per year when the cost of
the water has not gone up. The 13 million has to come from somewhere. The outstanding debt on
5 million dollars bonds has to be serviced at 400,000 dollars a year for 15 years. The water
department is not forthcoming with their expenses on this project. This council has approved an
outside audit for parking and he asked Council to audit this so the tax payers will know why their
bills are increasing. The micro hydro proposes up to 300,000 dollars for research. There has
never been one in America yet. The machines are made in England and difficult to ship. It is a
crazy project and he would love a work session on it. It would produce around 10kw or electric
for one house. Council is told to fund this project because it preserves the city’s water rights on
Castle Creek. The City has water rights for the collection of water in Thomas reservoir. You
don’t need to spend money to preserve those rights. Aspen does not have the water rights to
P14
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
11
generate electricity. Mr. Butera read the section of the Colorado Statutes that pertain to water
rights. Abandonment is defined as “termination of a water right in whole or in part as the result
of the intent of the owner to discontinue permanently the use of all or part of the water available
thereunder” CRS 37.92.305. The failure to apply water to a beneficial use for a period of 10
years or more creates assumption of abandonment. If you don’t use or show an intent to use it
you lose it and you don’t get water rights back. Water lawyers have cost 1.2 million so far. He
asked for an audit of the money spent for learning purposes and another legal opinion of rights of
Aspen to use water to generate electricity. We were told they do not have the rights. He said his
government is making him spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend his property rights.
He would like to have further discussion without lawyers. He stated he found an unsigned
agreement for the head gate. For 45 years they abandoned the use and intent for generation of
electricity. Two million is for the penstock. He said he was also told that for seven years two
employees go to a secret location and spin the generator by hand every two weeks so it does not
freeze. It is a terrible thing that happened. His reason for being here is to urge Council not to do
it again.
2. Marsha Goshorn said she would like to know where the 13 million went. We have kept our water
rights for drinking is that considered a use. It has not been for hydro have we lost our rights.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Mr. True said there are water rights for drinking and we have significant rights on castle and maroon and
those are not in jeopardy. We have specific rights and this will help maintain minimum stream flows. He
is not suggesting that the drinking water rights are in jeopardy. He still believes the resolution and
proceeding with the study on a step by step basis including filing the permit will cost around 5,000 dollars
for maroon creek. There is a maroon creek hydro project in existing now. We need the attorney to pursue
either a new permit or other application for the micro hydro project on maroon creek. He is not
recommending we proceed immediately for a project on castle.
Councilman Frisch said there are three issues in front of us. We are going to let the permit expire
February 28 th . He said it is in our interest to protect our water rights for as long as possible. These rights
have to do with hydro water rights not drinking water. Mr. True stated they are related to hydro power
usage as it relates to the existing facility on maroon creek and also helps to protect minimum stream flow.
Councilman Frisch said over the past months there has been lots of opposition to the CCEC and why
don’t we explore some micro options that won’t harm the stream. Mr. True said these options don’t
require diversions. They can be used in existing diversions or head gates. Councilman Frisch said we
had some type of micro in some stage of development and not done before. What type of financial costs
are we buying into. By approving this we are out about 5,000 dollars. Mr. True stated that is the only
financial impact proposing at this time. If there is any further expenditure they will come back to
Council. They will advise Council of every step. The next step is this preliminary permit. Scott Miller,
utilities, stated there are several different types of micro hydro plants out there. Staff will look at all and
make presentations on the potential costs and generation.
Councilman Daily asked about the possibility of spending 300,000 dollars on further studies. Are we
considering that. Mr. Miller replied no. Mr. True said the preliminary cost of the project may be
300,000. We are not proposing a budget approval for a 300,000 study. Dave Hornbacher, utilities, stated
when City Council approved the 2015 budget there is a line item for 50,000 for the study of micro hydro.
In the long range plan for 2016 there is 300,000 dollars shown with the intent that a portion could be used
to further study and 250,000 dollars for construction. The 2017 plan contains an additional 250,000
dollars. Council has only approve the 2015 budget. Councilman Daily said he is most interested in a cost
P15
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
12
benefit analysis of proceeding with the micro hydro and the benefit side is the critical side. We need to
understand what the water rights we are protecting with the micro hydro.
Councilman Frisch asked if Council needs to make a decision about the permit that is expiring on the 28 th .
Is FERC waiting for us to answer. Mr. True said there is no difference we are just trying to be as clear to
the public as possible. Councilman Frisch asked about the micro hydro and water rights timing. Mr. True
said Staff feels it may be important to file with a preliminary permit for a maroon creek facility. For
estimated cost we felt it was appropriate to protect our place in line for the micro possibility. Is it
absolutely mandatory we do it, not necessarily but we recommend it.
Mr. Butera recommended the City get an expert as to what the end project will be. Amory Lovins said
the old hydro would have been the most expensive electricity in America. We don’t know what we get if
we get a micro. Mr. True stated there is a lot more to it than the power piece. Staff disagrees with Mr.
Butera.
Councilwoman Mullins asked how this protects water rights on castle creek. Mr. True stated the third
point of the resolution is to reiterate our goals and intents regarding water rights. Fairly regular in the past
we made those formal decisions. Our water attorney recommends we reiterate our water rights. Just as
Mr. Butera suggest we have abandoned water rights, we affirm we have not. We want to make it clear,
and the resolution does it. We do not intend to and have not abandoned water rights.
Councilman Frisch said if the 5,000 dollars gets approved is there is 50,000 dollars approved to look at
the next steps. Mr. Hornbacher stated he wanted to ensure Council what money is budgeted where. They
would spend staff time to gather the information and provide it to Council. Council can provide direction
on what money gets spent when and for what. Mr. Miller stated we don’t need to spend 50,000 to get to
the work session.
Councilman Daily said he is looking for information on what level of city water rights are going to be
protected.
Councilman Romero said it is a two pronged approach. It is not simply the economic return but the water
rights. This Council is trying to be much more mindful and Staff is responding in that regard.
Councilman Frisch asked if one of the macro question is build a hydro or lose water rights versus we keep
trying to spend as little as possible to try to keep the water rights. It feels like we are trying to protect our
water rights but at some point you got to use them, not talk about it. Is this money and action for the
water right protection or we don’t need to do that since we have the water rights. Mr. True said there are
several aspects to that. There are other pressures on the creek we are trying to address including
minimum stream flows. There are arguments people can make if we do not take these steps. Councilman
Frisch stated he is supportive of honoring number one and not spending another penny without knowing
what the master plan is. He stated he does not know what the end game is. He said he thought we were
not going to run into a bunch of opposition that we saw with the CCEC while protecting our long term
water rights. He would like to know how it will play out after the 5,000. Mr. True said it will come back
in a step by step process. He does expect there will be opposition. There are other users of Maroon
creek.
Councilman Frisch asked when we get the next steps. Mr. Miller said they will have the preliminary
investigation of micro hydro in three months. Councilman Romero asked how much of that information
is needed for the permit. Mr. True said staff has done preliminary studies to this point that are sufficient.
P16
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 2015
13
There is a permit for the existing facility and it may take a different direction. The FERC attorney said he
has sufficient information and is prepared to file the preliminary permit.
Mr. True said there will be opposition but Staff believes it is in best interest of the community.
Mayor Skadron asked Mr. Butera why he wouldn’t support the City in its pursuit of micro hydro. The
goal is not to generate electricity but to support a direction to protect the City’s water rights. You benefit
more than anybody. Should the City lose it water rights some unknown party can come along and claim
the senior water rights. Maureen Hirsch said someone can’t go after the senior water rights but they could
go after junior ones. Mr. Butera said this is a bad project. The 13 million was bad. It is not a smart
projects. They don’t have very much information regarding this. Let’s find out from an outside expert.
We are here to save money and run an efficient government. Let’s find out what would make a good
project and if we find something good that works I’m voting for it. You can’t come back now and start to
spend money to maintain water rights. The City does not have them in castle creek. The City abandoned
the plant 50 years ago. There are other rights but not hydro. Mr. True stated Staff disagree with his
representations. We have water attorneys who have litigated with Mr. Butera.
Councilman Frisch asked where the castle creek water rights stand. There are experts on both sides
saying different things. Mr. True stated the City went through litigation on abandonment. We did not
resolve the disputes around the legal rights and if there was abandonment.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution 23, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins.
Councilman Frisch stated he will support this but has questions around the direct cause to water bills
going up to cover the costs of the CCEC. We should be ready to talk about that.
All in favor, motion carried.
Resolution 22, Series of 2015 – Setting the Ballot Title for the Charter Amendment Question
Ms. Manning stated Council sets the ballot title and Staff is recommending using the language provided
by Mr. Myrin that appeared on the petition. Mr. True said it is Councils obligation to set the title and
language. Staff provided the language to Mr. Myrin and he had no opposition.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Resolution 22, series of 215; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 8:25 pm.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P17
VI.c
530 W. Hallam
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split, First Reading of Ordinance
#10, Series of 2015
DATE: March 9, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 530 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home with 1970s and 1980s additions to
the east and rear. The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic additions, move the
house front and west, towards the corner, and add on. The lot is to be subdivided so that the
open yard on the east side of the Victorian can be developed with a new home. The allowed
floor area for the project is the same as would be permitted for a duplex or two detached
houses on the property with no subdivision involved.
Top left: The house in approximately the
1950s.
Top right: The house in 1980, with a one
story addition that altered the original
design.
Left: The site is now inundated with trees
that were planted in the right of way. The
City Forester has reviewed the property and
has indicated that two trees should be
removed because of declining health and
overcrowding.
P18
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Page 2 of 4
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
APPLICANT: 530 Hallam, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-004.
ADDRESS: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
The split of a lot that is a designated Historic Landmark for the purpose of creating one
additional development parcel shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by
the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, after a
recommendation is provided by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to
Section 26.415.110(A) Historic Landmark Lot Split, and according to the following
standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General
Subdivision Review Standards.
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have
perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed
subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public
way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private
ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and
emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are
prohibited.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat . The proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite,
and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the
original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be
approved.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of
the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and
variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more
than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning
application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities . A subdivision shall
not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning
application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use,
structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
P19
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Page 3 of 4
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for
subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be
discontinued prior to application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain
assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the
subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement
or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound
or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Response: The application, to split the lot into one 4,150
square foot lot, containing a relocated Victorian home, and one
4,850 square foot lot, containing a new home, meets the criteria
above. According to the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map at
right, there were two houses on the subject property in the
Victorian era.
2. The fathering parcel is listed in the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures.
Staff Response: The parcel is listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures.
3. No more than two lots are created by the Historic Landmark
Lot Split. No more than one historic landmark lot split shall occur on any one
fathering parcel.
Staff Response: Two lots are created.
4. In residential zone districts, the allowable Floor Area for each new residential lot
shall be established by allocating the total allowable Floor Area of the fathering
parcel to each of the new lots such that no overall increase in Floor Area is
achieved and no individual lot allows a Floor Area in excess of that allowed a
similarly-sized lot in the same zone district. An equal distribution is not required.
The allowable Floor Area for each new lot shall be noted on the Historic Lot Split
Plat.
Any Floor Area bonus already granted by the Historic Preservation Commission
shall be allocated to each individual parcel and shall also be noted on the plat as a
square footage bonus. If the properties remain eligible for a Floor Area bonus
from the Historic Preservation Commission, the plat and subdivision agreement
shall specify the manner in which this potential bonus shall be allocated to the two
properties if received.
In non-residential zones districts, the Floor Area shall be calculated according to
the limitations of the zone district applied to each new lot as permitted for the use.
P20
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Page 4 of 4
The total Floor Area shall not be stated on the plat because the floor area will be
determined by the use established on each parcel.
Staff Response: The allowable floor area on the fathering (existing) parcel is 4,080
square feet. The applicant proposes to split that, plus a 500 square foot floor area bonus
granted by HPC, approximately 45% to the Victorian home and 55% to the new home.
The floor area for the project is only about 700 square feet more than exists in the single
family home on the site today.
5. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval
Documents. No subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into between
the applicant and the City unless the Community Development Director
determines such an agreement is necessary.
Staff Response: The plat will be filed subsequent to historic landmark lot split approval
by City Council.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council support the
proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to read Ordinance #10, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBITS :
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Exhibit A: Application
P21
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #10
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 530 W. HALLAM, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 28, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID #: 2735-124-25-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, 530 Hallam, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has
requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L,
and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.480.060.B regarding Minor Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 11, 2015, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards, and recommended City Council approval, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 0; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark
Lot Split are met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a
Historic Landmark Lot Split for 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. No
subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into between the applicant and the
City. The Plat shall:
P22
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 3
a. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application;
b. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the zone district, except for any approved variances; and
c. Be labeled to indicate that the maximum floor area allowed on Lot 1, a 4,150 square foot
lot containing the Victorian home, is 2,138 square feet and on Lot 2, a 4,850 square foot
lot containing new home, is 2,442 square feet.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development by the HPC,
the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title.
Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
P23
VII.a
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13 th day of April, 2015, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of March, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P24
VII.a
P25
VII.a
P
2
6
V
I
I
.
a
P
2
7
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.4
10/15/14Plotted On:D
E
M
O
C
A
L
C
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
4
9
7
0
8
9
2
5
8
2
2
5
2
4
4
e
m
a
i
l
4
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
K
I
M
4
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
4
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
4
I
N
C
.
9/18/14
5
3
0
4
W
4
H
A
L
L
A
M
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
4
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
5
3
0
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
1,582 sq ft
B
B
A
A
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
3'-4 3/4"13'-0"
13
'
-
6
"
772 sq ft
62 sq ft
685 sq ft
B
B
A
A
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
2,294 sq ft
86 sq ft
20 sq ft
148 sq ft
752 sq ft
784 sq ft
138 sq ft
2
BA
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
50'-6"
1
4
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
1'-10"
707 sq ft
752 sq ft WINDOW
WELL
LOWER BEDROOMFAMILY ROOM
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL DEMO
LOWER LEVEL NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS
MAIN LEVEL EXISTING (2294+148+138+86 +20)=2686 SF DEMO 752+784+138= 1674 SF
UPPER LEVEL EXISTING (1582 + 62) 1644 SF DEMO 685+772 =1457 SF
TOTAL EXISTING EXISTING 4330 SF DEMO 3131 SF
2993 SF /3876 =72% DEMO
P
2
8
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.1
2/3/15Plotted On:3
-D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
SCALE: 1:68.57
DOWN THE STREET
SCALE: 1:66.67
ALLEY NE TREETOPS
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER SIDEWALK
SCALE: 1:47.53
CORNER TREETOP VIEW
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER TREES DEMO
SCALE: 1:73.85
MOD MIDDLE
P
2
9
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 0.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
I T
E
P
L
A
N
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B B
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
A A
C C
D D
A A
C C
D D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A A
C C
D D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
5 '-0 "
5'-0"
5'-1/2"
41'-6"48'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
1 8 '-2 "
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING "LEGACY" TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
2 SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
P
3
0
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
2/3/15Plotted On:E
X
I S
T
I N
G
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A B
EXISTING WOOD SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND SOFFIT
TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY
TO REMAIN
EXISTING WOOD FRONT DOOR,
TRANSOM AND FRONT PORCH
TRIM DETAILS TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
1 2
3 '-8 1 /4 "
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
B A
EXISTING CMU CHIMNEY
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
MIDCENTURY
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
RECENT
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
2 1
EXISTING SIDE PORCH
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM
TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN METAL ROOF
TO BE REPLACED WITH ZINC
STANDING SEAM
EXISTING BALCONY
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING
BULKHEAD /
COAL CHUTE
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST EXISTING
P
3
1
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
V
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
CD W
4
'
-
9
1
/
2
"4 '-9 1 /2 "
7'-2 1/2"
8'-1/4"
2 6 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 '-8 1 /2 "
8 "
22'-0"
1 0 '-1 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
5 '-8 "
3 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"10'-1/2"3 1/2"
6 '-0 "
4"3'-4 3/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
5 '-6 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-0 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-6 "
1 4 '-7 "
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
FAMILY ROOM
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D
O W W
E L L
CLOSET
DRESSER
LAUNDRY
O P E N R I S E R S , S T E E L S T A I R S
G L A S S R A I L I N G
BEDROOM 4
F P a n d T V
B A T H 4
C L E A R G L A S S
A T S H O W E R
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
F L O A T I N G
B E N C H
BATH 3
BATH 2
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-1/2"
5 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"
5 1/2"24'-5 3/4"5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
1 5 '-7 "
5 1 /2 "
5'-3"2'-0"5 1/2"14'-9 1/2"2'-10 3/4"
4'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
UP
DN
MUD ROOM
LIVING
DINING
FP
TV
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
POWDER
OPEN TO ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR
ADD STEEL AND WOOD
TRUSSES IN VOLUME
CUBBIES AND
BENCH
F R O S T E D G L A S S P A N E L
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE L I N E O F E X T E R I O R
W A L L A B O V E
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
GARAGE
P A N T R Y
PATIO
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"5'-0"
1 1 '-7 1 /4 "
3 '-3 1 /2 "
21'-6 1/2"
DECK
ROOF OVERHANG BELOW
GAS
FIREPLACE W/STEEL SURROUND
MASTER SUITE
F R O S T E D
G L A S S E N C L O S U R E
CLEAR
GLASS ENCLOSURE
TV
STEAM SHOWER
STONE VENEER ON WALL
LOWER ENTRY ROOF
FREE STANDING
TUB
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
OPEN TO BELOW
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL W/BEDROOM
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
P
3
2
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.10
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
1 '-2 "
9 '-1 0 "
2 4 '-1 0 3 /4 "15'-3 1/2"
3 '-0 "
EXISTING SHAKE AND
WOOD GRILLE DETAIL
TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT SMOOTH
WOOD SIDING
CEMENTITOUS PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
LINK
UPPER LEVEL PLATE
120'-8"
EXISTING STONE
FOUNDATION TO BE
APPLIED AS VENEER
ON NEW CONCRETE
FDN, MATCH EXISTING
ELEVATION
7
7
8
8
9
9
EXISTING SHAKE
AND WOOD GRILLE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY BE REBUILT
PER HPC PHOTO
INSTALL DOUBLE-
HUNG WINDOW TO
MATCH HPC PHOTO
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MATCH EXISTING
PORCH TRIM PER
HPC PHOTO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION VIC
P
3
3
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.1
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
9
9
8
8
7
7
2 5 '-0 "
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
6 '-1 1 1
/4 "
EXISTING SHAKE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
EXISTING SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN
