HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150713
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 13, 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 scheduled for a public hearing. 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. Notice of Call up
a) Notice of call-up: 100 So. Spring St., P&Z Commercial Design Approval
VII. Consent Calendar
a) Minutes - May 4, June 8 & 22, 2015
b) Board Appointments
c) Approved Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #24, Series of 2015 - Castle Ridge Planned Development
Amendment
b) Ordinance #25, Series of 2015 - CC and C-1 Zone Districts Code Amendment
c) Ordinance #26, Series of 2015 - Obermeyer Place Rezoning
IX. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #72 , Series of 2015 - Land Use Code Reliance Policy Resolution
b) Ordinance #22, Series 2015 - Hutton Lot Split (725 Cemetery Lane)
c) Ordinance #21, Series of 2015 -Gibson Matchless Subdivision
X. Action Items
a) Call-up of HPC approval: 223 E. Hallam Street
b) Resolution #71, Series of 2015 - Setting Public Hearing for Annexation of 705
West Hopkins
c) Executive Session - 24-6-402.(4)(b)-Conferences with an attorney.
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting July 27, 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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: Notice of P&Z approval of consolidated Commercial Design Review
for 100 S. Spring Street, P&Z Resolution #11, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015
BACKGROUND: On June 16,
2015, the Planning & Zoning
Commission approved
consolidated Commercial Design
Review for a project at 100 S.
Spring Street. The existing
development on the 3,000 square
foot property is a commercial
building that ranges from 1-3
stories that contains an affordable
housing unit.
The proposal is to renovate the existing building, reducing the commercial net leasable area and
updating the exterior materials. The only massing changes to the building include minor changes to
roof height in the middle of the building and carving out a second story balcony along the alley.
Drawings representing the approval are attached as Exhibit A. P&Z minutes are attached as
Exhibit B, and the approved P&Z Resolution is attached as Exhibit C. The board approved the
project by a 6-0 vote.
PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at
the July 13 th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the
staff planner, Justin Barker, 429-2797 or justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in
Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their July 13 th meeting. If
City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the P&Z Resolution shall stand.
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: P&Z Approved Design
Exhibit B: P&Z Minutes – May 26, 2015 & June 16, 2015
Exhibit C: P&Z Resolution #11, Series of 2015
P1
VI.a
Exhibit A
P2
VI.a
West Elevation
South Elevation
North Elevation
East Elevation
P3
VI.a
Proposed Materials
P4
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission
Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Skippy Mesirow, and Kelly McNicholas.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
May 19, 2015 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor,
motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none expressed.
100 S Spring St, Growth Management and Commercial Design Review
Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she has received two
affidavits of public notice, one for the publication and one for the posting and mailing. The affidavits
were provided as Exhibit A.
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for the 100 S Spring St and turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Barker, Planner with the Community Development Department, reviewed the application to P&Z.
The application is a Growth Management Review to relocate the existing affordable housing unit on site
and a Commercial Design Review to remodel the existing structure.
The application is submitted by 100 South Spring Street LLC and represented by Davis Horn, LLC.
The property is located at Main and Spring Streets. It is a 3,000 sf lot with mixed use zoning. The current
structures include a 3,131 sf commercial building on the property which varies from one to three stories
and includes a 400 sf affordable housing rental unit.
The property is currently non-conforming in regards to the north and west setbacks as well as the
commercial floor area which was previously granted as a bonus by City Council to allow for the extra
floor area in exchange for the on-site affordable housing unit. It is also nonconforming in regards to
parking which requires three spaces which were never provided. The affordable housing unit was
waived of its parking requirement in the same approval as the bonus floor area.
Page 1
May 26, 2015
EXHIBIT BP5
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
The proposal is to remodel the commercial space, relocate the affordable housing unit from the south
side of the structure to the north side facing Main St, provide compliant parking for the net leasable
area, improve the public amenity space and install new materials and finishes for the building exterior.
The demolition and relocation of the affordable housing unit requires a Growth Management Review.
The applicant proposes to keep the unit as a rental unit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval as rental unit with a condition of this
being forced as a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year.
The application also requires a Commercial Design Review. The Community Development Department
has authorized the application to go thru a consolidated review to combine the conceptual and final
review since what is typically reviewed at the final review including the exterior materials is included in
this review.
In regards to the Commercial Design Review, the property is located in the central mixed use character
area which is primarily two to three story residential buildings with a few commercial buildings as well.
The main design objectives are identified on p 8 of the packet. The mass generally remains the same.
There is some change in the height in the middle of the building with a portion going higher and portion
going lower. There is also a carved out area in the back of the building for a new second floor terrace.
The proposed materials are zinc and cedar.
Staff is recommending to have the colors of the materials more closely match in color to appear as a one
designed project instead of two separate ones linked together. They also recommend the zinc to be
patinated to reduce reflective glare from the material.
Staff is also recommending removal of the sliding zinc doors that would cover the glass openings on the
first floor on Spring St as they may eliminate the interaction between the public and private realm and
the activation of the building with the street.
The public amenity space is a dramatic improvement as to what is currently available, so Staff is
comfortable with the proposal.
The current nonconformities may be maintained.
The parking proposal is a mixture of two spaces on-site and cash-in-lieu to satisfy the remaining fraction
of a space.
The affordable housing parking space originally waived can be maintained as nonexistent since the
building is not being demolished.
For the utility and recycle/trash area, they are proposing to abandon the existing transformer and utilize
one across the alley. The Utilities Department is comfortable with this proposed change. The
recycle/trash area is smaller than what is required by the Environmental Health Department but they
have tentatively agreed to a special review for a smaller area given the nature of the property and
proposed use.
Overall Staff is recommending approval of both reviews with the conditions listed in the resolutions. Mr.
Barker did note the title of the second resolution on p 15 should reflect the Commercial Design Review
Page 2
P6
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
instead of the Growth Management Review. Mr. Barker explained there will be two resolutions because
the Commercial Design Review cannot be consolidated with Growth Management Review in order to
comply with the code.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked if they are eliminating outdoor park spaces. Mr. Barker stated the three to four
current spaces off the alley are not compliant with code in regards to dimensions. One is actually in the
right-of-way which is not permitted. The applicant is trying to bring them into compliance.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the new construction is taller than the current building at any point. Mr. Barker
pointed out a window on the second story will be taller, but it will not increase the height of the
building.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the document received via email earlier in the day would be addressed. Ms.
Quinn stated the applicant representative is planning to address it.
Ms. McNicholas then asked if APCHA had time to review and comment on the document at which Mr.