METAL ROOF TO BE
REPLACED WITH
CLASS A WOOD
SHAKE PER HPC
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT
SMOOTH WOOD
SIDING
CEMENTITOUS
PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION VIC
P
3
4
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.1
2/3/15Plotted On:F A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A T
I O
N
S
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
V
I C
T O
R
I A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
C
D
A
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A
C
D
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"5'-0"
1 1 '-7 1 /4 "
3 '-3 1 /2 "
21'-6 1/2"
1
2
3
4623 sq ft
233 sq ft
DECK
ROOF OVERHANG BELOW
GAS
FIREPLACE W/
STEEL SURROUND
MASTER SUITE
F R O S T E D
G L A S S E N C L O S U R E
CLEAR
GLASS ENCLOSURE
TV
STEAM SHOWER
STONE VENEER ON WALL
LOWER ENTRY ROOF
FREE STANDING
TUB
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
OPEN TO BELOW
A
C
D
A
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A
C
D
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"
5 1/2"24'-5 3/4"5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
1 5 '-7 "
5 1 /2 "
5'-3"2'-0"5 1/2"14'-9 1/2"2'-10 3/4"
4'-6"
4 2
A 4.2
5 2
A 4.1
532 sq ft
635 sq ft
569 sq ft
43 sq ft
UP
DN
MUD ROOM
LIVING
DINING
FP
TV
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
POWDER
OPEN TO ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR
ADD STEEL AND WOOD
TRUSSES IN VOLUME
CUBBIES AND
BENCH
F R O S T E D G L A S S P A N E L
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE L I N E O F E X T E R I O R
W A L L A B O V E
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
GARAGE
P A N T R Y
PATIO
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
CD W
4
'
-
9
1
/
2
"4 '-9 1 /2 "
7'-2 1/2"
8'-1/4"
2 6 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 '-8 1 /2 "
8 "
22'-0"
1 0 '-1 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
5 '-8 "
3 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"10'-1/2"3 1/2"
3 1/2"5'-6"3 1/2"15'-1/2"8"
6 '-0 "
26'-11 1/4"
4"3'-4 3/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
5 '-6 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-0 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-6 "
1 4 '-7 "
1,895 sq ft
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
FAMILY ROOM
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W W E L L
CLOSET
DRESSER
LAUNDRY
O P E N R I S E R S , S T E E L S T A I R S
G L A S S R A I L I N G
BEDROOM 4
F P a n d T V
B A T H 4
C L E A R G L A S S
A T S H O W E R
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
F L O A T I N G
B E N C H
BATH 3
BATH 2
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL GROSS 1912 SF (X 5.6%) = 107 SF
MAIN LEVEL GROSS (594+635) 1229 SF
UPPER LEVEL GROSS 622 SF
MAIN LEVEL DECKS:
FRONT PORCH 43 SF (EXEMPT)
UPPER LEVEL DECKS 190 SF (EXEMPT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FAR 1958+180 = 2138 SF
GARAGE 555 SF (-375 EXEMPTION) 180 SF
INTERIOR FAR 1958 SF
VICTORIAN CALCULATIONS
P
3
5
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 9.2
2/3/15Plotted On:R
E
V
I S
E
D
V
I C
T O
R
I A
N
, N
/S
S
T A
I R
S
3
D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
DIRECT VIEW HALLAM 3/8" = 1'-0"
CORNER OF 5TH & HALLAM3/8" = 1'-0"
5TH AVE VIEW 1:29.80
P
3
6
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
M
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
- M
O
D
E
R
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B
1
2
3 4
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
21
AM 3.5
22'-5 1/2"
1 5 '-1 /2 "
5 1/2"12'-10"3 1/2"19'-0"
1 9 '-5 3 /4 "
1 5 '-3 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
7 '-1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-6 1 /2 "
DECK
FP
MASTER SUITE
TV
LOWER ROOF AT GARAGE
CLEAR GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
SHOWER
FROSTED GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
WC
FREE STANDING
TUB
BENCH
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
CD W
5 '-8 "
5 '-8 "
8 "
1 3 '-7 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
2 1 '-3 1 /2 "3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
7 0 '-1 1 1 /4 "
8'-3/4"
6'-9 1/2"
36'-11"
7'-0"13'-10 1/2"8'-6"7'-6 3/4"
1 5 '-3 1 /4 "
2 6 '-8 1 /2 "
1 1 '-5 1 /4 "
1 7 '-6 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
LAUNDRY
B O O K S H E L V E S
D E S K
linen
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
CLEAR GLASS
AT STEAM
SHOWER
MECHANICAL
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
W I N D
O W
W E L L
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
GLASS RAIL AT STAIR
BATH AND POWDER
F R O S T E D G L A S S
A T W C
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
TV WALL
T V W A L L
T V W A L L
A/V EQUIPMENT
STORAGE
FAMILY ROOM
WET BAR
DRESSER
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
F
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
5
'-0
"
6'-11 1/2"5 1/2"22'-5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
2 1 '-2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 7 '-2 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-3 "
9 '-7 3 /4 "
1 9 '-3 "
4 '-3 1 /2 "
2 5 '-9 "
2 1 '-7 1 /2 "
1 3 '-1 1 1 /4 "
2 5 '-6 "
1 8 '-9 3 /4 "
2 8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
5'-11"26'-8"5'-3 1/2"
4 '-0 "
2'-3"
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
POWDER
MUD ROOM
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
BUTLER'S
PANTRY
GARAGE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
BUFFET
T V A N D F P
WALL OF APPLIANCES
G A R B A G E
E N C L O S U R E
G L A S S E N C L O S E D
W I N E C A B I N E T
COVERED
PORCH
PATIO
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
FRONT PORCH
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
-1. LOWER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
P
3
7
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
2 5 '-0 "
5 '-6 "
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
120'-5"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION MOD
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION VIC
P
3
8
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.3
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
2 4 '-6 "
5 '-6 3 /4 "
1/3 POINT OF
12/12 SLOPED ROOF
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION MOD
P
3
9
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A1.2
2/3/15Plotted On:F A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A T
I O
N
S
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
M
O
D
E
R
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B B
1
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
21
AM 3.5
22'-5 1/2"
1 5 '-1 /2 "
5 1/2"12'-10"3 1/2"19'-0"
1 9 '-5 3 /4 "
1 5 '-3 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
7 '-1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-6 1 /2 "
1
2
3
4 4.5
719 sq ft
175 sq ft
DECK
FP
MASTER SUITE
TV
LOWER ROOF AT GARAGE
CLEAR GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
SHOWER
FROSTED GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
WC
FREE STANDING
TUB
BENCH
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
F
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
6'-11 1/2"5 1/2"22'-5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
2 1 '-2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 7 '-2 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-3 "
9 '-7 3 /4 "
1 9 '-3 "
4 '-3 1 /2 "
2 5 '-9 "
2 1 '-7 1 /2 "
1 3 '-1 1 1 /4 "
2 5 '-6 "
1 8 '-9 3 /4 "
2 8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
22'-8"15'-3 3/4"
5'-11"26'-8"5'-3 1/2"
4 '-0 "
2'-3"
21
AM 3.5
4 2
A 4.2
1
234.4
1
2
3
4 4.4
1,462 sq ft
549 sq ft
92 sq ft
28 sq ft
POWDER
MUD ROOM
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
BUTLER'S
PANTRY
GARAGE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
BUFFET
T V A N D F P
WALL OF APPLIANCES
G A R B A G E
E N C L O S U R E
G L A S S E N C L O S E D
W I N E C A B I N E T
COVERED
PORCH
PATIO
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
FRONT PORCH
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
B B
1
2
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
CD W
5 '-8 "
5 '-8 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-8 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
1 3 '-5 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
8 '-4 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
6 '-3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
8 "
1 3 '-7 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
2 1 '-3 1 /2 "3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
3 1/2"22'-7 1/2"3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
1 2 '-6 1 /4 "
7 0 '-1 1 1 /4 "
8'-3/4"
6'-9 1/2"
7'-0"13'-10 1/2"8'-6"7'-6 3/4"
1 2 '-6 1 /4 "
1 5 '-3 1 /4 "
2 6 '-8 1 /2 "
1 1 '-5 1 /4 "
1 7 '-6 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
2,177 sq ft
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
LAUNDRY
B O O K S H E L V E S
D E S K
linen
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
CLEAR GLASS
AT STEAM
SHOWER
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W
W E L L
GLASS RAIL AT STAIR
BATH AND POWDER
F R O S T E D G L A S S
A T W C
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
TV WALL
T V W A L L
T V W A L L
A/V EQUIPMENT
STORAGE
FAMILY ROOM
WET BAR
DRESSER
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL GROSS 2177 SF (X 5.7%) = 124 SF
MAIN LEVEL GROSS 1378 SF
UPPER LEVEL GROSS 710 SF
MAIN LEVEL DECKS:
FRONT PORCH 146 SF (EXEMPT)
BCK PORCH <4' 22 SF (EXEMPT)
UPPER LEVEL DECKS 162 SF (EXEMPT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FAR 2212+222 = 2434 SF
GARAGE 597 SF (-375 EXEMPTION) 222 SF
INTERIOR FAR 2212 SF
MODERN CALCULATIONS
P
4
0
V
I
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A P.1
2/3/15Plotted On:S
T
R
E
E
T
S
C
A
P
E
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
P
4
1
V
I
I
.
a
Page 1 of 2
Change wording
here from
“Per ECU”
to
“Per 0.05 ECU”
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: March 2, 2015
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2015
RE: Second Reading - 2015 Fee Ordinance Correction --
Utilities Development Fees, Municipal Code Section 2.12.100
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of a single correction to the Utilities Development Fees
for Remodels as adopted by City Council on November 24, 2014. This correction ensures that
the fee for this service is consistent with the 2015 budget presentation and intended projected fee
structure and revenue collection. The correction is not an additional fee or revenue increase.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Utilities Development Fee correction at
First Reading on February 23, 2015.
BACKGROUND: Under the Utilities Development Fees, the table should read for Basic
Project – Remodel : “Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) -- $59.09”,
instead of $ 59.09 per ECU as adopted.
Current – Adopted Utilities Development Fees
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project – Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per ECU) $59.09
Corrected – Utilities Development Fees, Exhibit D
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project - Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) $59.09
1. DISCUSSION: The wording correction to Utilities Development Fees is specific to
applications with remodels adding more than 0.05 ECUs. Services provided by City staff
P42
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
for remodels include: downloading building application, research of water account and
property including existing water fixtures, water tap size and special conditions,
conversations with contractor, completion of Utility Connection Permit with stated
existing ECUs, proposed ECUs and requested additional ECUs, calculation of Utility
Connection fee/tap fee, review of packet by supervisor, email of packet to
developer/owner, and performance of final walk through when project is complete.
Following are three specific examples comparing the current to the corrected remodel
review fee and estimated revenue.
1. Application to add a shower (0.05) = 0.05 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $50.00 flat fee
• corrected Development Review Fees = $50.00 flat fee
Revenue loss -- None
2. Application to add one bedroom (0.10), one steam shower (0.08), one kitchen (0.25),
one dishwasher(0.10), one disposal (0.05), one bar sink (0.05), one washer (0.10), one
dog wash (0.05), and one hose bib (0.05) = 0.83 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $49.04 total
• corrected Development Review Fees = $980.89 total
Revenue loss -- $931.85
3. Application to add two bedrooms (0.20), two toilets (0.10), two tubs (0.10), two
steam showers (0.16), one kitchen (0.25), one dishwasher (0.10), one kitchen sink
(0.05), one disposal (0.05), one 1,000 gallon hot tub (0.10) = 1.11 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $65.59 total
• corrected Development Review Fees = $1,311.80 total
Revenue loss -- $1,246.21
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial implications of the corrected 2015 Utilities
Development Fee ordinance for both expenses and revenues are outlined in the adopted 2015
budget documents. If the correction is not adopted, staff is projecting a $66,000 revenue
shortfall for 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 5, Series 2015, (see
Exhibit B), to correct language for remodels above 0.05 ECUs to read “(Per 0.05 ECU)”.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may forego approval of requested correction in 2015 and utilize
existing Water Fund funds received from general customer base to offset the estimated $66,000
utilities review fee shortfall.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 5, Series of 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance 5, Series 2015 – Correction to Utilities Development Fees
Exhibit B – Utilities Development Fees – Rates and Projected Revenues
P43
VIII.a
ORDINANCE NO. 5
Series of 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 2 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 2.12.100, BUILDING AND PLANNING.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy setting forth utility review fees for the City Utilities
Department that shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that 2015 rate for remodels larger than 0.05 Equivalent Capacity
Units (ECUs) should reflect a typo correction and be billed at a rate of $59.09/0.05 ECU rather than the currently adopted
rate of $59.09/ECU; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Utilities fund should no longer have general customer base
subsidize reviews and development within the utility service area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth u tility
review fees for the City Utilities Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.100. Utilities Development Fees
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project - Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) $59.09
Minor Review - New Construction
Projects with 100 - 10,000 Square Feet of Affected Area
Permit Fee $1.50/sqft
Review Fee 65% of Permit Fee
Major Review -New Construction
Projects with 10,001 square feet of Affected Area and Above
Permit Fee $0.75/sqft
Review Fee 65% of Permit Fee
P44
VIII.a
Section 2.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or
proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinance repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall
be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of March, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City
Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ, ORDERED AND PUBLISHED as
provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23 rd day of February 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9 th day of March, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
P45
VIII.a
Classification Hours $/ECU Avg #/Yr Revenue Services Included
Basic Project
Rate is Per ECU - each 0.05 ECU equates to 1 hour
Remodel - Small - addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs - flat fee of $50 per submittal 1 $50.00 2 $100 i.e. adding a toilet, sink or washing machine
Remodel - Medium to Large - addition of 0.051 ECUS and above -- Average # of water
fixtures added per review = 0.50 ECUs 10 $59.09 120 $70,912
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Final Walk Through
Est. Average Square
Footage $/Sq. Ft.Avg #/Yr
Minor Review
New Construction - Based on Square Fottage of Affected Area - 100 to 10,000 square feet
Review Fee is 65% of Permit Fee 5,000 $0.98 13 $63,375
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Multiple site visits by Engineering staff
and Distribution Staff
Permit Fee = 100% of Per Square Feet Calculation 5,000 $1.50 11 $82,500
Field Inspections; Construction Meetings; Project Change Orders; Final
Walk Through and Acceptance; GIS Updates based on As-Builts
Est. Average Square
Footage $/Sq. Ft.Avg #/Yr
Major Review
New Construction - Based on Square Fottage of Affected Area - 10,001 square feet and above
Review Fee is 65% of Permit Fee 43,560 $0.49 2 $42,471
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Multiple site visits by Engineering staff
and Distribution Staff; Final Walk Through
Permit Fee = 100% of Per Square Feet Calculation 43,560 $0.75 2 $65,340
Field Inspections; Construction Meetings; Project Change Orders; Final
Walk Through and Acceptance; GIS Updates based on As-Builts
less $100K, as % of $5M
TOTAL REVENUE $324,598 4.5%
$107,811 existing to contract
$216,787 new fees
$78,999 new civil engineer
$70,789 overhead
$20,000 supplies
$50,000 legal
$219,788 total trying to recoup
P
4
6
V
I
I
I
.
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 1450 Crystal Lake Road – PUD Amendment
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2015, First Reading
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2015
APPLICANT /O WNER :
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
Mitch Haas
LOCATION :
1450 Crystal Lake Road – Lot 15 of the
Callahan Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING :
RR/PUD/SPA (Rural Residential) zone district
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay and a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
Overlay
SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests a PUD amendment to
eliminate the subgrade parking garage, Growth
Management Reviews to add ten lodging
pillows, a Subdivision amendment to adjust an
internal lot line, and a Commercial Design
Amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
P&Z RECOMMENDATION :
P&Z recommended approval of the amendment.
Photo: Aspen Club building and location.
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following land use
approvals. Note the Applicant is vested under the 2007 Land Use Code, which is referenced
here.
P47
VIII.b
• A Commercial Design Review Amendment (Chapter 26.412.080, Amendment of
commercial design approval ) for modifications to the Club Building and project roofing
materials.
• A PUD Other Amendment Review (Chapter 26.445.100.B Other Amendment ) for the
development of retaining walls in a setback and to memorialize floor area.
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing ) for the
development of affordable housing.
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.080.3, Lodge development ) for the
development of lodging.
• A Subdivision Other Amendment Review (Chapter 26.480.080.B, Other amendment ) for
an internal lot line adjustment.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY :
The Aspen Club is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district with a PUD overlay and an
SPA overlay. The Club is part of the Callahan Subdivision and PUD, which was initially
approved in 1976. The original approval included sixteen (16) lots. Lot 14A was designated as
a parking facility for the use and benefit of the clubhouse and recreational facility that was
proposed on Lot 15 (the current location of the Aspen Club). The parking area on Lot 14A
includes thirty-five (35) spaces, and is accessed from Lot 15 via a bridge over the Roaring Fork
River and through Lot 14.
A number of PUD Amendments have been made to the Callahan Subdivision since the original
approval, the most recent of which was the PUD amendment approved in 2010 (Ordinance 2,
Series of 2010), and includes some subsequent amendments. The property is approved for a
redevelopment that would include: 21 timeshare units, 12 2-bedroom affordable housing units,
and a reconfigured recreation club (the Aspen Club). A total of 133 parking spaces are approved
for the development – 35 spaces across the river on lots 14A & 14W and 98 on the Club parcel (Lot
15-A) through a combination of surface spaces and subgrade spaces in a new parking garage.
The Applicant estimates the removal of the garage will result in a reduction of over 6,000
construction truck trips and reduce the overall construction timeframe by approximately 3
months. The proposal results in more impervious surface than would exist with the current
approval, but a reduction of impervious surface from today’s condition of about 1,000 sq ft.
This amendment proposes to eliminate the subgrade parking garage and relocate the parking to the
surface of Lot 15-A. In addition, there are minor design changes proposed with the removal of the
parking garage, including changes to landscaping, the relocation of the affordable housing storage
space from their lot (Lot 15-E) to the Club lot (Lot 15-A), and add an elevator to the center of the
site to accommodate requires ADA access to the site. The Applicant is also requesting an additional
five (5) lodging bedrooms, and a reduction of lodge units by one (1). The five (5) new bedrooms
require a growth management allotment of ten (10) pillows, which are available. Due to the
P48
VIII.b
changes in the Club lodge unit configuration, minor design changes are proposed to the Club
building. The Applicant is requesting to use a synthetic roofing material instead of the approved
metal roofing. Finally, the Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between lots 15-A (the Club
Lot) and Lot 15-E (the Affordable Housing Lot) to accommodate changes to the affordable housing
unit storage area. The lot area for each lot will remain the same.
STAFF COMMENTS:
LODGE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW:
The Applicant has an approval for 21 lodge units (130 lodge pillows) and 12 housing units. The
housing units provide mitigation for 27 FTEs. The approved project required mitigation for 19.5
FTEs, resulting in the Applicant over-mitigating by 7.5 FTEs. They have requested to utilize this
“credit” to accommodate the incremental increase in mitigation requirements in this
amendment. 1
This application results in a need to mitigate for an additional 1.5 FTEs (5 new bedrooms * .5
FTE per bedroom = 2.5 FTEs, 2.5 FTEs * 60% = 1.5 FTE mitigation requirement), which is
significantly less than the “credit” from the PUD/SPA approval. The total FTEs requiring
mitigation would be 21 FTEs (19.5 FTEs generated in approved project + 1.5 FTEs generated in
this amendment = 21 FTEs). With the additional lodge pillows, the Applicant is mitigating
approximately 128% of the FTE mitigation requirement. APCHA and P&Z have reviewed the
application and recommends the Applicant be able to use the “credit” to mitigate the incremental
increase in FTEs.
At first reading, Council requested staff explain the difference between a lodge unit and a lodge
bedroom. Bedrooms are individual rooms within a lodge unit that have a bed. A lodge unit is what
you rent for your stay – it is an individual, rentable “room” or “unit.” When you stay at a hotel, you
rent a lodge unit that might include a single bedroom or multiple bedrooms. Under the 2007 code,
each bedroom required a growth management allotment in the form of “pillows.” According to the
code, each bedroom has 2 pillows – literally referring to the pillow you sleep on. The Aspen Club is
proposing twenty (20) Lodge units, each with multiple bedrooms. The total bedroom count for the
project is seventy (70), which means each unit has an average of three to four (3-4) bedrooms.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT :
The Applicant has requested the sub-grade parking garage be eliminated and that the parking be
relocated to the surface, as well as on a portion of the club building that is located nearly at
grade. The Applicant proposes no net decrease in the number of parking spaces. The Applicant
estimates an elimination of over 6,000 construction truck trips and a reduction of about 3 months
of construction if the garage is removed from the plans.
Staff supports the removal of the garage for a number of reasons. First, the decrease in
construction time and truck trips is significant and will mean less construction impacts on the
neighborhood and city as a whole. Second, the removal of the garage results in a more
streamlined design in terms of club entrances, as it reduces the number of entrances to the Club
from four (4) to one (1). Finally, it results in parking spaces for the affordable housing units that
1 A 2012 Amendment approved by P&Z allowed the Applicant to use the “credit” for an increase of 0.9 FTEs.
P49
VIII.b
are much closer to the affordable housing units, increasing that aspect of livability for the
residents. 2
The Applicant is also proposing a number of dimensional changes related to the removal of the
garage, and refinements found during preparation of construction documents. This includes an
overall decrease of approximately 3,000 sq ft of floor area for the project (from 110,475 sq ft to
107,750 sq ft). As part of this Floor Area decrease, the Applicant has requested the ability to
“exchange” up to 2,000 sq ft of Floor Area between the Club Building (commercial operation)
and the Club Units (lodging use located within the Club Building) to accommodate further
refinements of internal circulation. The dimensional changes requested also include clarification
of heights. The PUD includes a 28 foot height limit for the Club Building, however the Club
Building is currently thirty (30) feet six (6) inches. The Applicant is memorializing this existing
condition and requesting an allowance for an additional eight (8) inches to accommodate a re-
roof that is necessary to meet current energy and building codes. Height of the affordable
housing units, due to grade, was originally approved at a range of 28 feet to 41 feet. The
Applicant requests an amendment for the buildings to be 30 feet in height in order to
accommodate proper ceiling heights in a three-story structure, as well as the approved roof
articulation. Finally, the Applicant is requesting clarification of allowed walls in internal
setbacks to reflect the previously approved plans, and is requesting an amendment to portions of
the front and west side yard setbacks on Lot 15-A to accommodate a revised staircase and
relocated affordable housing storage.
Staff does have some concerns with the proposal regarding the amount of paved area on the site.
From a site design perspective, there is a significant amount of paved surface dedicated to
parking. Much of this in internal, and an argument could be made that it only impacts the users
of the site. Staff believes the large surface parking will be visible from Ute Ave, as well as from
the popular Ute Trail. Staff also has concerns about the increased paving from a stormwater
perspective. The proposed amendment is an increase of paving from what is approved, but
continues to be a decrease of about 1,000 sq ft from what is on the site today. In order to address
these concerns, staff recommends additional planting along Ute Ave, as well as internal to the
site be included in the site design. The Ordinance is written to permit a reduction of up to 5
parking spaces to accommodate the additional landscaping. 3 In addition, the Applicant will be
required to meet all current city standards related to stormwater management.
The Engineering Department has raised the pedestrian access from the affordable housing units
to the river for access to the existing trail as one potential issue. The Applicant has explored
adding an additional access path behind the housing units (along the Silverlining Ranch
property), but due to slopes it would not meet building accessibility requirements. Instead, the
Applicant proposes to further formalize the sidewalk connections along Ute Ave and through the
site for the affordable housing units. The Fire Department requested additional emergency
2 Previously the parking spaces were located in the garage, and required residents to walk through the Club to get
from their parking space to their unit.
3 Staff determined a reduction in five (5) parking spaces is appropriate because the approved project provides five
(5) more spaces than is required by code. The spaces that would be removed would be the five (5) temporary
parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Each housing unit would continue to have a single parking space, as
required by code, and as represented in previous approvals.
P50
VIII.b
access to the pool area in the middle of the site, and suggested a ladder be added from the
parking area on the Club. These have been incorporated as conditions of approval.
At first reading, Council requested additional information about the landscaping for the site, as
well as options for permeable pavement. The Applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan,
which is included in Exhibit H. The Applicant is also exploring permeable pavement as part of
their construction discussions, and will meet all requirements related to stormwater runoff and
mitigation for paved areas. The proposed amendment results in less impermeable surface than
exists on the site today.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN AMENDMENT :
The Applicant has requested minor modifications to the Club Building to accommodate the
changed lodge unit configuration. The proposed architecture and materials are consistent with
the approved design.
In addition, the Applicant has requested the addition of an elevator in the middle of the site to
enable improved access from the lower bench of the site (where a majority of the Townhome
style lodge units are located) to the upper bench (where the surface parking and Club Building is
located). This elevator will also provide accessibility to the River Trail that runs along the
Roaring Fork River. 4 The elevator is approximately 150 sq ft in size, and 28 feet in height. The
architecture and materials proposed are consistent with the project as a whole. Staff supports the
addition of the elevator because it improves overall site access for guests, residents, and visitors.
Finally, the Applicant is requesting the ability to use a synthetic metal roof for the project. The
material appears to be metal from afar, but provides improved long-term durability. Pictures of
the Music School which uses the material the Applicant is proposing to use, are attached as
Exhibit E. This material is not traditional, but provides cost and environmental savings that may
be worthwhile. The Applicant will show an example of the material at Second Reading.
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT :
The Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between lots 15-A (the Club Lot) and Lot 15-E (the
Affordable Housing Lot) to accommodate changes to the affordable housing unit storage area. The
lot area for each lot will remain the same. Staff supports this request, as it ensures that the
affordable housing storage is located on the affordable housing lot.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The APCHA Board reviewed this application at their regular meeting and recommends in favor
of the request. Referral comments were also received from Fire, Building, Engineering, Parks,
and Water. All referral comments are attached as Exhibit B.
P&Z RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval of
the proposal. They felt the removal of the garage represented a significant improvement to the
project due to the simplification of the design and the reduced construction impacts. The P&Z
4 Prior to the removal of the parking garage, the accessible route from the lower bench and the River Trail to the
upper bench required entering the garage and going through the Club Building.
P51
VIII.b
did not share staff’s concern about providing additional landscaping on the site, and did not feel
a reduction in parking spaces to accommodate additional landscaping was warranted. A copy of
their Resolution is attached as Exhibit F and a copy of their meeting minutes is attached as
Exhibit G.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request, with conditions.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance #7, Series 2015, approving Growth Management Reviews, a PUD
Amendment, a Subdivision Amendment, and a Commercial Design Amendment for the Aspen
Club project.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Exhibit A.3 – Staff Findings, Commercial Design Review
Exhibit A.4 – Staff Findings, Subdivision
Exhibit B – Development Review Committee Comments
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Drawings
Exhibit E – Pictures of proposed roofing material, as seen on the Music School
Exhibit F – Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 17, Series 2014.
Exhibit G – Planning & Zoning Commission 12.16.2014 meeting minutes
Exhibit H – Updated PUD Drawings
P52
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 1 of 8
Ordinance No. 7
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING LODGE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, SUBDIVISION,
AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD (THE ASPEN CLUB), LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 15-A THROUGH 15-E OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-181-32-019
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Aspen Club & Spa, LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Gateway Management
Company requesting a PUD Amendment, Commercial Design Amendment, and Growth
Management Reviews for the Aspen Club project; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final Specially Planned Area (SPA), final Planned
Unit Development (PUD), final Timeshare, Stream Margin, Affordable Housing Growth
Management Allotments, Multi-Year Growth Management Lodge Allotments, Rezoning, and
Subdivision, to develop a sub-grade garage, twenty (20) timeshare units and twelve (12)
affordable housing units, and to redesign existing commercial spaces, from the Aspen City
Council on June 1, 2010 via Ordinance 2, Series of 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Final Commercial Design Review from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2011 via Resolution 17, Series of 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received a number of previous amendments to the original
approval resulting in an approval to develop a sub-grade garage, twenty-one (21) timeshare units
and twelve (12) affordable housing units, and to redesign existing commercial spaces, which
have all been memorialized in the final PUD/Subdivision Agreement recorded at Reception
Number 610263; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use
Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their July 16, 2014, regular meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering, Housing,
Transportation, Parks, Building, and Fire Departments, and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
P53
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 16, 2014, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014, by a six to zero (6 – 0) vote,
approving Lodge and Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews and recommending City
Council approve a PUD Other Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development -
Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing
after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, following review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant
amended the application to request additional lodge pillow allotments, reduce the number of
lodge units, as well as make additional design changes, requiring additional Lodge and
Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews, Commercial Design Review, and Subdivision
Review; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures,
and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other land use reviews, as
identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS , such combination of review procedures was accomplished with all required
public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record,
and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2015 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 7,
Series 2015, on First Reading by a three to zero (3-0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on _______, 2015, the Aspen City Council approved
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015, by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions the Aspen
Club & Spa Amendment and all necessary land use reviews; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
P54
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 3 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby grants approval of the Aspen Club and Spa Planned Development
Amendment, Subdivision Amendment, Lodge and Affordable Housing Growth Management
Allotments, and Commercial Design Review Amendment.
Section 2: Planned Development Amendment
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves a PUD Other Amendment memorializing the following items:
• Removal of the subgrade parking garage and relocation of the parking spaces to the
surface of Lot 15-A and the roof of the Club building.
• The use of synthetic roofing material that looks like metal, as represented in the City
Council meeting on March 9, 2015.
• Revised dimensions are outlined in Exhibit A, and a setback exhibit is attached in Exhibit
B. All other dimensions remain unchanged.
• A perpetual easement for the pool wall enclosure to the benefit of the Aspen Club & Spa
shall be placed on applicable portions of Lot 15-D.
Section 3: Subdivision Amendment
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves a Subdivision Amendment that adjusts the lot line between Lots 15-A
and 15-E. No change in the lot areas is proposed.
Section 4: Commercial Design Amendment
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves a Commercial Design Amendment memorializing the following items:
• The use of synthetic roofing material that looks like metal, as represented in the City
Council meeting on March 9, 2015.
• The addition of an elevator to provide ADA access from the lower bench of the site
(where the lower townhome units are located) to the upper bench of the site (where the
parking and club building are located).
• Minor elevation changes to the Club Building due to a reduction of one (1) lodge unit,
and the addition of parking on the Club Building, as shown in Exhibit C.
Section 5: Growth Management Allotments
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves ten (10) lodge allotments through its lodge development Growth
Management Review, and approves the Aspen Club to utilize the previously approved affordable
housing units as mitigation through its affordable housing Growth Management Review. This
approval is for an increase in lodge pillows and a decrease of one (1) lodge unit, for a total of
140 lodge pillows, 70 bedrooms, and 20 lodge units (exclusive of lock-off units) in the project.
P55
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 4 of 8
Section 6: Affordable Housing
6.1 Previous Mitigation Calculations. The project is approved for a total of 12 affordable housing
units, providing mitigation for 27 FTEs. The approved project included a mitigation
requirement of 18.6 FTEs, resulting an existing “credit” of 8.4 FTEs.
6.2 Mitigation Requirements. The project proposes an additional ten (10) lodge pillows, or five
(5) new bedrooms. The mitigation required for the additional pillows is as follows:
Mitigate for the additional 5 lodge bedrooms @ 60%
5 lodge bedrooms * 0.5 FTEs = 2.5 FTEs generated
2.5 FTEs @ 60% mitigation = 1.5 FTEs required mitigation
The project has an 8.4 FTE “credit”, exceeding the incremental FTE generation increase in
this amendment.
The 8.4 FTE “credit” – 1.5 FTE requirement = 6.9 FTE “credit” remaining
6.3 Conditions. The Affordable Housing units shall be subject to all conditions outlined in the
previous approvals.
6.4 Access Easements.
• The affordable housing units shall be granted a perpetual access easement through the
site to use all internal side sidewalks in order to access the Roaring Fork River through
Lot 15-A. Formalized internal sidewalks through the site shall be added to the site plan,
as necessary, to accommodate this condition.
• The affordable housing units shall be granted a perpetual access easement to any of their
storage that is located on Lot 15-A.
Section 7: Parking
7.1 Parking Users: All parking spaces shall be limited to use by guests, tenants, and users of the
Project. Car storage shall be prohibited for guests and users of the Club and Timeshare uses.
7.2 Affordable Housing Parking: Each affordable housing unit shall be assigned a parking space,
located in front of the affordable housing units and along Ute Ave. A minimum of twelve
(12) parking spaces shall be provided. Up to five (5) additional parking spaces may be added
for the purpose of temporary, short-term parking by the affordable housing tenants and
guests, which shall be located in the same areas.
7.3 Parking on Club Building Structure: The parking spaces located on the Club Building shall
be valet parking only.
Section 8: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall submit an amendment to the Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter
“Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of this
approval.
a. The following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set:
P56
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 5 of 8
1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan.
2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans.
3. Public Infrastructure Plan.
A Condominium Map shall be completed for the development in accordance with Section
26.480.050(A), Condominiumization.
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
9.1 Fire Codes: All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This
includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section
503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and
907).
9.2 Pool Area Access: The Applicant shall work with the Fire Department during the building
permit review to address proper emergency access to the pool area. This may include the
addition of an emergency access stair from the parking are on the roof of the Club building to
the pool area, or other designed access solution. The Fire Department shall review and
approve the final design of any access solution. The Community Development Department
shall be notified if the access solution results in a design change. Addition of a stair, or other
minor change required for adequate access, may be approved administratively.
Section 10: Outdoor Lighting and Signage
All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 11: Building Department
The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of
building permit.
Section 12: Previous Approvals
All conditions outlined in all previous approvals remain valid and in effect, except as amended
herein.
Section 13:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 14:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 15:
P57
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 6 of 8
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of February, 2015.
__________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2015.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
__________________________ ______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements
Exhibit B: Setback Exhibit
Exhibit C : Revised Club Elevations
P58
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 7 of 8
Dimensional
Requirement Proposed Dimensional Requirements
Minimum Lot Size
Lot 15-A: 152,6691 sq. ft.
Lot 15-B: N/A
Lot 15-C: 19,451 sq. ft.
Lot 15-D: 31,655 sq. ft.
Lot 15-E: 11,459 sq. ft.
Maximum Height 1
Lot 15-A: Existing height plus 8 inches for a re-roof
Lot 15-E: 30 feet
On all lots, internal landscape/retaining walls may exceed 30 inches, as shown
on the Final PUD Plans
Setbacks 2
Lot 15-A Front Yard Setback: 30 feet, 25 feet for affordable housing storage
access
Lot 15-A West Side Yard Setback: 18 feet to parking stair, all other
unchanged.
Allowable Floor Area 3
Overall Allowed Floor Area: 107,750 sq. ft.
Aspen Club & Spa Building: 40,000 sq ft
Lodge: 54,000 sq. ft. (Townhouse Units: 36,000 sq. ft.; Club Units: 18,000 sq.
ft.)
Multi-family (affordable housing units): 13,600 sq. ft.
Elevator enclosure in middle of site: 150 sq. ft.
Minimum Off-Street
Parking
Minimum 128 spaces (up to 133 spaces may be provided)
Lodge: 21 spaces
Aspen Club and Spa: 95 spaces (60 spaces on Lot 15-A; 35 spaces on Lots
14A & 14W)
AH units: 12 spaces (up to 5 additional short-term spaces may be provided)
P59
VIII.b
City Council
Ordinance No. 7, Series 2015
Page 8 of 8
1
All heights measured from finished grade. Consistent with code, chimneys,
flues, vents, elevator and stair enclosures, and similar apparatus may extend
no more than ten (10) feet above the overall height limit of 28 feet for all lots
in the PUD, as measured from finished grade. Rooftop railings and similar
safety devices permitting rooftop access may extend up to five (5) feet above
the height of the building at the point the railing connects, provided the railing
is the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building
code compliance. Permeant rooftop amenities, including any pad the
amenity/equipment is placed on, may extend up to five (5) feet above the
height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. Heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, including any pad the equipment is
placed on, may extend up to six (6) feet above the height of the building at the
point the equipment is attached; walls/fences are also permitted around such
equipment as necessary to screen the equipment from view. Energy efficiency
systems or renewable energy production systems and associated equipment
located on top of a building may extend up to ten (10) feet above the height of
the building at the point the equipment is attached.
2
All setbacks are illustrated on the Setback Exhibit; Exhibit B to this
Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists between the listed setbacks
and the Setback Exhibit (Exhibit B to this Ordinance), the Setback Exhibit
shall govern.
3
Up to 2,000 sq ft of floor area may be exchanged between the Aspen Club &
Spa Building and the Club units. At no time may the Overall Floor Area
exceed the allowances herein, unless approved through a Planned
Development Amendment.
P60
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT A.1
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(note, the project is vested under the 2007 Land Use Code)
26.445.100. Amendment of PUD development order.
B. Other amendment. An amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final
development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final
development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council, pursuant to Subsection 26.445.030.C, Steps 3 and 4.
During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the development
will be compatible with current community circumstances. This shall include, but not be limited
to, portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended, any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the project's
original representations and commitments.
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture,
as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings:
The proposal is compatible with the development in the area and with the approved plans.
The project is essentially the same as what is currently approved, expect the parking
garage is eliminated and the parking is relocated. Minor site design changes are proposed
to accommodate the relocated parking, including some additional landscaping along Ute
Ave. Minor design changes are proposed to the affordable housing units to accommodate
relocated storage into the club. An access easement for the housing residents to access
their storage in the club will be provided. The applicant is also requesting an additional
ten (10) lodging pillows, and a decrease of one (1) unit. Due to the changes in the Club
lode unit configuration, minor design changes are proposed to the Club building. Finally,
the applicant is requesting the ability to use a synthetic metal roof for the project. The
material appears to be metal from afar, but provides improved long-term durability. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
P61
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 2 of 10
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Findings:
The project is consistent with the original approval, as well as the overall land uses in the
area. The area includes a mix of residential, commercial, and lodging uses. The
Applicant proposes to remove the approved sub-grade garage and relocate the parking to
the surface, as well as on a portion of the Club building. The removal of the garage is
estimated to result in a reduction of over 6,000 construction truck trips and reduce the
overall construction timeframe by approximately 3 months. The proposal results in more
impervious surface than would exist with the current approval, but a reduction of
impervious surface from today’s condition of about 1,000 sq ft. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Findings:
The project is consistent with the original approval, and is not anticipated to have adverse
effects on future development in the area. The Applicant, as required in the original
approval, is upgrading utilities, including sewer and water, to better accommodate the
redevelopment. No additional changes are anticipated by this approval. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Findings:
The applicant is requesting ten (10) lodge pillow allotments, which are available. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General
Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During
review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements
shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses
in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
P62
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 3 of 10
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking
and historical resources.
Staff Findings:
The project is substantially the same as approved. The applicant has requested changes
to how setback are calculated, which staff does not support. Staff finds that setbacks
should be measured from the lot line of the parcel, not the lot line of the fathering parcel.
Therefore, the dimensional changes include:
• Adding the ten (10) lodge pillows (five bedrooms).
• Decreasing lodge units by one (1).
• A reduction in overall square footage of approximately 3,000 sq ft.
• The ability to exchange up to 2,000 sq ft of floor area between the Club Lodge
Units and the Club Building to accommodate revised egress and floor plans.
• The addition of an elevator between the lower bench and the upper bench of the
site.
• An update on individual floor areas to correct a miscalculation in the original
approval (the Applicant had counted to framing, when the code they are vested
under is counted to outside of finish).
• A clarification of allowed heights that would allow an 8 inch re-roof of the
existing club building.
• The addition of height for the affordable housing units from 28 feet to 30 feet for
the livability of the units.
• An allowance for a code required pool wall/fence enclosure of 60 inches.
• A clarification that all internal retaining walls are approved to exceed 30 inches in
a setback, as memorialized in the approved PUD Plans.
• An amendment to West Side Yard Setback on Lot 15-A to accommodate the
garage redesign that has an access stair with an 18 foot setback (when 20 was
approved).
• An amendment to the Front Yard Setback on Lot 15-A to accommodate the
affordable housing storage access stair (the applicant requests 25 when 29.25 is
approved).
The proposed changes are consistent with the area and are appropriate for the site and the
proposed uses. The approved transportation plan will remain in effect. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Findings:
The proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate for the site, and result in less
overall floor area for the project. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P63
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 4 of 10
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
Staff Findings:
The approved project includes 133 parking spaces for all the uses. This is broken down
as follows:
Lodge Units: 21 spaces
Affordable Housing Units: 17 spaces (12 spaces required by code; 5 additional temporary
spaces for drop off)
Aspen Club & Spa: 95 spaces (60 spaces on-site, 35 across river)
Total: 133 spaces
With the proposed amendment, the same number of parking spaces is proposed. The
spaces that were in the subgrade garage are proposed to be relocated to the surface of Lot
15-A, as well as on top of the Club building.
Planning staff are supportive of the proposed changes, but recommend additional
landscape buffering for the surface parking spaces, even if it results in a slight decrease in
parking spaces. Staff supports a parking reduction of 5 spaces to accommodate increased
landscaping. Staff has included a condition of approval that each affordable housing unit
be assigned a parking space along Ute Ave, and that the five (5) temporary parking
spaces available to the housing residents can be removed to accommodate increased
landscaping. The revised parking to accommodate additional landscaping is:
Lodge Units: 21 spaces
Affordable Housing Units: 12 spaces
Aspen Club & Spa: 95 spaces (60 spaces on-site, 35 across river)
Total: 128 spaces
Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
P64
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 5 of 10
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to
service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may
be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there
exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible
with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development
pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or
lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average,
the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective
Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density
pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required
to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Findings:
No changes to density are proposed. Staff finds these criterion are not applicable.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces
P65
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 6 of 10
and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed
to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Findings:
There are no significant natural or man-made features on the site. The original approval
included open areas and a path through the middle of the site in an attempt to better
connect the site to the Roaring Fork River. These elements are maintained in this
proposal. The massing on the site is unchanged, and is oriented to Ute Avenue. The
Engineering Departments has raised the pedestrian access from the affordable housing
units to the river as one potential issue. The applicant has explored adding an additional
access path behind the housing units (along the Silverlining Ranch property), but due to
slopes it would not meet building accessibility requirements. Instead, the applicant
proposes to further formalize the sidewalk connections along Ute Ave and through the
site for the affordable housing units. The Fire Department requested additional
emergency access to the pool are in the middle of the site, and suggested a ladder be
added from the parking are on the Club. This has been incorporated as a condition of
approval. There are significant grade changes through the site, and the site consists of a
number of “benches.” The applicant has proposed an elevator to provide ADA access
from the “lower bench” where most of the townhome-style lodge units are located, and
the “upper bench” where the surface parking and Club Building are located. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
D. Landscape plan . The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing
and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety
of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
P66
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 7 of 10
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features
is appropriate.