Barker replied they have not had time yet.
Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify none of the current building is subject to historical preservation at which
Mr. Barker replied no.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc, represents the applicant and is joined by Mr. David Johnston of David
Johnston Architects who is the local architect of record. The designers, Selldorf Architects, are out of
New York and not present at the meeting.
Mr. Horn stated Marianne Boesky is the owner of the building. She owns a gallery in New York and
would like to open one here in Aspen. She has had a place here for years and is excited about opening a
gallery in Aspen.
Mr. Johnston reviewed the design of the structure which will consist of a gallery / artist space along with
a residential component. He indicated on a slide demonstrating where the residential unit would be
moved. Inside the building, they would be removing the second story. The project will reduce the
current amount of commercial space. The project includes a two car garage on the back and there will
be an extension on the back near the alley to include a deck/patio space. The upper floor will become a
conference room with a bathroom and a small bar. The building has an increase in the upper middle
area and a decrease in the same area for an overall wash on net area.
He recognized the cabin structure near Main St. has historic components and they wanted to go back to
cedar siding on the cabin in a grey tone to match the metal siding on the other portion of the building.
He also felt they may not use zinc, but may use a silver or chrome painted surface that will not be shiny.
They have no issue with the conditions of the approval. New York had proposed the metal doors for a
thermal break at night but they have no issue to remove them.
Page 3
P7
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
They looked at keeping a parking space on the corner by the alley but it would be in the right of way, so
it will be a green space instead.
One component they are adding is the public amenity patio space on the side of the building.
Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Gibbs asked about the use of the space on the first floor where the windows are located. Mr.
Johnston stated currently there is a garden level, second floor and a third floor. They will maintain the
third floor, eliminate the second floor and bring the garden level up to street level.
Mr. Horn then covered the issue with the affordable housing unit. Regarding the history of the unit, he
stated in 1979 Neil Ross and Brian Goodheim obtained a land use approval in a special review approving
a bonus on their floor area in exchange for providing affordable housing. The unit was restricted to a
moderate income unit which relates to a category two or three. The applicant is proposing to renovate
the building and relocate the affordable housing unit from the alley side to the Main St side. The
assessor’s record shows the miner’s cabin on Main St was built in 1888 and does not have any historic
elements.
The owner has offered to make the unit a category two instead of a category three. The decreases for
the change are explained on p 72 of the agenda packet.
APCHA was uncomfortable making this a rental unit because it is harder for them to manage a single
unit vs a complex of units. They would prefer single units to be a for sale unit. The Growth Management
Review was triggered only because the applicant wants to move the affordable unit to the other side of
the building which requires an update the deed restriction. The owner wants it to be a rental unit for an
employee of the gallery and has difficulty with it possibly becoming a for sale unit. APCHA wants to
make it a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year.
A proposed change was drafted after meeting with APCHA. Currently the proposed changes states if the
unit is out of compliance for 15 days, the owner may request a hearing regarding the noncompliance. If
15 days passes without a hearing or a request for a hearing, the owner will pay a fine of $500 per day
until the unit is rented and compliant with the deed restriction. If it is out of compliance for a period of
six months, APCHA would have the capability to place a qualified person or family in the unit that
complies with the category two guidelines. There would be no for sale under this proposal.
In summary, they would move the unit from one side of the building to the other, renovate the 35 year
old unit and change the deed restriction from a category three to a category two. The applicant feels
this type of the unit diversifies the rental stock. They understand the potential enforcement issue and
hope the proposed agreement would be sufficient for noncompliance.
Mr. Mesirow asked what the initial proposal from APCHA was regarding the compliance. Mr. Horn
stated the initial proposal specified if the unit was out of compliance for a year, then it would become a
for sale unit. Mr. Mesirow didn’t feel it should be difficult to keep the unit rented, so he asked why the
owner is concerned. Mr. Horn stated the owner has philosophical objections of having a for sale under
any circumstances. She stated it would be unacceptable and in lieu of is it is prepared to pay a
substantial fine.
Page 4
P8
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Ms. Tygre asked how she would feel about having APCHA place a renter in the unit. Mr. Horn stated the
owner is comfortable with that approach. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Horn to confirm the agreement language
in packet does not match what Mr. Horn provided verbally during the meeting at which he confirmed
was accurate. He was providing the latest information from communications with the owner during the
day. Mr. Horn submitted a letter reviewing the owner’s position as Exhibit B. His discussion in the
meeting included updates to the letter provided.
Mr. Goode asked Staff who would be in charge of monitoring the unit for compliance. Mr. Barker stated
it would be APCHA and would be clarified in the deed restriction.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the latest agreement language had been reviewed with APCHA which Mr. Horn
stated they had not spoken with Staff or APCHA yet. He added they had been in discussions with the
County and City attorneys.
Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Barker for the definition of ‘in compliance’. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA would specify
this in the deed restriction. Ms. Quinn stated the deed restriction would require APCHA to give notice of
any violation to the owner. The owner would then have 15 days to request a hearing. If the owner chose
not to request a hearing or if the hearing was held and it was determined to be not in compliance, then
the fines would begin at that time.
Ms. McNicholas asked Staff if their recommendation would change based on the proposed changes. Mr.
Barker stated it would be based on what is in the memo at this time since there has not been time to
review the proposed changes.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. There was no public comment.
Mr. Goode closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the application itself and feels it would be an improvement
except for the deed restriction which she feel the language should be reviewed by APCHA prior to
making a decision.
Ms. Quinn asked if she is recommending a continuance until a new recommendation from APCHA with
proposed language from APCHA. Ms. Tygre concurred. Ms. Phelan added it would be helpful to hear
from the commission regarding the design.
Ms. Tygre stated she would not prefer the zinc doors, but does not care about the materials as long as
they are not reflective.
Mr. Gibbs agreed with Ms. Tygre. He feels he does not have justification to override APCHA’s policies
just because someone has philosophical objections. If APCHA could review the new language and feel it
was adequate, he would agree with application.
Ms. McNicholas stated she was prepared to approve the application until she heard the new
information. She feels the building provides more public amenity and is in line with the character area
and feels it will be a benefit to the community. She is not sure how she feels about the zinc doors. She is
sympathetic to the owner, but understands APCHA may have challenges with the enforcement. She
Page 5
P9
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
would support a continuance until more details could be made available regarding APCHA’s review of
the latest language.