Staff Findings:
The revision includes some landscaping along Ute Ave and in the surface parking area.
Staff recommends that additional landscaping be added to the surface parking to
minimize the visual impact of the additional parking area. This has been included as a
condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion is met.
E. Architectural character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate
to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable
for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or
less-intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior
materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Staff Findings:
The architectural character of the proposal is not proposed to change from the approval.
The applicant does request that the approved metal roof be permitted to be a synthetic
metal roof. Metal and shingle roofing is traditional in Aspen, and staff questions the
design impact a synthetic roof could have. However, the energy savings and the
improved long-term durability of the proposed material may warrant the change. Proper
show shedding and storage is accommodated with the proposal. The Applicant is also
proposing minor design changes to the Club Building to accommodate the changes to the
Club Lodge Unit configurations. The redesign is of the same architectural style and
materials that is approved. Staff finds this criterion is met.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site
features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to
the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding :
P67
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 8 of 10
No changes in lighting are proposed. All lighting will meet City of Aspen standards.
Staff finds these criterion are met.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in
the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or
industrial development.
Staff Finding :
No common park, open space, or recreation areas are proposed. Staff finds these
criterion are not applicable.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the
public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately
and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional
improvement.
Staff Finding :
The Applicant, as required in the original approval, is upgrading utilities, including sewer
and water, to better accommodate the redevelopment. No additional changes are
anticipated by this approval. Any required extension of utilities will be borne by the
applicant. Staff finds this criterion is met.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly
burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail
facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the
development shall meet the following criteria:
P68
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 9 of 10
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or
other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or
such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding :
Each lot includes access to Ute Ave through Lot 15-A. Parking for all lots is located on
Lot 15-A. The proposed amendment includes the same number of access points as the
current approval, but eliminates the garage access (and an associated wall of
approximately 20 feet at its highest point). Parking is proposed to be located where the
garage ramp was located. No changes to the delivery or trash area are proposed. The
proposal consolidates what had been four separate entrances to a single combined
entrance. This simplifies the overall access to the site and creates a more streamlined
design. Staff finds this criterion is met.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed,
each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan
shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any
facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required
affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to
the respective impacts associated with the phase.
P69
VIII.b
Exhibit A.1 – Staff Findings, PUD
Page 10 of 10
Staff Finding :
No phasing is proposed. Staff finds these criterion are not applicable.
P70
VIII.b
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A.2 – GMQS Staff Findings
26.470.050. General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to
meet this standard.
Staff Findings: There are sufficient lodge allotments for the proposal. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: There are no applicable adopted Master Plans, and the development conforms
with the neighborhood and the vested approvals for the site. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findings: The proposal is an internal change, converting approved commercial space to
lodge space, and does not change any of the overall dimensions in the PUD/SPA. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Findings: This is an internal change only, and is consistent with the Conceptual and
Final Commercial Design approvals. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant
may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
P71
VIII.b
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Page 2 of 5
Staff Findings: This application amends a previously approved PUD/SPA that included 20
timeshare units and 12 affordable housing units. The original 20 units required mitigation for
18.6 FTEs. (Land Use Code section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .5 FTEs per lodging
bedroom. Therefore, the employee generation was 31 FTEs (62 lodge bedrooms * .5 FTEs =
31 FTEs). At a mitigation level of 60%, the required mitigation for the project was 18.6 FTEs
(31 FTEs * 60% = 18.6 FTEs).) The 12 affordable housing mitigated for 27 FTEs, or
approximately 145% of the required affordable housing mitigation.
In 2012, the applicant requested approval of three new lodge bedrooms, requiring mitigation
for 0.9 FTEs (3 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per bedroom = 1.5 FTEs, 1.5 FTE * 60% = 0.9 FTE
mitigation requirement). The applicant requested, and was granted, the ability to use the
original “credit” for the incremental increase. (27 FTEs mitigated – 18.6 FTEs required = 8.4
FTE “credit”). The resulting “credit” was 7.5 FTEs (8.4 FTE “credit” – 0.9 FTEs generated =
7.5 FTEs).
This application results in a need to mitigate for 1.5 FTEs (5 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per
bedroom = 2.5 FTEs, 2.5 FTE * 60% = 1.5FTE mitigation requirement), which is significantly
less than the “credit” from the PUD/SPA approval. The total FTEs requiring mitigation would
be 21 FTEs (18.6 FTEs originally generated + 0.9 FTEs generated in 2012 amendment + 1.5
FTEs generated in this amendment = 21 FTEs). With the additional lodge pillows, the
Applicant is mitigating approximately 128% of the FTE mitigation requirement. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to
at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Findings: No free-market residential component is proposed as part of this application.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
P72
VIII.b
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Page 3 of 5
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Findings: The addition of one lodge unit and four total pillows represents a minimal
additional demand on public infrastructure. The Applicant remains bound by the PUD/SPA
approval, which states there cannot be an increase in trips to and from the Aspen Club. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may
choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findings: The proposed units comply with all APCHA standards, and are required to
comply with all previous approvals. Staff finds this criterion is met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1)
full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu
payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation
requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director,
pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable
housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is constructing 12 affordable housing units, housing 27 FTEs.
This more than mitigates for the 21 employees required to be mitigated for in the project (18.6
FTEs previously approved + 0.9 FTEs in the 2012 application + 1.5 FTEs in this application =
21 FTEs). Staff finds this criterion is met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
P73
VIII.b
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Page 4 of 5
Staff Findings: All of the previously approved affordable housing units are located such that
50% or more of the net livable space is above grade. Staff finds this criterion is met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned
by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated
with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject
to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Findings: The affordable housing units have previously been approved as rental units.
The Applicant is required to comply with all previous approvals for the units. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required
for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of
such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Findings: No non-mitigation units are not proposed in this application. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
3. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
b. If the project contains less than one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling thirty percent (30%) of the
additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing.
Staff Findings: No free-market residential component is proposed as part of this application.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
P74
VIII.b
Exhibit A.2 – Staff Findings, GMQS
Page 5 of 5
2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare
lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to
Paragraph 26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing.
Staff Findings: This application amends a previously approved PUD/SPA that included 20
timeshare units and 12 affordable housing units. The original 20 units required mitigation for
18.6 FTEs. (Land Use Code section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .5 FTEs per lodging
bedroom. Therefore, the employee generation was 31 FTEs (62 lodge bedrooms * .5 FTEs =
31 FTEs). At a mitigation level of 60%, the required mitigation for the project was 18.6 FTEs
(31 FTEs * 60% = 18.6 FTEs).) The 12 affordable housing mitigated for 27 FTEs, or
approximately 145% of the required affordable housing mitigation.
In 2012, the applicant requested approval of three new lodge bedrooms, requiring mitigation
for 0.9 FTEs (3 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per bedroom = 1.5 FTEs, 1.5 FTE * 60% = 0.9 FTE
mitigation requirement). The applicant requested, and was granted, the ability to use the
original “credit” for the incremental increase. (27 FTEs mitigated – 18.6 FTEs required = 8.4
FTE “credit”). The resulting “credit” was 7.5 FTEs (8.4 FTE “credit” – 0.9 FTEs generated =
7.5 FTEs).
This application results in a need to mitigate for 1.5 FTEs (5 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per
bedroom = 2.5 FTEs, 2.5 FTE * 60% = 1.5FTE mitigation requirement), which is significantly
less than the “credit” from the PUD/SPA approval. The total FTEs requiring mitigation would
be 21 FTEs (18.6 FTEs originally generated + 0.9 FTEs generated in 2012 amendment + 1.5
FTEs generated in this amendment = 21 FTEs). With the additional lodge pillows, the
Applicant is mitigating approximately 128% of the FTE mitigation requirement. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
P75
VIII.b
Exhibit A.3 – Staff Findings, Commercial Design
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A.3
Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review
(note, the project is vested under the 2007 Land Use Code) The Commercial Design
Amendment is required for the redesign to the Club Building. As such, the responses below are
limited to the scope of the proposed amendment.
Staff Findings – Commercial Design Review.
The project is required to comply with the standards set forth in section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards , as well as the Final Review Guidelines of the Small Lodges section of the
Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Staff findings
for each are set forth below.
Commercial Design Standards:
A. Public Amenity Space
Staff Finding:
The project includes a number of open areas that meet the definition of public amenity space.
However, this standard is not applicable to the development as no public amenity space is
required in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district. The Commission found this standard not
applicable during Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Reviews. Staff finds this standard is
not applicable.
B. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision
Staff Finding:
The project includes an enlarged and relocated trash/service/utility area. The area is located
behind the club along Ute Avenue. The area is screened through a change in grade (existing) and
landscaping. The location will minimize conflicts in the site between cars, pedestrians, and
service vehicles. The RR zone district does not require compliance with this standard. While the
project meets the intent of the requirement, Staff finds the standard is not applicable.
Final Review Design Guidelines:
Building Design & Articulation
5.10 A new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling
on all floors.
Staff Findings:
The timeshare units and the club building all meet the minimum nine (9) foot ceiling heights.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P76
VIII.b
Exhibit A.3 – Staff Findings, Commercial Design
Page 2 of 4
5.11 To reduce the perceived mass and scale of a building, the design should respect the
setting and reflect the human scale and character of the neighborhood. This shall be
achieved through all of the following:
• The varied massing of building forms
• The articulation of the façade(s) through a varied roof profile
• The articulation of the façade through varied wall planes.
• The use of a variation in architectural materials, and detailing
Staff Findings:
The Club Building includes two different components: the Aspen Club & Spa, which is a
commercial use, and the Club Lodge units which are a timeshare lodge use. The configuration
effectively breaks up the mass and creates a more human scale to the parcel. The human scale of
the Club building is being significantly improved through the addition of the new entrances and
club units along the entryway, which create additional articulation and interest. The western
façade of the Club us going from being a blank wall to a façade with balconies, windows, varied
materials, and increased interest.
The materials create a more inviting pedestrian environment. The applicant proposes using a
mix of stone, wood siding, glass, and stucco. The material palette will be consistent between all
the buildings, but will have slight variations in detailing to reflect the different uses, and is
consistent with existing approvals. All the materials proposed are of high quality.
The applicant requests that the approved metal roof be permitted to be a synthetic metal roof.
Metal and shingle roofing is traditional in Aspen, and staff questions the design impact a
synthetic roof could have. However, the energy savings and the improved long-term durability
of the proposed material may warrant the change. Proper show shedding and storage is
accommodated with the proposal.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5.12 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level.
• All entrances shall be ADA compliant.
• On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible.
Staff Findings:
There are no retail entrances in the project. The only retail component is within the Club itself,
which as an ADA accessible entrance. The addition of an elevator in the center of the site
provides improved ADA access throughout the site and eliminates the need for large ramping.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5.13 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
• An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is
inappropriate.
• Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of
the historic district.
P77
VIII.b
Exhibit A.3 – Staff Findings, Commercial Design
Page 3 of 4
• Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter
weather is not permitted.
Staff Findings:
The Club building’s main entrance and pool entrance both contain airlocks. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
5.14 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary
elevations of the building.
• Locate mechanical units to minimize the impact on adjacent residential uses.
• Employ an acoustic screen to buffer the noise from mechanical equipment and
minimize the impact on adjacent residential uses.
• Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the
modulation and character of the building.
• Use materials which complement the design of the building façades.
• Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street.
• Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible.
Staff Findings:
The existing Club building includes a “trough” between two sloped roofs. This area is going to
accommodate the new mechanical equipment needed for the building. The sloped roofs are
slightly higher than the flat “trough,” which will create visual and acoustic buffer. An additional
mechanical area will be located on the eastern side of the club building, near the affordable
housing units. This will be encapsulated within the over-framed roof to minimize visual and
acoustic impacts. In addition, the Club building will contain “green roof,” technologies that will
be constructed using best practices in terms of plantings, soil depths, and roof assemblies.
Compliance will be confirmed during the building permit review. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
Architectural Materials
5.15 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
• The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and
approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process,
including samples of materials as required.
5.16 Building materials should have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically.
• Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade.
• Convey human scale.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate.
Staff Findings:
The applicant proposes using a mix of stone, wood siding, glass, and stucco. The material
palette will be consistent between all the buildings, but will have slight variations in detailing to
reflect the different uses. All the materials proposed are of high quality and are typical for the
P78
VIII.b
Exhibit A.3 – Staff Findings, Commercial Design
Page 4 of 4
neighborhood and fit into the character of the area. The materials all create a human scale. Staff
finds these criteria to be met.
Paving & Landscaping
5.17 Maintain a high degree of landscaping on a lodge site.
• The location of a new building should minimize the loss of existing mature tree
cover and landscaping.
• Also include additional tree planting and landscaping within front and side yard
areas.
Staff Findings:
The original PUD and SPA review included a great amount of attention and detail to the
landscaping plan. The plan includes preserving the riparian area, and adding an open green lawn
area between the two lower townhouse buildings. Staff has requested additional landscaping on
site to lessen the impact of moving all the subgrade garage parking to the surface. The Parks
Department will oversee the removal and replacement of trees on the site. Staff finds these
criteria to be met.
P79
VIII.b
Exhibit A.4 – Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A.4
Sec. 26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order.
(note, the project is vested under the 2007 Land Use Code)
B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not
consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new
development application for plat.
Staff Findings:
The Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between lots 15-A (the Club Lot) and Lot 15-E (the
Affordable Housing Lot) to accommodate changes to the affordable housing unit storage area. The
lot area for each lot will remain the same. Staff supports this request, as it ensures that the
affordable housing storage is located on the affordable housing lot. Staff finds the criteria for an
Amendment to be met.
P80
VIII.b
Exhibit B - Aspen Club DRC Comments
November 12, 2014
Fire
• Will work with applicant to ensure proper fire truck turning radius is met throughout site
and that hydrant locations are adequate.
• The applicant needs to find a way to better accommodate fire and emergency access to
the pool area and the upper bench townhome units. Options could include a stair from
the rooftop parking area, or a path between the housing units and the eastern propert y line
with Silverlining Ranch.
Engineering
• Department is not in favor of the proposal from a stormwater perspective because of the
increase in impervious surface.
• Please provide all documentation regarding the decrease in construction impacts (truck
trips, etc) for verification. It should explain how the change relates to the project as a
whole and how the data was quantified.
• Engineering supports the idea from Fire of a path from the AHUs through the site. It will
improve the directness factor for those units accessing the river.
Building
• A separate ramp for ADA access from the rooftop parking to the walkway is required. Is
not required to be covered, as everyone’s access is outside.
• 1 ADA space is required of the rooftop spaces are in a carport.
Parks
• Work may not encroach on the stream margin area, as outlined in all past approvals.
• Parks recommends the applicant examine realignment of the trail up from the river so as
to not impact the trees currently on the trail. There will be mitigation for all trees
removed on the property. Parks understands the need to remove the majority of the
interior trees on the lot, but recommends most of the perimeter trees remain, including all
trees located on Ute Ave.
• Tree protection fencing MUST be installed at the drip line of all remaining trees, and this
fencing MUST be inspected by the city forester or his designee prior to any construction
activity.
• On the October 2014 landscape plan, it appears that there may be an issue with
overplanting. All final planning shall be approved by the Parks Department during
building permit review, as outlined in the approved Subdivision/PUD Agreement.
• Any and all plantings that are within the stream margin and the 15 foot setback require
the approval of the forester. Parks encourages the applicant to examine if the removal of
the garage enables relocation of utilities out of the stream margin area.
• There are no conifers allowed to be planted in the city ROW and any deciduous trees will
need the forester approval prior to planting.
Transportation
P81
VIII.b
• No comments at this time. Staff will review the TIA prior to Council to determine if any
clarifications are needed.
Sanitation
• Does not appear this amendment has any impact on the sewer lines. No comments at this
time.
Water / Utilities
• All construction of water mains and services shall comply with the current (2014) version
of the City’s Water Distribution System Standards. Layout of the water improvements
need to be presented in full compliance with current Water Distribution System
Standards, which can be found
at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Utilities/Water/Distribution-Standards/.
• Wherever a water main or service crosses any non-potable (examples: sanitary or storm
sewer, or raw water irrigation lines), the water pipe shall be at least eighteen inches above
the non-potable conduit or extra steps shall be taken to protect the water lines through the
Water Standards Variance Process.
• Show existing water facilities on the plan
• Show water main profiles addressing all potential conflicts and crossings.
• The designer must set a meeting with the Water Utility prior to the next building permit
to discuss:
• Size of services
• Need for two services
• Stagnant water potential
• Metering arrangements
• Responsibility for valve operations on the proposed large services
• Maintenance and operation of the north fire hydrant on a proposed service line
• Other issues which might arise.
• The water plans need to be stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer.
The water plans need to include an approval block for the Water Department. The Water
plans need to be delivered as three hard copies, 24 x 36 to the Water Department for our
final review and approval. This process will change when we get fully operational with
CSI.
P82
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Acting Director
DATE: November 14, 2014
RE: ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDMENT
Parcel ID No. 2737-181-32-019
ISSUE: The Aspen Club is proposing an additional amendment to their approvals pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2 (Series of 2010), P&Z Resolution No. 17 (Series of 2011) and P&Z Resolution
No. 16 (Series of 2012), P&Z Resolution No. 24 (Series of 2012 and P&Z Resolution No. 5 (Series
of 2014).
BACKGROUND:
After all of the current amendments to date, the approval includes the following:
• 21 fractional lodge units with 65 bedrooms and 130 pillows broken down as follows:
o Ten 3-bedfroom fractional lodge units
o Four 4-bedroom townhome fractional lodge units
o Six 3-bedroom Club fractional lodge units
o One studio Club fractional lodge unit
• 12 employee housing units
The applicant is now proposing to amend the approved site plan and eliminate the sub-grade
parking garage. The required number of parking spaces is being maintained by the applicant, but
will be reconfigured for at grade and on the roof of the club building. The applicant is also
requesting approval for the following:
• Two additional bedrooms (four pillows) of lodging;
• Elimination of the two separate points of access for members an downer sin favor of shared
access from Ute Avenue;
• Shifting of the pool approximately four feet to the south, allowing for more space between
one of the timeshare units and the pool;
• Elimination of several site retaining walls at the south and west associated with the subgrade
garage;
• Reduction of the site retaining wall height at north of the eliminated parking garage;
• Building footprint will be reduced;
P83
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 2
• Affordable Housing (AH) units will be shifted to the west to allow for gentler grading at the
adjacent property line;
• The AH units in the west AH building will have additional windows on the north and south
sides of the building;
• The basement area beneath the AH units has been eliminated and storage for the AH units
has been replaced within the Club with access via an adjacent stair and lift;
• Service entrance at the hack of the building has been simplified;
• The pool vestibule area has been adjusted to create more exterior space.
MITIGATION:
The proposed reconfiguration does trigger an additional affordable housing requirement; however,
the initial approval in 2010 provided housing for 27 FTE’s and the mitigation requirement was 18.6
FTE’s. The 2012 Amendment added 6 additional pillows generating an additional 0.9 FTE
requirement, for a total of 19.5 FTE’s. The applicant still has a surplus of 7.5 FTE’s. This would
cover the proposed addition of two timeshare unit bedrooms without the need for additional
mitigation.
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA has reviewed this Amendment and recommends that the
applicant be allowed to utilize the surplus of provided AH units for two additional bedrooms (four
pillows) of lodging. Staff recommends approval of the credits with the following conditions (as
stipulated in Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2010)):
1. The affordable housing commitment made by the applicant represents a voluntary
negotiated agreement between the applicant, the City and APCHA which has been
proposed by the applicant as a public benefit in connection with the Aspen Club
development approved by Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2010), and as amended. Owner and
APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), the
deed restriction that shall be recorded prior to Certificate of Occupancy constitutes a
voluntary agreement and the deed restriction limits the rent on the property and is subject
hereto and is to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it
may have to claim that the deed restriction will violate CRS 38-12-301.
2. The applicant shall require all potential tenants to receive approval by APCHA prior to
occupancy. If the applicant does not receive approval of any tenant prior to occupancy, the
applicant shall be required to pay any penalties and/or fines required by the Land Use Code
and/or as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines.
3. The 12 on-site, two-bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category
2, 3 and 4 with the final category mix approved by APCHA in connection with the final
approval. The CO for the units shall be issued prior to or at the same time as the proposed
fractional ownership units.
P84
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 3
4. The units shall be owned and managed by the Aspen Club and Spa. More detailed
information regarding the management and maintenance of the units shall be provided to
APCHA with the proposed deed restriction prior to CO.
5. The owner shall have the right to rent the units to qualified employees of the Club. If the
owner cannot provide a qualified tenant, the units shall be rented through APCHA’s normal
advertising process. At no time shall the tenancy of the units during a lease period be tied
to continued employment by the owner. Tenant leases, however, may be terminated for
cause or at the end of the lease period upon termination of employment.
6. Each tenant in the rental units shall be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly
basis.
7. The deed restriction shall allow the units to become ownership units at such time as the
owner (the Aspen Club and Spa) elects to condominiumize and sell the units, or at such
time as APCHA determines one or more units are found to be out of compliance for one
year. If any of the units are found to be out of compliance for one year, or the owner elects
to sell the units, the units shall be listed for sale with APCHA at the categories specified in
the deed restriction. The sales price shall be as stated in the APCHA Guidelines in effect at
the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent
(3%) per annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded),
whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. If the units are being sold due to
noncompliance, all of the units shall be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects
to sell the units, the owner may choose 1/3rd of the initial buyers provided they qualify
under APCHA’s top priority for the unit.
8. If the owner elects to sell the units, or they are required to be sold due to noncompliance,
owner shall condominiumize the units and form a condominium association for the
management and maintenance thereof. The affordable housing association shall be
separate from the fractional ownership unit’s association.
9. In the event the rental units are required to become ownership units due to noncompliance,
APCHA or the City may elect to purchase them for rental to qualified tenants in accordance
with APCHA Guidelines.
10. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions:
a. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall henceforth be limited exclusively to
housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and who meet the
definition of "qualified employee" as that term is defined by the qualification guidelines established
and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis, and as stipulated in #3 above. The Owner shall have
the right to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a "qualified employee" of his own selection.
b. The Employee Dwelling Units shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate
family ("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or
closer relative] and his or her children), unless the family member is a qualified employee and obtains
P85
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 4
approval by APCHA prior to occupancy. The unit shall at no time be used as a guesthouse or guest
facility.
c. Written verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside in the Employee Dwelling
Units shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Unit
prior to occupancy thereof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority. If found to be
occupied prior to approval, the applicant shall be required to pay any penalties and/or fines required
by the Land Use Code and/or as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Guidelines and as they
are amended from time to time.
d. The Employee Dwelling Units shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6)
consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Units, the Owner is granted forty-five
(45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If an employee is not placed by the Owner, the
Authority may rent the Employee Dwelling Units to a qualified employee.
e. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category as stipulated in the deed restriction and as
stated in #1 above, and the rental rates shall be as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the
Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent
for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction as stated in the Guidelines at the time the
deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission
and approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified by the Authority as to employment, maximum
income and asset limitations on a yearly basis. The signed lease must be provided to APCHA.
f. The Unit must meet minimum occupancy; i.e., one person per bedroom.
g. Owner agrees to provide to APCHA upon request all information reasonably necessary to determine if
there is full compliance with this Agreement.
h. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner and/or tenant is violating the
provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA, by its authorized representative, may inspect the Property
or Affordable Housing Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours’ written notice.
i. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice of violation
to the Owner and/or tenant, as may be applicable, detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the
Owner or tenant fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner or tenant may request
a quasi-judicial hearing before the APCHA Board pursuant to the Grievance Procedures of the
APCHA Guidelines within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is
requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner or tenant shall be
considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA Board, the decision
of the APCHA Board based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining
if a violation has occurred and for the purpose of judicial review.
j. There is hereby reserved to the parties’ hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breach of this
Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney’s fees.
k. In the event an Affordable Housing Units is leased without compliance herewith, such lease shall be
wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported tenant. Each and every
lease, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants
herein contained, even without reference therein to this Agreement.
P86
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 5
l. In the event that the Owner or tenant fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all
available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a
mandatory injunction requiring compliance by Owner and/or tenant, to include, but may not be
limited to, any penalty or fine as stipulated in the Land Use Code and/or Aspen/Pitkin County
Employee Housing Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time.
m. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be
interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any such provision shall be
invalid or prohibited under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such
invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or other
document.
n. This Agreement is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
o. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be
valid against any part hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this
agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the
unilateral right to waive such condition.
p. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only
when made in writing signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County, Colorado.
q. The terms and provisions of this Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants running with the title to
the Affordable Housing Units as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically
enforceable by, the Managing Agent, the Association and/or Owner, by the Housing Authority, the
City of Aspen, Colorado, and by their respective successors and assigns, by any appropriate legal
action including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non-qualified tenants.
r. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall provide for a rental
term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be
provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employee(s) for the
Employee Dwelling Unit.
s. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), this
Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent on the
property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any
right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301.
t. When the option to convert any unit to a sale unit is exercised, the owner must adopt a new deed
restriction in the form adopted by APCHA that is applicable to sale units. A separate homeowner
association will be created for the 12 deed-restricted units. All condominium documents shall be
reviewed and approved by APCHA.
Sales Unit: Should the units become ownership units due to non-compliance or at the direction of
the Aspen Club:
1. The units shall be ownership units sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
lottery system.
2. The unit shall be classified as stipulated in the recorded rental deed restriction.
P87
VIII.b
Aspen Club Amendment Page 6
3. The condominium documents shall reflect that any common area maintenance shall be
assessed based on the actual values of the free-market homes versus the deed-restricted
unit. Any property management fees or other fees associated with the commercial or
free-market aspect of the building shall not be charged to the deed-restricted owner. The
condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. The goal is to
protect the affordable housing unit from excessive monthly and/or special assessments
having to do with luxury items and/or expensive modifications.
P88
VIII.b
P
8
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
9
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
0
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
1
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
2
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
3
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
4
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
6
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
7
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
8
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
9
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
0
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
1
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
2
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
3
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
4
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
5
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
6
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
7
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club and SpaAspen Club and SpaAspen Club and SpaAspen Club and Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
L1 Landscape Plan
A1 Setbacks Exhibit Plan
A2 Lower Level Plan
A3 Main Level Plan
A4 Upper Level Plan
A5 Upper Level AHU Plan
A6 Roof Level Plan
A7 Club Building Character
A8 Townhouse Building Character
A9 AHU Building Character
C1 Grading Plan
C2 On-Site Drainage and Water Quality Basin Plan
C3 Off-Site Drainage Basin Plan
C4 Off-Site Drainage & R.O.W Improvements Plan
C5 Master Utility Plan
C6 On-Site Sanitary Sewer Plan and Profile
October 2014
P
2
7
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
S
UP
DN
trash
compactor
re
c
y
c
l
e
re
c
y
c
l
eD
Y
H
D
Y
H
TH UNIT 10
TH UNIT 9
TH UNIT 8
TH UNIT 7
pl
a
n
t
e
r
AHU 1, 5 & 9
TH UNIT 4
TH UNIT 3
TH UNIT 2
TH UNIT 1
TH
UNIT 1 1
TH
UNIT 13
Property Line
TH
UNIT 12
TH
UNIT 14
AHU 4, 8 & 12
Property Line
Pro
p
e
r
t
y
Li
n
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
B
u
s
S
t
o
p
P
u
l
l
O
u
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
AHU 2, 6 & 10
AHU 3, 7 & 1 1
Pro
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
10
0
Y
e
a
r
F
l
o
o
d
P
l
a
i
n
L
i
n
e
10
0
Ye
a
r
Fl
o
o
d
Plain Line
Ro
a
r
i
n
g
F
o
r
k
R
i
v
e
r
TH UNIT 5
TH UNIT 6
Ute
A
v
e
n
u
e
Service
Yard
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Native
Grasses &
Existing
Vegetation
New
Pool
Patio
lower lvl
egress
Native
Grasses &
Existing
Vegetation
Spa
Rain
Garden
Rain
Garden
Rain
Garden
Area within 15' setback to be revegetated with native grasses where tennis
court demolition requires access into this area
- revegetation per parks department and stream margin requirements per
section 19 of Ordinance 2, 20 10 and section 7&9 of the PUD amendment
reception 60 1 690.
15' Setback From Top of Slope
15'-0"
Top of Slope
Rooftop Patio
(Upper Level)
Patio
Green Roof
Parking
HC
Entry Drive
Parking
club
units
egress
Entry
Rain
Garden
R
a
i
n
G
a
r
d
e
n
Rain
Garden
LEGEND
Existing Trees to Remain
Proposed Evergreen Trees
(Spruce, Ponderosa Pine, Bristlecone)*
Proposed Deciduous Trees
(Aspen, Ash, Crabapple, Cottonwood)*
Proposed Planted Areas
(to be determined: native grasses, lawn
and / or perennial beds)
*Note: 90% of plant material shall be native.
No invasive plants shall be introduced.
Rain
Garden
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
Parking
Parking
transformers
Green
RoofRain
Garden
ASPEN CLUB & SPA SUBDIVISION / PUD / SPA
Aspen, CO
October 20146 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.BILL POSS & ASSOCIATESc
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+
1' = 20'
LANDSCAPE PLAN
NORTH 0 20 40
Landscape Architecture • Environmental Planning
208 Midland Avenue - Upstairs, Basalt, Colorado 81621
Ph: (970) 927-2194 • Fax: (970) 927-2197 • www.gregmozian.com
GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
L1
These
plans
are
conceptual
or
illustra0ve
in
nature.
Precise
informa0on
shall
be
provided
as
part
of
the
building
permit
applica0on,
and
in
situa0ons
where
the
final
PUD
Development
Plans
and
approved
building
permit
differ,
the
approved
building
permit
shall
rule.
(Per
requirement
#12
of
the
No0ce
of
Approval
recorded
on
7/24/13.)
P
2
7
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
re
c
y
c
l
e
re
c
y
c
l
e
S
DN
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
walls over 30" within setback
+/- 10'
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
parking lot retaining wall height varies
+/- 13'
grade transition over 30" within setback
walls and grade transitions over 30" within setback
related to grade transition and new accessible path
to river from site -
handrails for ramps will also exist on portion of this path
patio walls over 30" within setback
Townhomes 11-14
Townhomes 6-10
Townhomes 1-5
Aspen Club and Spa
AHU
AHU
AHU
grade transition over 30" within setback
related to existing grade transition and possible
removal of existing transformer to be relocated
outside of top of slope setback
5
5
'
.
5' .
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
retaining wall over 30" within setback
+/- 12'
NOTE:
WALL HEIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE GUARD RAIL DIMENSIONS
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or
fill within setback
1
8
'
.
25'
.
7'-6"
.
5
'
.
15'
.
1
8
'
.
1
8
'
.
5
'
.
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:11:44 PM
October 2014 - PUD SITE SETBACKS - A1
P
2
8
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
S
UP
UP
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 6
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 7
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 8
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 9
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 10
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 1
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 2
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 3
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 4
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 5
CRAWLSPACE FOR TOWNHOUSE UNITS 11-14
AHU
CRAWLSPACE
AHU
CRAWLSPACE
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
ASPEN CLUB & SPA
AHU
CRAWLSPACE
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:11:50 PM
October 2014 - LOWER LEVEL PLAN - A2
P
2
8
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
UP
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
re
c
y
c
l
e
re
c
y
c
l
e
S
DN
DN
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 11
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 12
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 13 TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 14
AHU 1
AHU 2
AHU 3
AHU 4
CLUB
UNIT 19
CLUB
UNIT
20
CLUB UNIT
21
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD BD
BD BD BD BD BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD
BD
BD
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 6
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 7
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 8
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 9
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 10
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 1
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 2
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 3
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 4
TOWN
HOUSE
UNIT 5
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
ASPEN CLUB & SPA
BD
BD
PATIO
POOL
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:11:59 PM
October 2014 - MAIN LEVEL PLAN - A3
P
2
8
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
DN
DN
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
re
c
y
c
l
e
re
c
y
c
l
e
S
DN
DN
DN
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 11
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 12
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 13
TOWNHOUSE
UNIT 14
AHU 5 AHU 6
AHU
7
AHU 8
ROOF PATIO
CLUB
UNIT 17
CLUB
UNIT 16
CLUB'
UNIT 15
CLUB
UNIT 18
BD BD
BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD
BD BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
CARPORT
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:12:07 PM
October 2014 - UPPER LEVEL PLAN - A4
P
2
8
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
S
DN
DN
DN
AHU 9 AHU 10
AHU 11
AHU 12
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:12:14 PM
October 2014 - UPPER LEVEL AHU PLAN - A5
P
2
8
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
C
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
S
DN
DN
DN
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
NOTE:
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS TBD
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:12:21 PM
October 2014 - ROOF LEVEL PLAN - A6
P
2
8
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
vertical siding
stone veneer
horizontal siding
approved potential future pool enclosure
standing seam single ply membrane roofing
standing seam single ply
membrane roofing
vertical siding
horizontal siding
carport and carport roof above
trash and service enclosure
horizontal siding
glass
vertical siding
pool
board form concrete or stone veneer
on parking lot site wall
vertical siding
horizontal siding
stone veneer
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/10/2014 2:12:48 PM
October 2014 - CLUB BUILDING CHARACTER - A7
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
P
2
8
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
st
o
n
e
v
e
n
e
e
r
ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
st
o
n
e
v
e
n
e
e
r
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
m
s
i
n
g
l
e
p
l
y
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
r
o
o
f
i
n
g
vertical wood siding stone veneer horizontal wood siding BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. c c c c 2013 2013 2013 2013
(
T
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
6
0
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
Th
e
s
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
o
r
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
n
a
t
u
r
e.
P
r
e
c
i
s
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
i
n
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
PU
D
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
di
f
f
e
r
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
u
l
e
.
(
P
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
#
1
2
o
f
t
h
e
N
o
t
ic
e
o
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
o
n
7
/
2
4
/
1
3
)
Aspen Club & Spa Aspen Club & Spa Aspen Club & Spa Aspen Club & Spa Subdivision/PUD/SPA Subdivision/PUD/SPA Subdivision/PUD/SPA Subdivision/PUD/SPA
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
9
:
0
9
:
3
8
A
M
October 2014 - TOWNHOME CHARACTER - A8
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
m
s
i
n
g
l
e
p
l
y
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
r
o
o
f
i
n
g
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
S
1
-
5
N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
O
T
H
E
R
S
S
I
M
I
L
I
A
R
T
O
W
NH
O
U
S
E
5
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
O
T
H
E
R
S
S
I
M
I
L
I
A
R
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
S
1
-
5
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
O
T
H
E
R
S
S
I
M
I
L
I
A
R
T
O
W
NH
O
U
S
E
1
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
O
T
H
E
R
S
S
I
M
I
L
I
A
R
P287VIII.b
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
10/9/2014 11:36:49 AM
October 2014 - AHU BUILDING CHARACTER - A9
AHU East Elevation
AHU West Elevation AHU North Elevation
AHU South Elevation
vertical siding
horizontal siding
juliette balcony
board form concrete or stone veneer
vertical siding
horizontal siding
juliette balcony
board form concrete or stone veneer
P
2
8
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
STONE OR ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE
CANOPY OVER
ELEVATOR DOOR
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2012 2012 2012 2012 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
1/27/2015 12:46:07 PM
ASPEN CLUB AND SPA
1450 Crystal Lake Road Aspen, CO
Exterior Elevator A1.32.7 A1.32.7 A1.32.7 A1.32.7
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator North (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator East (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator South (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator West (conceptual)
P
2
8
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
trash
compactor
re
c
y
c
l
e
re
c
y
c
l
e
S
DN
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
25'-0".
5 '-0 " m i n i m u m t o p a r k i n g l o t r e t a i n i n g w
a l l
walls over 30" within setback
+/- 10'
over 30" of cut or
fill within setback
parking lot retaining wall height varies
+/- 13'
grade transition over 30" within setback
walls and grade transitions over 30" within setback
related to grade transition and new accessible path
to river from site -
handrails for ramps will also exist on portion of this path
patio walls over 30" within setback
15' - 0"
1 5 ' - 0 "
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
Townhomes 11-14
Townhomes 6-10
Townhomes 1-5
Aspen Club and Spa
AHU
AHU
AHU
grade transition over 30" within setback
related to existing grade transition and possible
removal of existing transformer to be relocated
outside of top of slope setback
6
0
'
-
0
"
.
5' .
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
retaining wall over 30" within setback
+/- 12'
NOTE:
WALL HEIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE GUARD RAIL DIMENSIONS
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or
fill within setback
5
'
.
15-A/B
15-E
15-D
15-C
1
0
'
-
0
"
1 0 ' - 0 "
2
0
'
-
0
"
10' - 0 "
1
0
'
-
0
"
10' - 0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
7' - 6"
10' - 0"
1
8
'
-
0
"
.
30' - 0"
5
'
-
0
"
30' - 0"
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P RO P E R T Y LI N E
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING SETBACK
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
BUILDING SETBACK
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
BUILDING SETBACK
B U I L DI N G S E T B A C K
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
BUILDING SETBACK
B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
Minimum Lot Size Lot 15-A = 152,669 sf
Lot 15-B = N/A
Lot 15-C = 19,451 sf
Lot 15-D = 31,655 sf
Lot 15-E = 11,459 sf
Minimum Setbacks Lot 15-A:
Front Yard Above Grade: 30 ft
Front Yard Below Grade: 5 ft
East Side Yard: 0 ft
West Side Yard Above Grade: 60 ft to building
5 ft to garage
20 ft to garage stair
West Side Yard Below Grade: 5 ft
Rear Yard: 25 ft
Lot 15-B = N/A
Lot 15-C
Front Yard: 10 ft
East Side Yard: 10 ft
West Side Yard: 20 ft
Rear Yard: 10 ft
Lot 15-D
Front Yard: 5 ft
South Side Yard: 0 ft
West Side Yard: 10 ft
East Rear Yard: 20 ft
North Rear Yard: 10 ft
Lot 15-E
Front Yard: 7.5 ft
East Side Yard: 5 ft
West Side Yard: 0 ft
Rear Yard: 10 ft
Maximum Height 28 ft for all uses, as measured from the lot's finished grade.
Lot 15-A: Existing height plus 8 inches for re-roof
Lot 15-E: 30 ft
On all lots, internal landscape/retaining walls may exceeed
30 inches, as shown on the Final PUD Plans
Allowable Floor Area Total: 107,600 sf
Aspen Club & Spa Building: 40,000 sf
Lodge: 54,000 sf (Townhouse Units: 36,000 sf;
Club Units: 18,000 sf)
Multi-Family (affordable housing units): 13,600 sf
Maximum Allowable
Commercial Net
Leasable Area
63,199 sf
Minimum Off-Street
Parking
Minimum number of spaces: 128
Maximum number of spaces: 133
Lodge: 21 spaces
Aspen Club & Spa: 95 spaces (60 spaces on
Lot 15-A; 35 spaces on Lots 14A & 14W)
AH Units: 12 spaces
All heights measured from finished grade. Consistent with code; chimneys, flues, vents,
elevator, and stair enclosures, and similar apparatus may extend no more than ten (10)
feet above the overall height limit of 28 feet for all lots in the PUD, as measured from
finished grade. Rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access
may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing
connects, provided the railing is the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate
safety and building code compliance. Permanent rooftop amenities, including any pad
the amenity/equipment is placed on, may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of
the building at the point the equipment is attached. Heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems, including any pad the equipment is placed on, may extend up to
six (6) feet above the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached;
walls/fences are also permitted around such equipment as necessary to screen
equipment from view. Energy efficiency systems or renewable energy production
systems and associated equipment located on the top of the building may extend up to
ten (10) feet above the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit
shall rule. (Per requirement #12 of the Notice of Approval recorded on 7/24/13)
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
1/20/2015 2:28:54 PM
October 2014 - PUD SITE SETBACKS - A1
P
2
9
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
9
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
2
9
2
V
I
I
I
.
b
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 17,
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING LODGE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS,
AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD (THE
ASPEN CLUB), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 15-A THROUGH 15-E OF CALLAHAN
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-181-32-019
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Haas Land
Planning, LLC, represented by Mitch Haas, LLC and Gateway Management Company requesting a PUD
Amendment and Growth Management Reviews for the Aspen Club project; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Conceptual Commercial Design Review from the Planning
and Zoning Commission on April 1, 2008 via Resolution 9, Series of 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final Specially Planned Area (SPA), final Planned Unit
Development (PUD), final Timeshare, Stream Margin, Affordable Housing Growth Management
Allotments, Multi-Year Growth Management Lodge Allotments, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop a
sub-grade garage, twenty (20) timeshare units and twelve (12) affordable housing units, and to redesign
existing commercial spaces, from the Aspen City Council on June 1, 2010 via Ordinance 2, Series of
2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Final Commercial Design Review from the Planning and
Zoning Commission on September 6, 2011 via Resolution 17, Series of 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received approval for one (1) additional unit and a total of six (6)
additional lodge pillow allotments from the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 18, 2012 via
Resolution 16, Series of 2012; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received approval for floor area amendments and setback amendments
to accommodate retaining walls from the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 15, 2014 via
Resolution 5, Series of 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for
Growth Management Reviews to add four (4) lodge pillows, and requests the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend City Council approve a PUD Other Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 16, 2014, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014, by a six to zero (6 – 0) vote, approving Lodge and
Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews and recommending City Council approve a PUD Other
Amendment; and,
P293
VIII.b
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered
public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve a PUD Other Amendment
memorializing the following items:
• Removal of the subgrade parking garage and relocation of the parking spaces to the surface of Lot
15-A and the roof of the Club building.