Mr. Goode loves the design, but is in agreement with the other commissioners. He feels the zinc doors
may help the gallery space inside. He would also like APCHA to review the latest language.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the doors would prevent light pollution. Mr. Johnston stated it was a secondary
consideration. The designers stressed thermal properties first. Mr. Gibbs feels both are good issues and
suggested they be part of the application. Ms. Phelan stated they have to be careful with a building that
looks and acts as a commercial space. She suggested the windows could be glazed for the same
purposes as presented which is typical in commercial buildings.
Mr. Mesirow feels overall the design is really nice. The structure itself and the activation of the
streetscape. Regarding the doors, he does not feel they need to be removed. He concurs with the other
commissioners regarding the housing unit. He can’t imagine a situation where the owner could not rent
the unit for a year. He is happy they are meeting the parking requirements for the project, but is not
sure it is best to encourage applicants to be taking 800 sf of space out of a building for parking.
Ms. Phelan suggested a continuance date of June 16th to allow APCHA to review and discuss the
proposed language changes. Mr. Horn stated he has a conflict on the 16th so it may need to be
rescheduled for a later date. Ms. Phelan stated it could be set for that date, but pushed back if
necessary.
Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing for June 16th, seconded by Ms. McNicholas seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mr. Goode closed the public hearing.
Page 6
P10
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, and Ryan
Walterscheid.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. Several corrections and a clarification was requested.
The minutes will be updated and presented at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts expressed.
100 S Spring St – Growth Management and Commercial Design Review –
Continued from May 26, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided
at the May 26th hearing.
Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. The
application is proposing a remodel of the structure including exterior materials and a relocation of the
affordable housing unit from the south side to the north side of the building. The application requires a
growth management review and a commercial design review.
At the May 26th meeting the commission felt mostly comfortable with the design of the building as well
as the relocation of the housing unit, but the applicant had presented last-minute amendments
regarding the deed restriction of the property as to what would happen if the unit was out of
compliance. The commission wanted the Aspen\Pitkin County Affordable Housing Authority (APCHA) to
have time to review the proposed changes prior to moving forward with a motion. Since the meeting,
APCHA has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended in favor of all the proposed
amendments.
Staff is still recommending for approval with the restrictions as presented in the draft resolution.
1
June 16, 2015
P11
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
Ms. Quinn wanted to clarify the restriction as specified on p 20 of the packet. She stated the changes
make it consistent with existing APCHA policies other than forcing the sale of the unit.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were none.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. David Johnston of David Johnston Architects represented the applicant. He stated they are
comfortable with the language presented and asked P&Z if they had any further questions.
Mr. Walterscheid was not in attendance at the previous meeting, but had reviewed the materials and
feels he has an understanding of the application.
Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Quinn if there was a way APCHA could verify the unit is in compliance with a
renter. Ms. Quinn stated it is APCHA’s standard procedure for a tenant to qualify for the unit. Right now
the owner gets to pick the tenant, but the tenant would still be qualified through APCHA. If the unit is
vacant for a period of 45 days, then APCHA can place a qualified tenant in the unit. Mr. McNellis is
concerned the unit may go unoccupied. Ms. Quinn replied there is a standard procedure in the deed
restriction which allows APCHA to inspect the unit with proper notice.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the commission had finalized the inclusion of the zinc doors. Mr. Barker replied
the original language presented by Staff still remains in the resolution because the commission had not
provided a direction regarding the zinc doors. Ms. McNicholas stated her position has changed since the
previous meeting. After further thought, she agrees with Staff’s recommendation that the doors not be
allowed on the building. Mr. Johnston stated from the applicant’s perspective, they are not challenging
the removal of the doors. The applicant assumed they would not be included in the design and will not
be challenging Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Mesirow thought the design including the doors was cohesive, but is okay if they are removed.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There was none so he closed that portion of the hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion to discuss any possible modifications to the resolution.
Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 10, Series 2015 first for the growth management review and
then approve Resolution 11, Series 2015 for the commercial design review concerning 100 S. Spring St.
Mr. Goode seconded the motion.
Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr.
Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
2
P12
VI.a
EXHIBIT C P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS .................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS ........................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 2
HPC CALL UPS ........................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2
Resolution #46, Series of 2015 – Street Department Dump Truck Replacement ................................. 3
Resolution #48, Series of 2015 – Proposed Use of Reudi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the First
Draft of the Colorado Water Plan ................................................................................................................. 3
Solid Waste Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #50, Series of 2015 – Library Lease of Old Power House ................................................. 3
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2015 – 300 AND 312 E Hyman Ave – Subdivision ................................ 3
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment................................................ 4
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work session Code Amendment ......................................... 5
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4&5, Growth Management
Allotments ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable
Development Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 8
P17
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
2
Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order at 5:00pm with Councilmembers Mullins, Romero and
Frisch present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Richard Pryor and Linda Consuegra, police, introduced the four new police officers Seth Delgrasso,
Andriano Minniti, Duxton Milam, and Josh Uhernik.
Mayor Skadron swore in the new police officers.
Aspen Police Appreciation Week is May 10-16. Mayor Skadron read the proclamation.
CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. Marcia Goshorn commented on the proposed maintenance building for Wagner Park. She said it
will be 40 feet long an 11 feet tall. She suggested the public notice sign be moved to somewhere
the public can see it.
COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS
1. Mayor Skadron said it is election eve, please vote if you haven’t already.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
1. Steve Barwick thanked the public for their patience on some of the City projects that have been
going on. We will be asking for that patience again with the Rubey Park project. Durant Street is
closed now through the end of May.
HPC CALL UPS
609 W. Smuggler
Chris Bendon introduced Sarah Rosenberg. Council elected not to call up the application.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #48 – Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the First Draft of the Colorado
Water Plan
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the first paragraph of the letter where it says undefined amount of
water and undefined number of years. She asked for a time limit and a number of years. Debbie Quinn,
assistant city attorney, said the proposal is not fully defined and the lease is being negotiated. One of the
issues the City and County has is it is undefined. Dave Hornbacher, utilities, said they are working
towards a one year pilot program. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the IPPS in the second letter. Mr.
Hornbacher said it is a general term for identified projects and processes.
Resolution #50 – Library Lease of Old Power House
Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said they were approached by Jody and Cathy about using the Old Power House for
the library during the construction project.
Jody Smith, county facility superintendent, said the request is to start the lease on June 1 st for six months.
Councilman Frisch said we are trying to turn over the building as soon as possible will one month make a
difference. Jack Wheeler, asset, said there are two projects happening this summer. They would have to
come back and ask for any extension. The summer improvements are arranged for in the lease.