• The use of synthetic roofing material that looks like metal, as represented in the P&Z meeting on
December 16, 2014.
• Revised dimensions are outlined in Exhibit A. All other dimensions remain unchanged.
Section 2:
The Planning and Zoning Commission herby recommends the following conditions be incorporated in the
City Council Ordinance:
• The Applicant shall work with the Fire Department to address proper emergency access to the
pool area. This may include the addition of an emergency access stair from the parking are on the
roof of the Club building to the pool area, or other designed access solution. The Fire Department
shall review and approve the final design of any access solution.
• The affordable housing units shall be granted a perpetual access easement through the site to use
all internal side sidewalks in order to access the Roaring Fork River through Lot 15-A.
Formalized internal sidewalks through the site shall be added to the site plan, as necessary, to
accommodate this condition.
• The affordable housing units shall be granted a perpetual access easement to their storage that is
located on Lot 15-A.
• A perpetual easement for the pool wall enclosure shall be placed on applicable portions of Lot 15-
D.
• A revised setback exhibit shall be provided prior to City Council review.
Section 3:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby approves four (4) lodge allotments through its lodge development
Growth Management Review, and approves the Aspen Club to utilize the previously approved affordable
P294
VIII.b
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 3 of 4
housing units as mitigation through its affordable housing Growth Management Review. This approval is
for an increase in pillows, but does not increase the number of lodge units, which shall remain at 21.
Section 4:
The affordable housing commitment made by the applicant represents a voluntary negotiated agreement
between the applicant, the City and APCHA which has been proposed by the applicant as a public benefit in
connection with the Aspen Club development approved by Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2010), and as amended.
Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), the deed
restriction that shall be recorded prior to Certificate of Occupancy constitutes a voluntary agreement and the
deed restriction limits the rent on the property and is subject hereto and is to otherwise provide affordable
housing stock. Owner waives any right it may have to claim that the deed restriction will violate CRS 38-
12-301.
Section 5:
All conditions outlined in all previous approvals remain valid and in effect.
Section 6:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal
approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the
same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 7:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action
or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided,
and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 8:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 16th day of December,
2014.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
__________________________ ______________________________
Debbie Quinn, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Proposed Dimensional Requirements
P295
VIII.b
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 4 of 4
Dimensional
Requirement Proposed Dimensional Requirements
Minimum Lot Size
Lot 15-A: 152,6691 sq. ft.
Lot 15-B: N/A
Lot 15-C: 19,451 sq. ft.
Lot 15-D: 31,655 sq. ft.
Lot 15-E: 11,459 sq. ft.
Maximum Height*
Lot 15-A: Existing height plus 8 inches for a re-roof
Lot 15-E: 30 feet
On all lots, internal landscape/retaining walls may exceed 30 inches, as shown
on the Final PUD Plans
Setbacks
Lot 15-A Front Yard Setback: 30 feet, 25 feet for affordbale housing storage
access
Lot 15-A West Side Yard Setback: 18 feet to parking stair, all other
unchanged.
Allowable Floor Area
Total: 107,600 sq. ft.
Aspen Club & Spa Building: 40,000 sq ft
Lodge: 54,000 sq. ft. (Townhouse Units: 36,000 sq. ft.; Club Units: 18,000 sq.
ft.)
Multi-family (affordable housing units): 13,600 sq. ft.
Minimum Off-Street
Parking
128 spaces total:
Lodge: 21 spaces
Aspen Club and Spa: 95 spaces (60 spaces on Lot 15-A; 35 spaces on Lots
14A & 14W)
AH units: 12 spaces
*
All heights measured from finished grade. Consistent with code, chimneys,
flues, vents, elevator and stair enclosures, and similar apparatus may extend
no more than ten (10) feet above the overall height limit of 28 feet for all lots
in the PUD, as measured from finished grade. Rooftop railings and similar
safety devices permitting rooftop access may extend up to five (5) feet above
the height of the building at the point the railing connects, provided the railing
is the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building
code compliance. Permeant rooftop amenities, including any pad the
amenity/equipment is placed on, may extend up to five (5) feet above the
height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. Heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, including any pad the equipment is
placed on, may extend up to six (6) feet above the height of the building at the
point the equipment is attached; walls/fences are also permitted around such
equipment as necessary to screen the equipment from view. Energy efficiency
systems or renewable energy production systems and associated equipment
located on top of a building may extend up to ten (10) feet above the height of
the building at the point the equipment is attached.
P296
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode and Jason Elliott.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow and Sara Adams.
Mr. Gibbs acknowledged Elise Thatcher, reporter from Aspen Public Radio, attending to cover the
continued Base 1 lodge public hearing and make meeting attendees aware she may be recording parts
of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Jessica Garrow stated Staff was planning for 2014 and wanted to formalize some meetings to
capture feedback from the commissioners regarding long range planning, code amendments and policy
discussions the Council has requested. She asked if the commissioners would prefer a third night in a
month or periodic lunch meetings. Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Tygre and Mr. Goode stated evenings were better.
Mr. McNellis and Mr. Walterscheid prefers lunchtime meetings. Mr. Elliott stated he could work with
either schedule. Ms. Garrow stated they would continue with lunchtime meetings and see if it works.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES:
There were no minutes to approve.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be recusing himself from the Base 1 Lodge hearing because of an
ongoing relationship with Mr. Hunt.
Public Hearing – Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment
Mr. Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment.
Ms. Quinn stated she had the affidavit of notice for publication was appropriately provided but the
affidavit of notice was not and asked the applicant when it was posted was there a photograph, did the
mailing occur according to the list and affidavit will be available by the end of the meeting. Mr. Mitch
Haas, representing Aspen Club and Spa LLC, stated the mailing and posting was completed as necessary
and his employee will bring the remainder to the meeting. Ms. Quinn stated with the stated
representation, P&Z could proceed with the hearing.
Ms. Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Long Range Planner, will be reviewing the PUD Amendment and
Growth Management Review for the Aspen Club and Spa owned by Michael Fox and represented by
1
P297
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, Bob Daniel of Gateway Management and Matthew Smith from Poss
Architecture.
Ms. Garrow stated there are three reviews in front of the commission:
1. PUD Other Amendment review in which P&Z is a recommending body to City Council.
2. Affordable Housing Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority.
3. Lodge Development Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority.
The bulk of the request is related to changes in the garage. The applicant is requesting to remove the
currently approved garage. The planned parking in the garage will be replaced onsite. She then reviewed
the currently approved site plan, the applicant’s proposed changes and the various amendments.
Ms. Garrow then reviewed the current day and approved entrances to the club. The lower curb cut
serves as the main entrance off Ute Ave. The parking consists of surface parking, landscaping, and an
entry feature. Another mid curb cut entrance off Ute Ave is the approved ramp down to the subgrade
garage. A third approved entrance provides access to the temporary parking spaces for the affordable
housing units as well access to the service yard.
Ms. Garrow then reviewed the proposed site plan keeping the three curb cuts. The middle curb cut
providing access to the garage ramp is changed to an exit so all the traffic would enter from the lower
curb cut. The ramp itself will become parking spaces. There are additional space and reduced
landscaping proposed where there were already approved spaces. The turnaround area at the end of
the parking lot has been expanded to accommodate a fire truck. The upper curb cut providing access to
the temporary parking spaces and service yard will remain and also provide access to the valet parking
spaces on the roof of the club.
With the proposed parking changes, there is no net decrease in the amount of parking spaces. Staff and
the Engineering Department do have concerns of the amount of impervious surface as a result of the
amount of paving that will occur. They included a resolution condition for a reduction of five parking
spaces to accommodate increased landscaping, particularly in the center of the site.
With the elimination of the garage, the applicant estimates a reduction in construction impacts with a
reduction of about 6,000 truck trips and decreases in the overall construction schedule by about three
months. The City’s Engineering department has completed an analysis and estimate about a six percent
6%) trip reduction for the project.
Ms. Garrow then described and pointed out the other proposed changes within the building including
adding two lodge bedrooms to Unit 21. This triggered the growth management review for lodging
requiring four lodge pillow allotments which are available for the project. It also triggered an affordable
housing review. The applicant previously over mitigated their previous approval so they have a credit of
full time equivalents (FTEs). The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has reviewed the
proposal and recommends the applicant be able to the use the credit for the addition of the two lodge
bedrooms.
Ms. Garrow stated the other changes involve setbacks. She displayed and pointed out the changed areas
of the project. An approved stairway access currently has a 20 ft setback and the applicant needs an 18
ft setback. Near the affordable housing units, the applicant is proposing to move the storage spaces for
the affordable housing units inside the building. This will require an access stair, so they are requesting a
2
P298
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
25 ft setback where the approved plan has a 29.25 ft setback. There will be a perpetual access
agreement for the storage units.
The next change is related to a State required fence\wall around the pool for safety. This had not been
caught in the Design Review Committee (DRC) Comments in the original application. The applicant
requests this to be memorialized. A portion of the fence\wall will be located on the townhome parcel
15-D so there would be an access easement for continuing maintenance.
Ms. Garrow then described the applicant’s request for height variances. The club building is approved at
28 ft. The applicant has completed their construction plan they have found their building is actually 30 ft
6 in. The issue is that the building was memorialized less than it actually measures. They are keeping the
existing club building. The amendment would memorialize the actual height of the building. The
applicant is also asking for an additional 8 in to accommodate a reroof.
The affordable housing unit have also been approved at 28 ft and the applicant has requested a height
of 30 ft to increase the livability of the top floor units with higher ceilings.
Staff is recommending in favor of the Growth Management Requests and the PUD amendment.
Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners for questions of staff.
Ms. Tygre asked for clarification regarding the temporary parking spaces for the affordable housing
units. Ms. Garrow stated there are 12 approved affordable housing units and approved for 17 parking
spaces. There are five temporary spaces closer to the units and 12 spaces towards the middle of the
parking area. Staff’s recommendation for a reduction of five parking spaces would eliminate the five
spaces as temporary. They would become assigned permanent spaces for the affordable housing which
would assign one permanent space for each of the 12 units with a net decrease of five units to be used
for additional landscaping. The remaining seven assigned spaces would be located below the five spaces.
Ms. Tygre asked how the spaces would be assigned and Ms. Garrow stated it would be up to the
applicant to assign the spaces to the units.
Mr. Gibbs asked for total sf of the proposed paved area. Ms. Garrow stated the proposed paved sf is a
net decrease of the existing condition, but an increase from what was approved.
Mr. Elliott asked to confirm the location of the assigned parking spaces at which Ms. Garrow pointed out
on a slide.
Mr. Elliott asked if the 6% reduction was used to calculate the 6,000 truck trips. Ms. Garrow stated the
applicant calculated the number of trips from an estimation of the impacts to the construction site plan
including dirt and materials. The Engineering Department took an estimate of the number of average
trips on Ute Ave from August 2013 and then calculated the percentage of decrease. Mr. Gibbs noted the
average number of trips was not based on a time period of construction though.
Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant.
In attendance with Mr. Michael Fox, the applicant, was Mr. Mitch Haas, Mr. Bob Daniel and Mr.
Matthew Smith.
Mr. Bob Daniel, representing the applicant, reviewed the applicant’s proposed amendments. He stated
the Aspen Club and Spa wants to retain their off-street parking. They are reducing the project by about
3
P299
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
30,000 sf by eliminating the garage which equates to about 560,000 cf of space. They will be able to
reduce construction related trips by 6,800 trips including larger trucks in their initial estimation. The
proposal improves the affordable housing by increasing the heights, providing access to parking and
storage, add four pillows to the lodge program, keep the same number of curb cuts, simplify the access
and include completed reviews with the fire and building departments.
Mr. Daniel stated the existing club has about 123,000 sf of impervious area including roofs, parking
areas, and tennis courts. The previously approved plan has about 115,000 sf of impervious area. The
proposed plan is about 122,000 sf. Of the approximate 6,000 sf increase, only 1,400 sf is lawn.
The proposed plan also reduces the built area along the back and front of the club.
They felt the approved plan’s traffic flow was confusing to the customer and provided four access points
to the club. The proposed plan simplifies the traffic flow in the parking area, access to the club and the
valet service point. The new valet parking area will be built about 2 ft above grade on top of another
structure.
Mr. Daniel then showed slides of the existing, approved and proposed structures including heights, view
planes and site lines.
Mr. Daniel explained they had PCL Construction work with them to determine the estimated reductions
in materials (concrete, snowmelt piping, mechanical systems and etc.), equipment (pumper trucks,
delivery trucks, etc.). He displayed a slide listing the estimated items and amounts to be reduced.
Mr. Matthew Smith reiterated the improved access to storage and parking for the affordable housing
units. For the club, the two primary improvements include better site circulation for vehicles and a
significant reduction in construction.
Mr. Haas stated there will be a lot less material including a tremendous amount of concrete. The visual
impacts are significant as well.
Mr. Daniel also noted a significant reduction in the wall with the adjoining neighbor.
Mr. Daniel stated they are concerned about reducing parking. They are not sure what the long term
impacts might be and do not want to impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Gibbs then asked the commissioners for any questions.
Mr. McNellis asked if the entrance was on grade with the existing grade. Mr. Daniel replied yes, there
will be some walls built as the parking lot extends into the property to accommodate the changes in
grade. Mr. Smith stated the overall change of grade from top to bottom was approximately 35 ft.
Mr. Elliott asked if the existing parallel parking along the wall would be eliminated. Mr. Daniel stated
they are looking at the area. This area provides five to six spaces including one handicap space.
Mr. Elliott asked for the route taken by the valet to confirm the car would not be utilizing Ute Ave. Mr.
Daniel stated they anticipate the valet service using the service area and it would not be their intent to
use Ute Ave.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for a description of the area directly below the valet parking entrance. Mr.
Daniel stated it is a service area for trash and other utility needs.
4
P300
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
Mr. Goode asked the applicant to confirm the sf will be less with the increased parking on top at which
Mr. Daniels confirmed.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the height of the affordable housing units was 28 ft or 41 ft. Ms. Garrow stated the
original approval in 2010 was not accurate because of changes to the grade. The subsequent
amendment changes the height to state 28 ft from the finished grade. The 41 ft was measured from the
natural grade and they are proposing 30 ft. A slide was then provided to demonstrate the approved and
requested heights of the affordable housing units.
Mr. Daniel stated another attribute of the proposed plan was to pull back the affordable housing units
about three ft to create more of a buffer with the adjoining property.
Mr. Daniel stated they are requesting the additional heights to address an energy model, specifically
insulation requirements. For the affordable housing, the extra space is currently coming out of livable
space.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the access to the river from the affordable housing units has been improved with this
proposal. Ms. Garrow stated the Engineering Department had suggested adding a path between the
units and the property boundary. However it would need to meet accessibility requirements and
because of the grade it cannot be built. There is a condition of the approval in the resolution that states
more clearly than in the existing approval that the affordable housing residents have a perpetual
easement through the site to get to the river and they can use the existing sidewalks.
Mr. Gibbs wanted clarification the change in the wall height toward the Benedict property. Mr. Daniel
showed on a slide where the wall would start and extend. He stated they would provide a tiered step
with landscaping.
Mr. Gibbs wanted to know the difference in truck trips between the approved and proposed projects.
Mr. Daniel stated he does not have that number, but they tried to look at the number of reductions. The
approved garage was substantial in materials and specification and they looked at the numbers
associated with the garage. Mr. Fox also stated the garage would have required 560,000 cf of dirt to be
removed. Mr. Gibbs feels the 6% reduction is too low.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for the anticipated construction schedule and how will it be reduced. Mr. Daniel
stated they originally had a 26 month schedule. They feel the reduction will be greater than the four
months estimated.
Mr. Daniel stated they are looking into ground sourced energy systems and the parking structure
construction would impact those efforts.
Mr. Gibbs then opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Jim Farrey thinks the project is great.
Mr. Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Gibbs opened for commissioners’ comments.
Ms. Tygre feels the proposed changes improve the project considerably and she is pleased to see the
increase in height on the affordable housing units to make them more livable. She is not opposed to the
surface parking and thinks this is a more simple design that will benefit everybody. She encouraged the
5
P301
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014
applicant to keep looking at the landscaping between Ute Ave and the club and include as much
landscaping as possible. She doesn’t care about the interior landscaping and feels it is a factor the
applicant is going to need an attractive site plan to sell the units.
Mr. Walterscheid is in favor of proposed changes and feels it is an improvement from the approved
project.
Mr. Elliott is in favor of the height requests but is not in favor of removing the five temporary parking
spaces. The temporary spaces in front of the units are needed from a livability standpoint. He feels the
same as Ms. Tygre regarding the internal landscaping. Ms. Garrow pointed this was defined in Section 2
on p 6 of the resolution in the packet. She stated the second bullet from the bottom could be deleted if
the commission does not want to make the internal landscaping and removal of the five temporary
spaces a requirement.
Mr. Elliott stated he would not be excited to see the valet parking traffic to use Ute Ave, but was not
sure this was under the purview of the commission. Mr. Gibbs stated they could possibly add a
recommendation to Council.
Mr. McNellis believes the requested changes will make the project better. The reduction in construction
traffic, materials and impact to the neighbors is significant. He agrees with the other commissioners not
reducing the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow if there was a handicap parking space next to affordable housing buildings
and she replied the space nearest the building is designated as handicap parking per code. Mr. Gibbs
agrees with Mr. Elliott regarding the five parking spaces and believes a couple of the spaces should be
kept open all the time for temporary use in addition to the handicap.
Mr. Gibbs felt eliminating the parking structure is a smart move and would have been difficult to
manage. All of his concerns have been addressed.
Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution number 17-2014 with the deletion of the fifth bulleted item in
section 2 which removes five parking spaces. Mr. Elliott seconded the motion.
Mr. Gibbs then opened for discussion. There was no discussion.
Roll call to vote: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliott,
yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes. Motion carried with count of yes-six (6) and no-zero (0).
Public Hearing – 730 E Cooper – Base 1 Lodge – Continued from
December 2, 2014
Mr. Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment.
Ms. Sara Adams, City of Aspen Community Development Planner, provided the reviews the P&Z
Commission is responsible for evaluating from this application as follows.
1. A recommendation to Council for the conceptual commercial design review
6
P302
VIII.b
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
S
DN
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
walls over 30" within setback
+/- 10'
over 30" of cut or
fill within setback
parking lot retaining wall height varies
+/- 13' grade transition over 30" within setback
walls and grade transitions over 30" within setback
related to grade transition and new accessible path
to river from site -
handrails for ramps will also exist on portion of this
path
patio walls over 30" within setback
Lodge Units 11-14
Lodge Units 6-10
Lodge Units 1-5
Aspen Club and Spa
AHU
AHU
AHU
grade transition over 30" within setback
related to existing grade transition and
possible
removal of existing transformer to be relocated
outside of top of slope setback
60
'
-
0
"
.
5'
-
0
"
.
Top of Slope Line
Top of Slope Setback
retaining wall over 30" within setback
+/- 12'
NOTE:
- WALL HEIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE GUARD RAIL DIMENSIONS
- ALL PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS TO MEET LAND USE CODE
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or fill within setback
over 30" of cut or
fill within setback
5
'
.
15-A/B
15-E
15-D
15-C
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P R O PE R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
EAST SIDE BUILDING SETBACK
FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK
RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
EAST SIDE BUILDING SETBACK
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
F R O N T Y A R D B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
WEST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK
W ES T S I D E BU I L DI NG S E T B AC K
R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
WEST SIDE BUILDING SETBACK
R E A R Y A R D B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
F R O N T Y A R D B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
proposed transformer location
10' - 0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
15' - 0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
5' - 0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1 5 ' - 0 "
2
0
'
-
0
"
10 ' - 0 "
E A S T S I D E B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
WEST SIDE BUILDING SETBACK 0' - 0"
5
'
-
0
"
25' - 0".
adjusted 15-E Lot Line
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
1
8
'
-
0
"
.
7' - 6"
Minimum Setbacks Lot 15-A
Front Yard: 30 ft
East Side Yard: 0 ft
West Side Yard: 60 ft to building
5 ft to retaining wall
18 ft to stair
Rear Yard: 25 ft
Lot 15-B = N/A
Lot 15-C
Front Yard: 10 ft
East Side Yard: 10 ft
West Side Yard: 20 ft
Rear Yard: 15 ft
Lot 15-D
Front Yard: 5 ft
South Side Yard: 0 ft
West Side Yard: 10 ft
East Side Yard: 20 ft
Rear Yard: 15 ft
Lot 15-E
Front Yard: 7.5 ft
East Side Yard: 5 ft
West Side Yard: 0 ft
Rear Yard: 10 ft
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule.
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
2/23/2015 11:15:37 AM
PUD SITE SETBACKS - A1
P
3
0
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
UP
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
S
LODGE
UNIT 11
LODGE
UNIT 12
LODGE
UNIT 13 LODGE
UNIT 14
AHU 1
AHU 2
AHU 3
AHU 4
CLUB
UNIT
CLUB
UNIT
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD BD
BD BD BD BD BD
BD
BD BD BD
BD
BD
LODGE
UNIT 6
LODGE
UNIT 7
LODGE
UNIT 8
LODGE
UNIT 9
LODGE
UNIT 10
LODGE
UNIT 1
LODGE
UNIT 2
LODGE
UNIT 3
LODGE
UNIT 4
LODGE
UNIT 5
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
ASPEN CLUB & SPA
BD
BD
PATIO
POOL
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule.
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
2/23/2015 11:15:40 AM
MAIN LEVEL PLAN - A3
P
3
0
4
V
I
I
I
.
b
DN
C
HC
HC
HC
HC
S
DN
DN
DN
LODGE
UNIT 11
LODGE
UNIT 12
LODGE
UNIT 13
LODGE
UNIT 14
AHU 5 AHU 6
AHU
7
AHU 8
ROOF PATIO
CLUB
UNIT
CLUB
UNIT
CLUB
UNIT
CLUB
UNIT
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
border of approved potential
future pool enclosure
CARPORT
BD
BD
BD
BD
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule.
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
2/23/2015 11:15:48 AM
UPPER LEVEL PLAN - A4
P
3
0
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
3
0
6
V
I
I
I
.
b
vertical siding
stone veneer
horizontal siding
approved potential future pool enclosure
standing seam single ply membrane roofing
standing seam single ply
membrane roofing
vertical siding
horizontal siding
carport and carport roof above
trash and service enclosure
vertical siding
glass
horizontal siding
pool
board form concrete or stone veneer
on parking lot site wall
vertical siding horizontal siding stone veneer
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule.
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
2/23/2015 11:16:14 AM
CLUB BUILDING CHARACTER - A7
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
P
3
0
7
V
I
I
I
.
b
vertical siding
stone veneer
horizontal siding
approved potential future pool enclosure
standing seam single ply membrane roofing
HORIZONTAL SIDING VERTICAL SIDING STONE VENEER STANDING SEAM SINGLE-
PLY MEMBRANE ROOFING
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2013 2013 2013 2013 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
These plans are conceptual or illustrative in nature. Precise information shall be provided
as part of the building permit application, and in situations where the final PUD
Development Plans and approved building permit differ, the approved building permit shall
rule.
Aspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & SpaAspen Club & Spa
Subdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPASubdivision/PUD/SPA
2/23/2015 11:16:20 AM
CLUB MATERIALS
P
3
0
8
V
I
I
I
.
b
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
STONE OR ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE
CANOPY OVER
ELEVATOR DOOR
BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. cc cc 2012 2012 2012 2012 ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0
6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
2/23/2015 11:15:35 AM
ASPEN CLUB AND SPA
1450 Crystal Lake Road Aspen, CO
Exterior Elevator A1.32.7 A1.32.7 A1.32.7 A1.32.7
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator North (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator East (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator South (conceptual)
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Exterior Elevator West (conceptual)
P
3
0
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 2nd Reading
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Ordinance 9, Series of 2015 - Limitations on Variations Code Amendment
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2015
SUMMARY :
The attached Ordinance amends the Land Use Code to establish limitations on what variations may
be requested by a Land Use Applicant, establishes thresholds for when dimensional and other
variations trigger a public vote (referendum), and establishes the Planning & Zoning Commission as
the City’s Board of Adjustment. In addition, minor grammar and spelling edits in the Planned
Development and GMQS Chapters are included in the proposed amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Land Use Code that would establish limits for
variation requests as well as thresholds for when a public vote is required. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND :
This code amendment focuses on creating additional clarity and predictability in the land use
review process. Currently, properties over 27,000 sq ft (and smaller properties after receiving
authorization from the Community Development Director) may request a Planned Development
to establish dimensions that exceed those of the underlying zone district. An Applicant may
request any dimension through this process. In addition, some Applicants have requested
reductions in affordable housing requirements through Growth Management or through a
Planned Development.
Over the past few months, there have been a number of community members who have
expressed concern regarding the magnitude of variations that are being requested. They have
argued that dimensional variations, in particular, should be subject to a public vote (referendum)
or simply not allowed. City Council has expressed a desire to examine the issue, and find code
P310
VIII.c
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 2nd Reading
Page 2 of 5
language that would continue to allow some flexibility for properties, while allowing a greater
public say in projects that have more significant variations.
OVERVIEW:
The proposed code amendment addresses variations to height, floor area, and housing mitigation.
While parking has recently received some attention, staff is not recommending an amendment to
parking requirements. The proposed code amendment also establishes the Planning & Zoning
Commission as the City’s Board of Adjustment.
Currently an applicant can request any height or floor area as part of a Planned Development.
The proposed code amendment curtails this by placing clear limits on the amount of height and
floor area variation that can be approved by City Council. Staff believes that some ability to
vary dimensions due to site specific constraints should remain in the code and would not
recommend entirely eliminating that option at this time. For instance, staff believes City Council
should have the discretion to approve a re-roof that requires additional height due to new
insulation and roofing materials. Similarly, staff believes City Council should have the
discretion to approve a slight increase in height and floor area to accommodate steep slopes, a
tree, or other site specific condition.
Staff has made some changes to the proposal since first reading, which are listed below and
explained in more detail in the sections later in this memo:
1. Exempt single-family, duplex, and multi-family (as a single use) development from the
proposed code amendment. This means the proposal applies only to commercial,
lodging, and mixed-use developments.
2. Reduce the amount of floor area variation that can be requested through a PD to 5%
(down from the original 10% proposal).
3. Additional review criteria have been added to aid Council’s review of height and floor
area variation requests.
Applicability: As written, the proposed code amendment applies to all properties that currently
have a Planned Development Overlay, as well as any property seeking an overlay in the future.
It does not impact non-conforming structures, properties requesting a hardship variance, or
properties seeking AspenModern designation.
Staff proposes exempting single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. Most of staff’s
concerns related to floor area expansions have to do with residential development: the need to
expand a light-well to provide adequate emergency egress, or a request to enclose a deck space
to increase living space. These are relatively minor requests that go through a land use review,
but they are frequent. Often owners of older multi-family complexes are interested in making
relatively minor design changes to bring the units to modern standards. This often includes a
request to enclose existing deck spaces to make the units slightly larger, or to add new deck
space to increase the amount of outdoor living space. These requests could mean a modest
increase in a single unit’s living area, but when the each unit in a complex is allowed the
expansion it could be beyond the proposed floor area increase limits. Staff believes these
P311
VIII.c
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 2nd Reading
Page 3 of 5
requests are reasonable and should continue to be reviewed by P&Z and City Council without
triggering a public vote.
Height: This code amendment proposes to limit the request to two (2) feet above a property’s
zoning allowance. Staff believes this allowance provides some design flexibility, and would
address issues that arise from site specific constraints such as varying slopes. City Council
would continue to be the final review authority for Planned Developments and would need to
find that the additional height meets the existing review criteria, including neighborhood
compatibility and that a significant community goal is achieved. In addition, staff proposes that
if an Applicant requests and City Council approves a height variation beyond the two (2) foot
limit, it would trigger an automatic public vote at the next regularly scheduled election.
Floor Area: This code amendment proposes to limit requests to increase a project’s floor area to
five-percent (5%) above the allowed overall floor area. City Council would continue to be the
final review authority for Planned Developments and would need to find that the additional floor
area meets the existing review criteria, including neighborhood compatibility and that a
significant community goal is achieved.
Staff has proposed a reduction in the amount of floor area increase than can be approved by City
Council to just five-percent (5%) based on comments and concerns raised at first reading.
Council indicated concern that the original proposal of a ten-percent (10%) increase could equate
to a significant amount of floor area. With the exemption of residential development described
above, staff believes a lower level of flexibility is appropriate. Staff believes this would enable
minor increases in floor area, but would not equate to a significant amount of floor area that
developers would “default” to requesting it.
New Review Criteria: Based on Council’s comments at first reading, staff has proposed
additional review criteria when an Applicant requests a height or floor area increase, including:
1. The proposed increase is necessary to address unique natural or man-made site
characteristics, such as topographical conditions, historic resources, or other natural
features; or
2. The proposed increase enables innovative design solutions or furthers stated community
goals.
Staff believes these criteria will enable Council to evaluate if the proposed increase is needed to
ensure a successful project, rather than simply a request to build a bigger building for the sake of
building more. The first review criterion addresses situations where a large tree, steep or varying
slopes, or other natural site condition impacts how development is placed on the site. The
second review criterion addresses situations where an Applicant might need a slight increase in
height or floor area to further a community goal. This is a broader review criteria than the first,
but would enable Council to exercise some discretion for projects they feel benefit the
community, such as affordable housing or historic preservation.
P312
VIII.c
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 2nd Reading
Page 4 of 5
Affordable Housing: Required affordable housing mitigation is based on the existing and
proposed uses in a building. In the past, some Land Use Applicants have requested reductions in
affordable housing mitigation requirements as part of their land use application. City Council is
charged with establishing the affordable housing mitigation requirements for Essential Public
Facilities, and currently has the discretion to establish that mitigation between zero and one-
hundred percent (0-100%). In addition, AspenModern properties have requested reductions in
their housing requirements as part of their negotiation with Council to designate the property as
historic.
Staff proposes the code amendment prohibit reductions in required affordable housing
mitigation, with the exception of Essential Public Facilities and historic designations. Staff
believes City Council should continue to have the ability to establish the housing mitigation for
Essential Public Facilities, as these are unique uses. Examples of Essential Public Facilities
include religious institutions, non-profits, and governmental entities.
Additionally, staff strongly supports allowing City Council the ability to negotiate with property
owners interested in designating their property through AspenModern. Limits on the ability to
provide individualized preservation incentives for AspenModern related properties would greatly
undermine a program that has received national and state level awards for the City’s commitment
and success in an area that many communities with significantly less development pressure have
not been able to achieve. Special incentives for preservation have been a fundamental part of
Aspen’s preservation ordinance dating back to 1987. Only about 15% of all the properties in the
City are landmarked. The City has been dedicated to working with the property owners who are
responsible for the preservation of Aspen’s heritage since the whole community benefits from
their efforts.
Parking: While parking has been raised by some members of the community as a dimension
that should not be varied, staff disagrees. Parking needs are fundamentally a function of a
building’s land use, and staff believes City Council should have the discretion to establish
parking requirements, as is currently allowed in the code. For instance, the Jewish Community
Center was approved a few years ago with a parking requirement established by City Council.
Many of the JCC’s main events occur on Saturday, a day when their religious teachings prohibit
the use of cars. This means the attendees to the main events will not be driving, greatly reducing
the need for parking. City Council heard this argument and established a parking requirement in
line with the actual use of the building. Staff believes this level of flexibility is important to
maintain.
Board of Adjustment: Staff proposes to consolidate the boards that hear different variance
requests. Currently, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) review requests for Planned Development, Growth Management Allotments,
Subdivision, Timeshare, Residential and Commercial Design, and Special Review applications.
They each meet every other week and are well equipped to review all manner of land use
requests, including dimensional variation requests. Hardship Variances (those variance requests
due to a specific physical constraint or other hardship that uniquely impacts a property) are
currently reviewed by the Board of Adjustment (BOA), which meets infrequently, sometimes as
few as once or twice a year. While the BOA carries out their responsibilities well, staff proposes
P313
VIII.c
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 2nd Reading
Page 5 of 5
that hardship Variances be reviewed by the P&Z and HPC, and that the P&Z be designated as the
City’s Board of Adjustment.
OTHER OPTIONS :
Staff has identified four (4) options that Council could adopt as part of this code amendment.
1. Adopt as proposed. This would allow an Applicant to request increases of 2 feet in
height and 5% floor area beyond what is allowed in the underlying zoning. Any request
beyond that would require a public vote.
2. Adopt the height and floor area limits as proposed (2 feet for height and 5% for floor
area), but do not allow additional height or floor area to be requested and approved
through a public vote.
3. Require a public vote for any height or floor area increase. (This is the option closest to
the proposed Charter Amendment).
4. Not allow any height or floor area increases through Planned Development, and not
include the ability to request additional height and floor area through a public vote.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS : _____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed code changes
P314
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE No. 9
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE LIMITING DIMENSIONAL AND OTHER
VARIATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments to the Land Use Code to limit the ability to ask for certain
dimensional and other variations, and to establish the Planning & Zoning Commission as the
Board of Adjustment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on January 26, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.13, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, clarifying the land use review process is identified in the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan as an important city policy and goal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals as
articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.470.110(A) – Growth management review procedures, General , shall be
P315
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 2 of 6
amended as follows:
[Subsections 1 – 10 shall be unchanged ]
11. No reduction in mitigation requirements . Notwithstanding Section 26.470.090(4), Essential
Public Facilities , an applicant may not request a reduction in the mitigation requirements of this
Chapter. Properties requesting historic designation pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation, shall be exempt from this provision, provided, however, that any reduction is
reviewed and approved by City Council.
Section 2: All references within Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, to
Subsection 26.470.080.2 shall be renumbered to Subsection 26.470.070.7. Similarly, references
to 26.470.080(6-10) shall be renumbered to 26.470.070(6-10).
Section 3: Chapter 26.445.030(B) – Planned Development, Scope and Limitations of Project
Review , shall be amended as follows:
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review.
Variations that increase the allowed maximum height by more than two (2) feet or the total
maximum floor area by more than five-percent (5%) above what is permitted in the underlying
zone district shall be subject to voter approval, pursuant to Section 26.445.040, Procedures for
Review. Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family (as a sole use) uses shall be exempt from this
provision.
Section 4: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(1)(e) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step One Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable), Notice requirements , shall be amended as follows:
e. Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.a, b
and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to
Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land uses are
proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the
following language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Section 5: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(2)(d) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step Two Project Review before City Council, Form of decision , shall be amended as follows:
d) Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving with
conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with conditions by City
Council that increase the allowed maximum height by more than two (2) feet or the total
P316
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 3 of 6
maximum floor area by more than five-percent (5%) above what is allowed in the underlying
zone district shall not be effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors
voting thereon (“public vote”). The public vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next
previously scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal election, or a special
election set by the City Council.
Section 6: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(2)(e) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step Two Project Review before City Council, Notice requirements, shall be amended as follows:
d. Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In
addition, all notices shall include the following language: “City Council’s Project Review
addresses land uses, mass, scale, height, floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the
proposal. City Council’s action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section
26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed
that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses not
otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its discretion,
temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to
Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood Outreach, City Council shall resume and
complete its review.
Section 7: Chapter 26.445.050 – Planned Development, Project Review Standards, shall be
amended to add Section J, Height and Floor Area Variations , as follows:
[Sections A – I shall be unchanged ]
J. Height and Floor Area Variations. Variations to allowed height and floor area shall be
subject to the following review criteria:
1. The proposed increase is necessary to address unique natural or man-made site
characteristics, such as topographical conditions, historic resources, or other natural
features; or
2. The proposed increase enables innovative design solutions or furthers stated community
goals.
Section 8: Chapter 26.445.080(A)(5) – Planned Development, Application contents, shall be
amended as follows:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential units,
20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or any
equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private utility
P317
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 4 of 6
providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas, electricity,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed planned
development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and date of
application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development, subject to
compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and subject to the
following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements [reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences, or
that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50 residences,
the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water Supply Act.
(Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
Section 9: Chapter 26.445.110(E) – Planned Development, Amendments, Minor Amendment to a
Detailed Review approval, shall be amended as follows:
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Review approval and to be generally
consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
Section 10: Chapter 26.445.110(G) – Planned Development, Amendments, Amendment
Conditions, shall be amended as follows:
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
Section 11: Chapter 26.212.010 – Planning and Zoning Commission, Powers and duties , shall
be amended as follows:
26.212.010. Powers and duties.
In addition to any authority granted the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") by state law or the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the
P318
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 5 of 6
Commission shall have the following powers and duties. The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall also function as the City’s Board of Adjustment, and shall have all authorities grated to a
Board of Adjustment by state law or this Code.
[Subsections A – M shall be unchanged ]
N. To hear, review, and approve variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or height,
from the provisions of this Title, pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
[Subsections O – Q shall be unchanged ]
Section 12: Chapter 26.216 – Board of Adjustment , shall be deleted.
Section 13: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 14: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 15: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 16:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the ___ day of ______________, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the ___ day of ________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___day of _________, 2015.
Attest:
P319
VIII.c
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 6 of 6
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P320
VIII.c
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed amendment established new limits on variance requests. There are no known
conflicts with existing provisions. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to provide some limitations on
what variations may be requested by an applicant. Providing some limitations on what may be
requested creates additional predictability for neighbors and the community regarding what can
be built on a given property. This code amendment also proposes to require an automatic public
vote (referendum) for any variation that exceeds the established limits, enabling the community
to have a direct voice in projects that may have greater community impacts. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a policy to “create certainty in zoning and the
land use process.” Updating the Code to provide limitations on what variations may be
requested is in concert with this policy.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a more predictable and clear land use review
process. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P321
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
26.445.030. Scope and Limitations.
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review.
Variations that increase the allowed maximum height by more than two (2) feet or the total
maximum floor area by more than five-percent (5%) above what is permitted in the underlying
zone district shall be subject to voter approval, pursuant to Section 26.445.040, Procedures for
Review. Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family (as a sole use) uses shall be exempt from this
provision.
Sec. 26.445.040. Procedures for Review.
B. Planned Development Review. All development proposed within a Planned
Development shall be subject to a three-step review consisting of the following steps: Public
hearings are required at each step.
1. Step One — Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic
Preservation Commission, as applicable).
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny and applicant’s Project
Review, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of an applicant’s Project Review to
City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public
hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050, Project Review Standards. If use variations are proposed, the proposed
development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation Standards.
d) Form of decision: The recommendation shall be by resolution.
e) Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project,
P322
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all
public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed to be addedthat are not
otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Step Two — Project Review before the City Council.
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide City Council with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Project Approval
Review, based on the standards of review. City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and
comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050 for Project Approval Review. If variations in land uses are proposed, the
proposed development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation
Standards.
d) Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving
with conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with
conditions by City Council that increase the allowed maximum height by more than
two (2) feet or the total maximum floor area by more than five-percent (5%) above
what is allowed in the underlying zone district shall not be effective unless
subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon (“public
vote”). The public vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next previously
scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal election, or a special
election set by the City Council.
e) Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by
City Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In addition, all notices shall include the following
language: “City Council’s Project Review addresses land uses, mass, scale, height,
floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the proposal. City Council’s
action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant
to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land
uses are proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district to be
added by including the following language: “The applicant proposes the development
P323
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
include the following land uses not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and
description of land uses].”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its
discretion, temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood
Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood
Outreach, City Council shall resume and complete its review.