Councilman Frisch said we need to honor a hard date and would prefer not to see rolling 30 day
P18
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
3
extensions. Jim True, city attorney, said the lease is a hard date of seven months. The original five
months plus two.
Councilman Romero said it is perfectly reasonable to have an extension.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support the June 1 move in date with the six month lease and a
one month extension.
Councilman Frisch said we have one year to get the building ready for the new tenant. Mr. Wheeler said
the remodel project is going to happen while the library will be occupying the building. Councilman
Frisch said his preference is to remove the 30 day notice and any options.
Mayor Skadron said we should stick to the original nine month agreement plus two month option.
Councilwoman Mullins said we should partner and let them go in June first. Ms. Smith said they were
looking for some flexibility and the 30 day notice was to give notice to the moving company and the
public. She said it is unlikely they will be done in six months.
Councilwoman Mullins proposed June 1 for six months with a one month extension and a 30 day
termination. Councilman Frisch went back to no option. Mr. Pendarvis said the library is busy in
December and nobody wants to move in January. He suggested a seven month lease through January 31.
Mr. Wheeler said he and Ms. Smith would prefer the 30 days stays in the lease. Mayor Skadron said the
proposal is an eight month lease beginning June 1 running through January 31 with the 30 day
termination remaining. Mayor Skadron said he is opposed to this and he believes it should be five months
with two additional months if necessary. We are filing to recognize the possible points of contention in
the future and the promises we have made to the applicant who is getting the space.
• Resolution #46, Series of 2015 – Street Department Dump Truck Replacement
• Resolution #48, Series of 2015 – Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the
First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
• Solid Waste Assessment
• Resolution #50, Series of 2015 – Library Lease of Old Power House
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #46, 48 and the Solid Waste Assessment; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #50, Series of 2015 amended to begin June 1 through
January 31 with a 30 day mutual termination agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor except Mayor Skadron. Motion passes 3 to 1.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2015 – 300 and 312 E Hyman Ave – Subdivision
Becky Levy, community development, told the Council the proposal is to merge two lots into one 9,000
sq ft parcel at the corner of Monarch and Hopkins. P&Z passed Resolution 7, 2015 recommending
approval and the public hearing is scheduled for June 8.
Mayor Skadron asked if the proposed charter amendment has any effect on this application. Mitch Haas
replied none.
Councilman Romero asked if it is customary to consider the merger prior to a development application.
Mr. Bendon said most communities do the merger first then the development. Councilman Romero said
what is the downside to the public, if any. Mr. Bendon replied he does not see one. The property line
down the center of a project can open up all kinds of technical glitches that are unnecessary and there is a
benefit to cleaning up the property this way. Councilman Romero asked if there in any enrichment to the
parcel by having this occur and is there any expanded development opportunity. Mr. Bendon said the
properties can be built out to the lot line today.
P19
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
4
Councilwoman Mullins asked if this can be reversed in the future. Mr. Bendon replied yes.
Councilwoman Mullins said her biggest concern is it relaxes some of the building code rules. She would
rather see the building proposal at the same time.
Mayor Skadron said there is no enhancement of development rights and it makes the review easier. He
said he is not interested in that but what is delivered to the community. He wants to know how much
build out is allowed there including mass and scale and character. He said he wants to have a clear
picture of what might or might not end up here.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.19
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CRYSTAL
PALACE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 AND 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K AND L, AND LOT M OF BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment
Justin Barker, community development, stated this is a continued public hearing from April 27 for a Staff
initiated code amendment to comply with State statutes. At the last public hearing there was concern that
the City would be able to take advantage of the automatic approval provision within 60 days. There was
an option suggested to mitigate the concern and the language was amended in the ordinance prohibiting
the City from using the 60 day provision.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said section 26.5.030 still puts the City within the same 60 days. She said the
City should be going through he full process. Mr. True said 26.500.060 said City projects shall
not require the decision in the 60 days and it takes it out of the deemed approved State statute for
our own projects. Ms. Goshorn said she is also concerned with taking a private project and
putting it within the 60 days if the Staff decided it is a public benefit. You need to have public
buy in before you take that step. Mr. True said a private project with an essential public benefit
can go pursuant to this statue. They cannot take advantage of the deemed approved after 60 days
if the City does not take any action.
2. Amos Underwood said he is concerned with the removal from the purpose statement the
allowance of the greater public participation in the review process. It is important when it comes
to City development to have public participation.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
P20
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
5
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 2015; second by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work session Code Amendment
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this ordinance is for two amendments. The first
is to remove the work sessions from the process and the second is to remove a reference to a specific
building code. Work sessions have been part of the process for around three decades for informal input.
They are required for floor area bonus asks. Staff would like to remove work sessions partly because they
have changed over the years. There is no staff memo at the work session. Staff is not sure there is a way
to provide an informal review without a proper public hearing.
Councilman Frisch asked how P&Z operated compared to HPC. Mr. Bendon replied P&Z does not have
work sessions. He said the work sessions do not include everyone and do not provide the same level of
information.
Councilman Romero said it is appropriate and broadens public participation and awareness. We are not
getting rid of work sessions but improving the technique of how HPC conducts its meetings. He fully
supports it.
Councilwoman Mullins said she supports the building code change but can’t support getting rid of the
work sessions. Because it is not binding has its own downside but the applicant is aware of that and it is
an opportunity for the applicant, HPC and staff to have a much more free flowing discussion. It can result
in a better project. If the work sessions are public noticed it gives the public one more opportunity to see
what is going on. The public can come to the work session or send a letter or email. It should be treated
differently than P&Z.
Mr. Bendon said now we have a system where the neighbors are not notified and it might work 99 times
out of 100. The only difference now is the first meeting called a work session or meeting number one.
We have an obligation to make sure everyone is fully informed.
Mayor Skadron asked Councilwoman Mullins if see foresees a problem calling the work session meeting
one. She replied there is a real distinction between the first public meeting and a work session. The work
session is non-binding and the public meeting is. At the public meeting HPC is obligated to comment on
the project through the guidelines.
Mr. True said a lot of this discussion came from the City attorney’s office. They were concerned with
some of the informal aspects associated with work sessions, particularly the public notice aspects. He
said the notice requirements need to be formalized. He suggested a motion to continue.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said what she found good about the work session in the past is when HPC reads
something they have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify it before they get in to the
official meeting.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
P21
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
6
Councilman Romero moved to continue Ordinance #13, Series of 2015 to June 22, 2015; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor
Skadron yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4&5, Growth Management
Allotments
Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the application is for lots 4 and 5 of the Ranger Station
Subdivision. It was submitted by Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 & 4 LLC and is represented by Mike
Hoffman. The request is to receive development allotments, one for each lot so each can be developed
residentially. The property is zoned R6 with a PD overlay. The applicant is requesting to pay cash in lieu
for affordable housing mitigation for receiving the allotments. They are also asking to memorialize to
calculate floor area for each lot and five years vested rights.
The history of the property starts with the forest service property and takes up most of blocks 9 and 10
excluding poppies. It includes a couple alleys that have been vacated and a portion of W Francis Street
that was also vacated. The property as a whole was platted as the original town site lot. In 1940 the
forest service gained ownership. The property is bounded by Smuggler, Hallam, Seventh and Eighth
Street. It has operated as the forest service headquarters with housing on site. In 2011 the forest service
began work on the redevelopment plan including new office facilities and salable lots to fund the project.
As a federal agency they represented to the City they would not participate with a city review. In May
2013 a plat was recorded to create five lots. The City did not consent or sign the plat. The City began
receiving inquires on the lots after the plat was recorded and created a written summary in July 2013. The
key issues recognize in the summary included the City would recognize the lots but they must meet city
regulations. They have to take into consideration how to calculate and measure floor area. There might
be issues with the SI Johnson ditch and none of the lots have development allotments. The properties
went to auction in 2013 and all sold. With the five lots there are three owners. The applicant is
requesting a development allotment for each lot. Lot 4 is a larger lot of 11,614 sq ft containing a former
alley. There is also a utility easement. The property is large enough for a duplex. Lot 5 is smaller at
7,490 sq ft. It includes part of the vacated W Francis Street and the SI Johnson ditch. It is large enough
to accommodate a single family home. The requests being asked for include floor area. The request is to
include the portions of lot 4 and 5 that were formerly the alley on lot 4 and formerly Francis Street on lot
5 to count towards the floor area. Under today’s code there is a section called calculation and
measurements and it requires deductions for steep slopes and water and site constraints. In regards to
vacated right of ways it is a measure to reflect that there may be a portion of the right of way but there
were never development rights associated with it. If you happen to gain additional square footage you can
use it but you don’t get additional development rights from something that was vacated by the City. On
lot 4 the alley is just over 1,600 sq ft and what that means in a deduction is it is 96 sq ft in floor area. For
lot 5, a larger portion of Francis St., 2,500 sq ft represents 489 sq ft of floor area that would not be able to
be developed. The applicant is requesting both the alley and Francis Street be counted towards floor
area.
There are yearly maximums for development allotments whether it is residential, lodging or commercial.
There is cap per calendar year. Staff’s position is the newly created lots do not have any development
rights as they did not go through a City review process. The growth management for a project like this is
60 percent of the units should be affordable housing and 30 percent of the floor area at a category four
income level. To meet the requirement when it can’t be met on site include cash in lieu, affordable
housing credit, physical units or combination.
P22
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
7
For vesting the minimum requirement is three years and the applicant is asking for a five year vesting
period.
Mike Hoffman told the Council he is representing the applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 LLC and
Aspen Dragonfly Partners 4 LLC. The lots were owned by the US government and certain aspects did
not apply and continue to do not apply.
It is their believe these lots are entitled to development rights and should only have to go through an
administrative review for growth management. The maximum affordable housing mitigation cost is
$573,283.
He showed lots 4 and 5 with the town site overlay of lots K, L, M, N, and O. He showed variances that
were granted for non-conforming town site lots.
He requested an immediate decision that this is handled administratively and not through City Council.
Mr. True stated staff does not agree with Mr. Hofmann’s assessment that these lots do not have any
development rights. When these two lots were sold to these two LLC’s it has been our position they had
no development rights. There can be no question that the meets and bounds description of the parcels that
they own was simply a creation of the forest service at the time. We agreed with the forest service we
would not challenge this as an illegal subdivision.
Ms. Phelan said if we are taking the position that the lots were never merged you have 34 lots. What the
forest service conveyed was a meets and bounds description creating 5 lots that do not follow the
individual town site lots.
Councilman Frisch said there were the historical 34 lots and the forest service carved out 5 lots. Mr. True
said we were careful with providing the forest service with information to pass onto buyers. There would
be rules the buyers would have to go through to get development rights. Councilman Frisch said
regardless of any map, the forest service started from scratch in 2013. Mr. True replied that has been our
position. The property was sold with the description of lots 4 and 5 and the meets and bounds
description. We were not asked to approve the survey and the sale was done.
Councilman Romero asked if the attorney’s office meet with Dragonfly prior to the purchase. Mr. True
replied not prior to the auction. Representatives came to the City and asked for information. Councilman
Romero asked if there is any case law to provide additional guidance. Mr. True said he is not familiar
with any specific cases that would align with these circumstances.
Mr. Hoffman said they are asking to complete all land use reviews and achieve a compromise on the cost
of the affordable housing mitigation and to establish a binding consensus on the new lot area of each of
the lots and to receive five year vesting. The maximum house size is dependent on the floor area ratio
and the net lot area which equals the gross lot area less certain deductions required by code. There are
two types of deductions; steep slopes and vacated streets and alleys. They believe there are steep slopes
on the site that are man-made as a function of the SI Johnson ditch. They went to the historical society
for photos and showed photos of 8 th , Smuggler and Francis indicating the flatness of the site prior to the
ditch. They acknowledge there was a newly created access easement on the north side of lot four and
there should be a deduction.
Mayor Skadron stated he can agree to cash in lieu but he can’t agree to memorializing what the number
should be. It could be completely different in five years. Mr. Hoffman said he is willing to remove that.
Mr. Hoffman said this is a unique situation and urged Council to accept the inclusion of vacated Francis
Street into the area that can be used to create floor area. He asked them to approve the development
P23
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
8
allotments and the affordable housing mitigation using the cash in lieu at the regulations current at the
time of application. Mayor Skadron said he can agree with some of it but not all. The allowable FAR is
based on the lot as platted. Councilman Frisch said it is important to not treat these lots any different than
if a private seller did the transaction. He said he is having a hard time supporting this because it seems
like the government pulled out an eraser and redrew and lots. Councilwoman Mullins said maybe the
road was there first. It is in the code currently and we should not go against it. Ms. Phelan said the right
of way was never intended to have development rights associated with it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell said the applicant is not asking to pay money but to mitigate for a quantity of
employees. If he buys certificates from me, he satisfy that, if he builds on site he satisfy it, if he
builds off site he satisfy it, if he purchases a buy down he satisfy it, if he pays cash in lieu he will
not satisfy that concern.