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
J. Height and Floor Area Variations. Variations to allowed height and floor area shall be
subject to the following review criteria:
1. The proposed increase is necessary to address unique natural or man-made site
characteristics, such as topographical conditions, historic resources, or other natural
features; or
2. The proposed increase enables innovative design solutions or furthers stated community
goals.
26.445.080. Application Contents.
A. Project Review Application Contents. The contents of a development application for a
Project Review shall include the following:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential
units, 20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or
any equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private
utility providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas,
electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed
subdivisionplanned development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the
following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and
date of application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development,
subject to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and
subject to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements
[reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences,
or that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50
residences, the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water
Supply Act. (Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved
Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below.
Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-
P324
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures
outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure
most-applicable to the requested amendment.
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Rreview approval and to be
generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission orf the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
P325
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
26.445.030. Scope and Limitations.
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review.
Variations that increase the allowed maximum height or total maximum floor area above what is
permitted in the underlying zone district shall be subject to voter approval, pursuant to Section
26.445.040, Procedures for Review. Single Family, Duplex, and Multi-Family (as a sole use)
uses shall be exempt from this provision.
Sec. 26.445.040. Procedures for Review.
B. Planned Development Review. All development proposed within a Planned
Development shall be subject to a three-step review consisting of the following steps: Public
hearings are required at each step.
1. Step One — Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic
Preservation Commission, as applicable).
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny and applicant’s Project
Review, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of an applicant’s Project Review to
City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public
hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050, Project Review Standards. If use variations are proposed, the proposed
development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation Standards.
d) Form of decision: The recommendation shall be by resolution.
e) Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project,
Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all
P326
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed to be addedthat are not
otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Step Two — Project Review before the City Council.
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide City Council with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Project Approval
Review, based on the standards of review. City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and
comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050 for Project Approval Review. If variations in land uses are proposed, the
proposed development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation
Standards.
d) Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving
with conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with
conditions by City Council that increase the allowed maximum height or total
maximum floor area above what is allowed in the underlying zone district, shall not
be effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting
thereon (“public vote”). The public vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next
previously scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal election, or
a special election set by the City Council.
e) Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by
City Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In addition, all notices shall include the following
language: “City Council’s Project Review addresses land uses, mass, scale, height,
floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the proposal. City Council’s
action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant
to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land
uses are proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district to be
added by including the following language: “The applicant proposes the development
include the following land uses not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and
description of land uses].”
P327
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its
discretion, temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood
Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood
Outreach, City Council shall resume and complete its review.
26.445.080. Application Contents.
A. Project Review Application Contents. The contents of a development application for a
Project Review shall include the following:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential
units, 20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or
any equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private
utility providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas,
electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed
subdivisionplanned development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the
following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and
date of application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development,
subject to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and
subject to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements
[reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences,
or that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50
residences, the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water
Supply Act. (Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved
Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below.
Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-
Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures
outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure
most-applicable to the requested amendment.
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Rreview approval and to be
generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission orf the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
P328
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
P329
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
Chapter 26.470
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
26.470.110. Growth management review procedures.
A. General.
11. No reduction in mitigation requirements. An applicant may not request a reduction in the
mitigation requirements of this Chapter. Applications for essential public facilities
pursuant to Section 26.470.090(4), Essential Public Facilities, or historic designation
pursuant to Chapter 26.415.030(C), Historic Preservation - AspenModern, shall be
exempt from this provision, provided, however, that any reduction is reviewed and
approved by City Council.
Sec. 26.470.060 Administrative applications.
3. Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures. The change of use between the
development categories identified in Section 26.470.020, of a property, structure or portion of a
structure designated as an historic landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Community Development Director if no more than one (1) free-market residence is
created. No employee mitigation shall be required. If more than one (1) free-market residence is
created, the additional units shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7. The
change in amount of development and number of units shall be added and deducted from the
respective development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030 but shall not be
added or deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections
26.470.0780(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
1. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals
granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market
units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7, New free-
market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing.
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family
housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous
units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to
construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of
units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-
P330
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may
be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is
provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units
within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-
market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number
originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7, New
free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
P331
VIII.c
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
Chapter 26.212
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
26.212.010. Powers and duties.
In addition to any authority granted the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") by state law or the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the
Commission shall have the following powers and duties.: The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall also function as the City’s Board of Adjustment, and shall have all authorities grated to a
Board of Adjustment by state law or this Code.
N. To hear, review, and approve grant variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or
height, from the provisions of this Title, when a consolidated application is presented to the
Commission for review and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
Chapter 26.216, Board of Adjustment is deleted
P332
VIII.c
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
/ Q ,�, _. (J( ,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20 r'�
M0r-CA 9
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
d
9cto-.S lX.✓Ld Ngnkl 01 (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colo do, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials,,which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high,;and,which, was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior tathe public hearing
on the 16 Day of e ' 20/s, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photokkaph of th' osted:notice(s gn);is attached hereto.
Mailing..of notice. By the mailing of a�notice,obtamed xfrom the..Community
ar � } . �, ...
Development Department, which contains the informatixa :on described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use±Code tAt�least fifteen (15).days�prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed'by`fi`rs't class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that ;neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the,requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
a(A C
atur
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this.24444day
of , 20J, by --57pX, �a.calo5c�v�
MATTHEW MOSCHET WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATS OF COLORADO My com xpires:
NOTARY ID 20104003023
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 16,2018 .r.
Notary'Publfc
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3
T.e
ASPEN CLUB
Michael Fox
President&CEO
February 17,2015
Dear Neighbor:
Many of you have been following the progress of my team and me for the past several
years to help bring to fruition the vision and concept for the development of our unique
hospitality project in conjunction with the renovation of the Aspen Club and Spa. As you
know, I personally play an intimate role in every single detail of this process as the
project is a legacy project for my family,our neighborhood and the Aspen Community.
As plans for the redevelopment of the Aspen CIub & Spa have been reviewed and
revised, we have continued to look for opportunities to make this a better project while
reducing the overall impacts on our members, neighbors and the, greater Aspen
community. This effort has led us to submit this PUD Amendment in order to present a
project that has less overall impact, is better integrated into the site and is more open and
welcoming to our members, guests and the larger public.
Our PUD Amendment provides for the following refinements to the currently approved
FUD:
I. Elimination of a subgrade parking structure, which is a 30,000 square foot
concrete box. This is the equivalent of removing from the site a requirement to
develop a structure much larger than Aspen City Hall itself.
2. From a construction and impact perspective alone, removing the parking structure
results in:
✓ At least 6,800 fewer heavy truck trips down Ute Avenue, through Aspen,
back through town, and back up Ute Avenue taking excavated dirt out
and bringing materials to the site;
✓ Avoids the need to truck not less than 67,500 cubic feet of dirt off of the
site and to the dump;
✓ Not having to bring in some 4,752,000 pounds (or 2,376 tons) of concrete
to the site;
✓ Eliminating the need for more than 30,000 pounds (15 tons)of rebar;
✓ Eliminating delivery and use of 1,500 fewer lineal feet of sprinkler pipe;
✓ Delivery and installation of 9,600 fewer lineal feet (close to 2 miles) of
snowmelt piping; and
1450 Crystal Lake Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925.8900 (o) 970-925-2453 (t)
✓ Eliminating the need for some 800 lineal feet of sheet metal, 2,500 lineal
feet of conduit and wire, and a 15-ton cooling tower.
3. A substantial reduction of Floor Area and gross Building Area of the project
while still adding an additional 5 bedrooms and 10 total pillows of lodging.
These efficiencies are achieved through the elimination of the parking garage and
modifying some of the overall programming for the lodging component.
4. Improvement of the Affordable Housing Units by being able to locate parking for
these unit occupants adjacent to the units, increase the windows in the units and
provide more direct access to storage for the units.
5. Greatly reducing the amount of vertical retaining and garage wall that impacts the
adjoining Benedict Building Property on the eastern side of the project.
6. Providing an elevator connection from the parking level down to the townhome
level, thereby increasing accessibility of the trails down to/up from the Roaring
Fork River.
7. Reducing the overall amount of site walls on the property. The revised plan
allows the development to better work with the existing site, grades and
topography, resulting in less retaining wall construction, instead of forcing the
site,grades and topography to work for the development.
The changes to the PUD also provide the opportunity for a more community-oriented,
inclusive facility. The approved plan contains four separated entrance areas (two surface
and two in the garage), which serve to segregate and divide club members, unit owners,
guests and the community at large. The proposed amendment supplies the benefit of
replacing this arrangement with a single, common entrance serving everyone equally and
without limitation. The City has been trying to reverse a trend toward segregated
entrances and facilities and this amendment, and the Aspen Club for the past 38 years,
has very much been in harmony with these City goals.
The proposed amendment provides a win-win proposition for the community, especially
since we commit to maintaining the previously made commitments, which were
memorialized as conditions of the Aspen Cub & Spa approvals. As a reminder, during
the 2010 approvals, we agreed (and still agree) to provide many substantial and
unprecedented community benefits above and beyond anything required by the Land Use
Code. These benefits include,but are not limited to,the following:
✓ More affordable housing than required;
✓ The expenditure of over $5,000,000 in upgrades to the existing Aspen Club & Spa
facility;
✓ Provision of free office space to two(2)local charities;
1450 Crystal Lake Road {Aspen,Colorado 81611 970-925-8900 (o) 970-925-2453 (i]
✓ Commitment to making the Club available to Olympic and Paralympic athletes for
training, as well as to disabled members of the community;
✓ Commitment to the continued hosting of Project Graduation and other community
events;
✓ Continued hosting of seminars and lectures that are open to the public;
✓' Agreeing to the entirely voluntary ACLC Fractional Interest Assessment (similar to
the City's Real Estate Transfer Tax) that will go into a community recreation fund to
protect the promised community benefits for 25 years; and
✓ Completion of trail and Ute Avenue improvements.
By approving the proposed changes to the PUD/SPA, the redevelopment of the Aspen
Club & Spa will become a smaller, less complicated project, with reduced construction
impacts to the Aspen Club's neighbors and the community at large.
We are pleased that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved
the proposed PUD Amendment. We will be at City Council on Monday, March 9th to
share these exciting modifications. Should you have any questions regarding the PUD
Amendment,please feel free to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Michael Fox
President and CEO
The Aspen Club and Spa
(970) 925-8900
mfox(@aspenclub.com
1450 Cr),stal Lake Road Aspcn,Colorado 81611 970-925-8900 (o) 970.925-2453 (f)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE DRIVE—PUD AMENDMENT;GROWTH MANAGEMENT,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN AMENDMENT,AND SUBDIVISION REVIEWS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that,a public hearing will be held on Monday March 9, 2015, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Aspen Club and Spa, LLC, for the
property located at 1450 Crystal Lake Road (commonly known as the Aspen Club and Spa),
represented by Haas Land Planning and Gateway Management Company. The applicant is
requesting a PUD amendment to remove the subgrade parking garage and relocate the parking on
the site. The applicant is requesting Growth Management Reviews to add additional lodge
bedrooms to the project. Design changes are proposed to accommodate the relocated parking and
the increased lodge bedroom count. A Subdivision Review is requested to accommodate a lot line
adjustment between Lots 15-A and 15-E. The property is legally described as Lots 15A-15E,
Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. For further information, contact
Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO, (970)429.2780,jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com.
s/Steven Skadron,Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on February 19, 2015
City of Aspen Account
nARu t,sao
AHU 2.6810
TH UNIT 10 HIC
AHU 3.]611 _ I
TH UNIT 11TH UNIT 12 TH UNR 13 TH UNIT 14
. iN UNIT 8 ® 3
l ANlu e
TH UNIT 6
S
PAIL UN6
TM UNIT I
0 013
TH UNIT 6
O
• • I U#Iwq
♦ C I
d
TH UNITS 'H a
- seer 1rr[¢ea /� w.ra
HC
TH UNIT 4
HC _
tl
TH UNIT 3 H�
TH UNIT O
TH UNIT
O
11
ASPEN CLUB& SPA SUBDIVISION/PUD/SPA
ASPEN,CO
SITE PLAN
FEBRUARY 12,2015
10TH MTN DIVISION HUT ASSOC INC 1280 UTE LLC ALPHA FAMILY TRUST
1280 LITE AVE 1280 LITE AVE#16 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD#2600
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ARMYTAGE GAYLE M ASPEN CLUB ASPEN8 LLC
1434 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 15700 SOUTH PARK BLVD
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 441201670
BASS EDWARD P BCL TRUST BECKWITT MANAGEMENT TRUST
201 MAIN ST#2700 1707 MARKET PLACE BLVD#250 1707 MARKET PLACE BLVD#250
FORT WORTH,TX 76102 IRVING,TX 75063 IRVING,TX 75063
BEHRHORST DAVID G BURGESS JOHN K& ELIZABETH CITY OF ASPEN
1280 LITE AVE#32 700 LITE AVE#202 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
CLINE LEONARD J COTE RICHARD CRICENTI-MUNVES PALMIRA
634 CARONDELET ST 1280 LITE AVE PO BOX 24
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-3504 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
FALLIN RICHARD ALDEN FARVER JOAN LIVING TRUST FRETZ BARBARA B
PO BOX 6819 617 FRANKLIN PL#200 1432 CRYSTAL LAKE RD
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6819 PELLA, IA 50219 ASPEN, CO 81611
GIBSON DYLAN J GOODMAN HERBERT I & MARY K GOODMAN LEONARD C
1280 UTE AVE 5710 TECUMSEH CIR 222 N LASALLE ST#800
ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 770571317 CHICAGO, IL 60601
GORDON JOHN CHARLES HAHN TRUST HART H RODES& PATRICIA 1
10356 E STATE HIGHWAY 82 1650 FARNAM ST 3001 HILLSBORO RD
TWIN LAKES, CO 812519766 OMAHA, NE 68102 BRENTWOOD, TN 37027
HEAD FREDERICK F HOFFMAN EVELINE REV TRUST J ARIEL HOLDINGS TRUST 50%
1451 LITE AVE 1427 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 25 ORINDA WY#300
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ORINDA, CA 94563
JCCL TRUST JONES FAMILY REV TRUST LUTTRELL MARTHA LIV TRUST
1707 MARKET PLACE BLVD#250 2105 LEE SHORE PL 501 S BEVERLY DR 3RD FL
IRVING,TX 75063 WILMINGTON, NC 28405 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
MANAGING SPACES LLC MCBRIDE PETER MCCLAIN PETER K
PO BOX 4362 1280 LITE AVE 1461 UTE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
MITCHELL TODD MORRIS CLIFTON H JR&SHERIDAN C MRK ASPEN INVESTMENTS LLC
1280 LITE AVE#7 1409 INDIAN CREEK 34 W DILIDO DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 WESTOVER HILLS,TX 76107 MIAMI, FL 33139
MUNVES ANDREW NATHANSON FAMILY TRUST NOVAK JEFFERY T& KATHERINE PIKE
PO BOX 24 101 OCEAN AVE#C-600 1463 LITE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 ASPEN, CO 81611
OTTE WILSON MICHAEL PANTHERA LLLP POGLIANO GINA
89 DANIEL DR 774 MAYS BLVD STE 10557 1467 LITE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 894517638 ASPEN, CO 81611
POLGRAVE INVESTMENTS LTD POWDER HOUSE CONDO ASSOC PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE ROCKIES
2121 PONCE DE LEON BLVD, STE 650 1280 UTE AVE#16 1280 UTE AVE STE 4
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
RC ASPEN TRUST REESE JOHN W ROESER ELLEN QPRT
222 N LASALLE ST#800 257 EASTWOOD DR 1900 HIGHLAND PARK CIR
CHICAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76107
SALVADORE TERESA SEBASTIAN SEAN D S &AMY P S SHARPE HOLDINGS LP
ARMSTRONG BERNARD&TATIANA 321 GRANT ST 10490 WILSHIRE BLVD#1603
1122 COUNTY RD 106 SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
CARBONDALE,CO 81623
SHELDON ROBERT& BARBARA SHUMAN RUTH L SMITH BRADLEY& DOLECKI SMITH
11 BROOKSIDE DR 1120 PARK AVE JENNIFER
WESTPORT, CT 06880 NEW YORK, NY 10128 1455 UTE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE UHALT HUGH C UTE PARK
ASSOC 634 CARONDELET ST COMMON AREA
PO BOX 11597 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-3504
ASPEN, CO 81612
VALLEY GROUP LLC WAYNE WILLIAM&MARSHA TRUSTEES WILSON MIA&STEVEN
3001 HILLSBORO RD 1483 BONNYMEDE DR 1465 S LITE AVE
BRENTWOOD,TN 37027 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 816112813
WILSON THOMAS H WISE HUGH D III & MARY WISE MARY
645 E BLITHEDALE AVE 0252 HEATHER LN 1280 UTE AVE#9
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASIA,.. � -rte :♦ +�
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
tLP �D ! i S{ j Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PU LIC HEARING DATE:
2016
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin
(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
1/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
':R:prepaid U`S mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
•� ;�;property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
''property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
of the"owners and governmental agencies so noticed is a hed hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners ,shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this.notice requirement.
Rez077i77g or text mnendinent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of naives and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning snap shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 1`7 day
of--- F- , 201by - --)ia -l. �c c.✓ eel
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:1450 CRYSTAL LAKE DRIVE-PUD"-:
AMENDMENT,GROWTH MANAGEMENT,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN AMENDMENT,AND I M commission expires:
e
SUBDIVISION REVIEWS - y p IV«z -T
NOTICE IS HEREBY0p.m.b that a public hearing
will be be held on Monday March 9,2015,at ameet \'rVJn[ ►tTJ
t mg to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen City
Council,Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Gale-
na St.,Aspen,to consider an application submitted
by the Aspen Club and Spa,LLC,for the property Notary Public
located at 1450 Crystal La Road(commonly
known as the Aspen Club and Spa),represented '
by Haas Land Planning and Gr uest Managge- KAREN REED PATTERSON
ment Company.The applicantis requesting a PUD
amendment to remove the subgrade parking ga-
rage and relocate'the parking on the site. Theap-
plicaht is requesting Growth Management Reviews STATE OF COLORADO
to add additional lodge bedrooms to the project.
Design changes are proposed to accommodate the NOTARY ID#19964002767
relocated parking and the increased lodge bed- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
room count. A Subdivision Review is requested to My C;OR11TI1$Slpp EXQIf@S F@bfUBfY 16r Z��6
accommodate a lot line adjustment between Lots�E PUBLICATION
! 15-A and 15-E. The property is legally.described.
as Lots 15A-15E;Callahan Subdivision,City of As-
`pen,Pitkin County,Colorado. For father informa..PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
tion,contact Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen d
lCommunity
ns St°sP n,,eC,(970Department.. ,jess ra.9 a_F OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A GENCIES NOTICED
row O cityofaspen.com.
s/Steven Skadron Mavor
Aspen City Council 'CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
20 51i(10955742) Aspen Times on February 19, BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: / //-
(VCi . ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, o, p��•-� �Gcr-- (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days.prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six .
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
U.S, mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
te-uic; :property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
ry op°-ty-owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin Count as the
� r>i=1,�iJs � y
than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that . neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach su17177aa7y, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on neat page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing,of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PVDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text anzendrnent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of naives and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The f egoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 11 day
of .�iGj , 20L5-, by -YtS P�Gt c�7cc�! g..�4
-DMENTTO-No CITY. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
. RE.AMENDMENT TO-THE CITY OF ASPEN
-NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that apublic hearing
will be held on Monday,March 9,2015 atameet My commission expires: 1�I L�/�
-ingto begin-at 5:00 p.m before the AspenCity
Council,'Council.Chambers,City Hall,130.S.:Gal
e:.. _
cons
.ria St:;As pen,to establish an-amendment& o the ll.Y.)[�\ ` � �
text of the Land.Uae.Code to,place limitations on lCJ�^6
variations and to establish thePlanning 8 Zoning _
.variations
as the Board of Adjustment. For fur
ther information,contact Sara Adams at the City of Notary Public
Aspen Community Development Department,130 Y
S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429-2780, — -
;esstoa.garr°w•oityofaspen.°om KAREN REED PATTERSON
_9 SteSk
ven adronrMayor
Aspen City Ci0Unc I . NOTARY PUBLIC
Publish in the Aspen Times on February 19, .STATE OF COLORADO
2015 10955753 _I ACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID#19964002767
-_—. MY Commission Expires Febrtta 1 S,2018
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3