2. Marcia Goshorn said she is glad they did not suggest an ADU. She is not a big fan of cash in lieu
she would rather see a unit built. One issue is treating projects fairly. Sky was given credit for a
vacated right of way.
3. Tracey said she has been working closely with the lots since they were purchased. This is the west
end. Every lot around it is being treated as a west end lot except these. Every part of the code
refers to the 1800’s map and shows these lots as originally there. She does not understand why
we are here. It is a frustrating process. It should go back to the original town site.
4. Curt Sanders said he represents the other two lot owners. On behalf of the other owners it would
go a long way if Council accepted the cash in lieu.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Romero said he is ok with the cash in lieu.
Mr. Hoffman said they are proposing the cash in lieu to be determined at the rate described in the code at
the time they submit a building permit application.
Ms. Phelan reviewed the ordinance changes to include the slopes are man-made at the site and not to be
deducted, the alley and West Francis Street shall be deducted from lot 4 and 5, the vesting period is three
years, credits or cash in lieu at time of building permit issuance.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2015 with amendments; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable
Development Rights
Amy Simon, community development, stated this is a proposed subdivision amendment and creation of
TDRs. Around three years ago, Council approved the subdivision on Neale Avenue which took a 16,000
sq ft lot and landmarked it and allowed for a historic lot split. There is an 1800s log cabin on the
fathering parcel that was moved here from outside of town that was rescued and restored. That was the
reason for placing the landmark designation on the property. It allows the separation of property rights.
It created a 3,000 sq ft lot with the cabin and a 12,000 sq ft lot with an existing home. The lot with the
existing home was allowed 4,200 sq ft of floor area. When Council approved the subdivision the larger
house could have had a duplex but Council elected to restrict it to a single family home. The applicant,
P24
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
9
Geoff Shoaf, would like Council to change that restriction and allow the duplex. This is not a discussion
about increasing floor area just relief of that restriction. He would also like to create three TDRs. Staff is
supportive of the application.
Geoff Shoaf, applicant, said the floor area stays the same if it is a duplex or a single family home. In 2012
he screwed up. He thought he had options and did not have to make the call right then. That is how it
became a single family home. He said the duplex allows for the possibility of him to continue to live
here when he retires. Any redevelopment would be moved farther away from the historic cabin.
Councilman Frisch said he would like to have the duplex issue cleared up before he tackles the TDR
issue.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. George Benninghoff said he is a neighbor. He said there is property in dispute and if FAR as it is
calculated may not be correct. He is not in favor of a duplex and Council should not allow this to
happen.
2. David Harris asked Council to reject the proposal. Doubling the number of units on one parcel is
not minor and not consistent with the original approval. We are in a war with this guy who has
been illegally using this place since 1986 and I am being asked to accept double the density next
door to me. I just don’t know how you can allow it.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch suggested Mr. Shoaf pull his application, pause and reflect. Council is better to post
pone until they have more clarity.
Councilwoman Mullins said the underlying zoning allows a duplex or a single family home. From the
minutes the decision of a single family was somewhat arbitrary and was decided too quickly without
enough research. By turning it into a duplex Council would be correcting some mistakes that should not
have been made and she is not sure that is the right move. She is reluctant to turn it back to a duplex just
to correct some illegal activity that is going on.
Councilman Romero said it may be time to pull it back. There was gain in 2012. He said he is with
Councilman Frisch to recommend a continuance. He said he would support the TDR application.
Councilman Frisch moved to table Ordinance #17, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 9:52pm; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk.
P25
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 2015
10
P26
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ................................................................................................... 3
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
ORDINANCE #19, Series of 2015 – Crystal Palace Subdivision Lot Merger – 300 and 312 E Hyman ..... 3
ORDINANCE #21, Series of 2015 – Gibson Matchless Subdivision .......................................................... 5
SWEARING IN CEREMONY ..................................................................................................................... 7
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 7
RRESOLUTION #62, Series of 2015 – Community Garden Fence Variance Request ............................... 7
P27
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
2
At 4:05 Mayor Skadron called the Special meeting to order with Council Members Daily, Mullins, Frisch
and Romero were present.
Jim True, City Attorney, requested Council go into executive session pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)
purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal or other property interest. Specifically
lease interest and conference with attorneys. He stated he would like to have a brief conversation
regarding the second opinion he received from Steve Daws regarding the Referendum item.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to go into executive session; seconded by Councilman Daily All in favor,
motion carried.
Motion to come out of executive session at 5:00 pm by Councilman Daily; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Skadron called to order the regular meeting at 5:10pm with Councilmembers Daily, Romero,
Mullins and Frisch present.
Jim True stated the City received an opinion from attorney Steve Daws regarding the timing in whether
applications deemed complete prior to the certification of Referendum 1 are subject to Referendum 1.
The City received the opinion and he shared it with Council. The attorney’s office is requesting that
Council waive the privilege and authorize the release of the letter. He requested there be a motion to
authorize the release of the opinion tomorrow. Councilman Daily moved to release the opinion; seconded
by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. True stated he will email it to the press
tomorrow.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
HPC awards, Amy Simon, Community Development, stated John Whipple and Patrick Segal are here
representing HPC and these are the 26 th annual HPC awards. Mayor Skadron stated City Council and the
Historic Preservation Commission are pleased to present the 26 th annual HPC awards. There have been
over 90 projects recognized. This year’s award is for the Elks dome restoration. It is one of the tallest
building in Aspen, clad in silver. John and Patrick said this is the first time in 123 years it has been
restored to its original luster. The dome was temporary removed to restore it. A lot of work was put in to
the replica flagpole as well. HPC acknowledged the restoration team of the ELKS, Graeme Means
Architect, William H. Baker Construction, Aspen Insulation and Colorado West Roofing and Adirondack
Flagpoles. Mayor Skadron handed out certificates to BPOE lodge 224, Aspen Insulation and Colorado
West Roofing, William H. Baker Construction and Graeme Means.
Proclamation – High School State Champion Day – Councilman Daily stated he has deep pride and
appreciation for the lacrosse team and Sunday, the 400 meter runner. They sent out a solid message that
this little mountain town is tough to beat. Councilman Daily read the proclamation.
Mayor Skadron thanked the coaches, players and high school staff.
Proclamation – ride to work day – Mayor Skadron read the proclamation. June 15, 2015 as ride to work
day and parking for motorcycles and scooters is free that day.
P28
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
3
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION
1. David Harris – thanked Councilman Romero for his combat engineer service in the Iraq war. He
was always prepared for meetings and thought through things well.
2. Emzy Veazy III said in today’s Daily News the Lift 1A was the towns first chair lift is nearly
vacant. He spoke about meeting someone who worked on the chair lift, Roy Stratton at St. James
Presbyterian Church in Tarzana. He thinks he should be here when the lift is restored.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilwoman Mullins said she is sorry to see Dwayne leave. He set an example for being
prepared for the meetings, made well considered decisions, has in depth knowledge of project
development and financials and a great sense of humor. She welcomed Bert to the council table.
2. Councilman Daily said he will miss Dwayne and his strong analytical skills, integrity, love for
this community, sense of humor and warm friendship.
3. Councilman Frisch gave a hats off to Linda for running two great elections. He also gave a hats
off to Mick and Bert for running a double header and looks forward to welcoming Bert. To
Dwayne, you served you country and state and certainly served your community. You are
leaving everything in a much better place than when you came in. Thank you very much.
4. Mayor Skadron said he is glad we are through the elections. He is looking forward to new
perspectives and new energy at City Council. He thanked Linda for all her work.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Steve Barwick said to Councilman Romero on behalf of city staff, thanks for standing up for us and
holding our feet to the fire.
Councilman Romero said it has been an honor and opportunity to serve the community. It is wildly and
richly rewarding. It has been an opportunity to set a good example if for no one else than his daughters.
If you want to make things better you need to lean in and get involved and he is in debt to Aspen. There
are so many dedicated individuals who seek the opportunity to serve. I will miss working with this
particular leadership team. There is a great deal of blue sky for this leadership team. Onward and
upward.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #63 – Approval of the Brush Creek Park N Ride Lease
Mayor Skadron stated the previous lease was 10 years and this one is five. John Kruger, transportation
stated all the leases have been five. Councilman Romero moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded
by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19, Series of 2015 – Crystal Palace Subdivision Lot Merger – 300 and 312 E Hyman
Chris Bendon, community development, told the Council the Crystal Palace is two individual parcels one
6,000 square feet and the other 3,000. The request is to remove the lot line in between. The Crystal
Palace is a historic landmark. Both structures are in the historic district. It would take two lots and
combine them into one. There are no other changes proposed at this time. The standards for subdivision
P29
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
4
are very straight forward. It requires the lots have adequate access, comply with platting standards, hook
up with public utilities, and conform to zoning and no non-conformities. There were questions at first
reading regarding the size of the lot. There are several lots with 9,000 square feet. Downtown lots are
increments of 3,000. There were questions about the landmark designation. Staff is suggesting the
extension be extended to the entire 9,000 square foot lot. There were also questions as to the level of
benefits. There are a series of benefit that apply to landmarked parcel. The suggestion to expand the
landmark designation results in a series of impact fee reduction and affordable housing reduction but it
goes from applying to one parcel to one parcel. He said currently there is no development proposed.
Mitch Haas is representing the applicant 312 Hyman, represented by Mark Hunt.
Mr. Haas said they want to know what they have to work with before designing an application. By
merging the lots they will know what they have to work with and can design accordingly. The most
current thought is a lodging development. He did say they will have to adhere to the design standards for
HPC review.
Councilman Daily asked for the purpose of bringing this application. Mr. Haas replied to not have
uncertainty. To have one lot. Mr. Bendon said there will be simplicity with the merger.
Councilman Frisch said the CC zoning is not changing. If it’s a lodging project it could be higher since
it’s on the north side of the street. He asked what is historic. Mr. Hunt replied the Piece on Monarch.
Councilman Frisch asked if the other street scape is not protected. Mr. Bendon said that is a discussion
for HPC. Mr. Hunt replied that is a good point. People look at the building and think of it as historic.
Mayor Skadron asked if this is in a view plane. Mr. Haas said it is but it is irrelevant. Mayor Skadron
asked if the set back on the minor building is significant. Mr. Bendon said it has not been identified as a
landmark. Mayor Skadron said it is potentially 9,000 square feet and asked if they are precluding it from
being residential. Mr. Haas replied the zone precludes it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is concerned with the physical appearance and HPC incentives. Just
because it’s been done before doesn’t mean it should be. She thinks we need to try to retain the historic
configuration of the 30 by 100 foot lots. Once the lots are combined the incentives will apply to the entire
lot. What is the benefit to the City. Mr. Hunt replied getting lights on and traffic down there. Mr.
Bendon said the desire for 30 foot articulation is achieved by the design guidelines not by having the lot
line there. The amount of benefit is equal in both scenarios so it does not matter where the lot line is.
Councilwoman Mullins stated the large lot developments do not articulate separation and change the
fabric of town. Mr. Haas replied the Crystal Palace as we know it is 60 feet and the other parcel is 30.
We know we will have a 60 foot and 30 foot.
Councilman Frisch asked if it is 6,000 and 3,000 what it looks like on the outside. Mr. Hunt said it would
look the same on the outside just change on the inside with fire doors and egress stairs.
Councilman Romero said he is comfortable with Staff’s recommendation.
P30
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
5
Councilman Frisch said if lot stays and the application comes in for one project it will not be an efficient
project. Mr. Bendon said it will have the same outcome regardless of the property boundary and it meets
the criteria of the review.
Councilwoman Mullins said for criteria 26.4.80.040a new street patterns or rights of way her argument is
there will be a change in street pattern one the properties are redeveloped. Mr. Bendon said that criterion
speaks to a guaranteed access to a public way. Both properties have access to Hyman and the corner
property has access to Hyman and Monarch. The resulting parcel has access to both Hyman and Monarch
so the access to a public way is achieved in any scenario and there is no stranded lot. Councilwoman
Mullins said b addresses more directly the lot lines and it can be designed to approximate the original lot
lines. The projects that have attempted to do that have not been very successful and it is hard to
approximate that. Mr. Bendon said she is speaking to a design desire there. The intent of this standard is
the platting of the new lot resemble the original platting of the town site which was in 3,000 square foot
lots. This falls exactly on those lines. It is not an odd shaped parcel for the downtown.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, no; Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #21, Series of 2015 – Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Mr. Bendon stated the property is in the Smuggler neighborhood off of Gibson Avenue. Both properties
are historic landmarks. One of the Victorian buildings has been moved to the site. They are two residents
in a condominium form of ownership. Two years ago there was a quiet title action on Silver King Drive
of a platted but never opened right of way. These areas of platted right of way do not add development
rights to the property. The proposed subdivision is to the divide the property into two. There is a curious
lot boundary proposed and is the subject of Staff’s denial. One of the subdivision standards is to create
approximate of the original town site platting. Part of that requirement is simple lots leads to simple
development. This is 17 sided. The desire behind the requirement is to create lots that have equal net lot
areas. That is partially what is leading to the strange lot division.
As far as development rights it is currently one lot with 4,470 sq ft in the R6 zone district with one 500 sq
HPC bonus with one or two homes. There is an ordinance that was adopted in 1987 that capped the
maximum house size to 2,486. If there is one house on the one lot it is capped at 2,486 regardless of the
allowable floor area. The parcel allows for two residences that would have to equal 4,470.
What are the subdivision scenarios. Each lot is allowed 3,708 plus the possible 500 sf HPC bonus or
4,208. The current max with the bonus is 8,416 for the two lots. There are multiple scenarios of the
number of homes and sizes of homes that could be built on the lots.
Staff’s recommendation is the subdivision does not meet the review criteria due to the strangely shaped
lot.
Mr. Bendon stated that he and Mr. Haas have been discussing an alternate scenario that may simplify
matters. It would divide the lot with a simple lot boundary that is not equally sized but would maintain
the 60 foot frontage for the zoning. It would keep the simple shaped lots for simple shape development.
The applicant would limit each parcel to one single family home and one ADU. Each lot would be
allowed 3,493 floor area. One home would have 2,486 max and the remaining 1,007 for the ADU. There
is still an increase in the overall development rights. Staff sees this as a significantly improved scenario.
P31
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
6
Councilwoman Mullins asked if it would include the 500 sf bonus. Mr. Bendon replied it does not.
Mayor Skadron stated he is not prepared to decide on an alternative that was not presented in the packet.
Mr. Bendon said if Council is interested in the alternate they could continue the hearing.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Alan Becker, 950 Matchless drive, said he is confused by the FAR of 2,486. It is the same square
foot as allowed at his house. There was a lack of information in the public notice. He is
wondering how the quiet title action happened. He is concerned about the unique character of the
neighborhood. He would like to know the intention of the developers.
2. Terry Murray stated it is wise not to look at this as an either or proposition.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. Haas said there are three parcels. The previous owner filed the quiet title action. Silver King became
annex to lot one but in two pieces. Today there are three lots. One with development rights and two and
three with no development rights. The lot looks strange because it is the only way to do it to achieve
equal development rights. The flag area will be yard and unfenced. The City’s grid system extends to the
river. After that it is odd. What is better for the property and neighborhood? Preserving the historic
resources and ensuring green spaces conservation or maintaining the opportunity for some kind of legal
struggle. This is not in the town site and adhering to a town site regulation does not make sense. The
concern is not so much the lot lines but the potential density. He said they came up with a workable
solution and an alternative. It is to draw a straight line and the effective lot area of the two lots would be
7,808 Square feet. The owner of lot two doesn’t want to do anything in the foreseeable future.
Mayor Skadron stated he would allow a vote on the memo presented but it is not fair for Council or the
public to vote on the alternative.
Mr. True stated he would strongly urge Council not to consider the alternative but to continue.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of Staff’s recommendation of denial. He said he has been trying
to kill ADU’s for a long time. Carriage houses are different. He is supportive of continuing.
Councilman Romero said it is appropriate to continue. He said to watch building and massing that may
alter the direction of Silver king drive. It is appropriate to continue.
Councilwoman Mullins is also supportive to continue. She would not support what is in the memo. What
is the effect of the 500 sf bonus. She would like more information on what Mr. True was talking about.
She also asked for more information on why the FAR could be equal on both lots, more discussion on the
ADUs and context.
Councilman Daily supports the idea of the continuance and the compromise.
Mayor Skadron concurred with Council.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to July 13, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
P32
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
7
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:25 pm; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion
carried.
SWEARING IN CEREMONY
Municipal Judge Brooke Peterson swore in Councilmembers Frisch and Myrin and Mayor Skadron.
At 7:30pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
Daily and Myrin present.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Mayor Skadron welcomed Bert.
2. Councilwoman Mullis also welcomed Bert.
3. Councilman Daily welcomed Bert.
4. Councilman Frisch welcomed Bert and said he will be a great addition to the community.
5. Councilman Myrin said he looks forward to working with everyone and pulling together.
RRESOLUTION #62, Series of 2015 – Community Garden Fence Variance Request
Sara Nadolny, community development, stated this application is to request a height variance for the
fence at the community garden. The garden is located at the Thomas Property open space and is visible
from HWY 82. It is located in the conservation zone district. The applicant is looking to expand the
current garden. There is an eight foot fence that runs around the current garden and helps keep out deer
and other wild life. The code only allows for a six foot fence. Staff has consulted with CDOT. An eight
foot fence is the minimum standard for keeping wildlife out. Staff has reviewed the criteria and this
application meets all the criteria.
Dave Radeck, project manager, stated they would like to continue the eight foot fence around the
expansion. The six foot fence would give deer and elk an easy in.
Austin Weiss, open space, said the six foot fence would allow wild like to get hung up and suffer a
miserable death.
Councilwoman Mullins said six foot is code and she would support the eight foot fence. She asked why
fences are allowed in our open spaces. Mr. Radeck replied due to animals getting in the gardens. Ms.
Nadolny said there is nothing in the code that would preclude a fence in the open space.
Councilman Daily stated he is very much in support of the community garden concept and he likes the
idea of expanding it. The fence makes sense.
Councilman Myrin said he went out to the site and it looks like the fence is built minus the panels. Mr.
Radeck said the height will come down. Councilman Myrin asked if we can we regulate the type of
fencing that is there so it doesn’t change over time. Mr. True said we certainly have that ability.
Councilman Myrin suggested it is similar to what is there going forward.
Councilman Frisch said he supports the variance.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
P33
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 8, 2015
8
1. Denis Murray, 41 Trainors landing, said this is his third - five year plan in the garden. Deer don’t
get in now unless you leave the fence open. Along with the fence is a new irrigation system.
This will be great.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mayor Skadron stated the motion will include the fencing to be similar to existing fencing.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Resolution #62, Series of 2015; second by Councilman Myrin.
Roll Call Vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes.
Motion to adjourn at 7:50 pm by Councilman Frisch; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P34
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
NOTICE OF CALL UPS .............................................................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – Aspen Historical Society 620 W Bleeker Lot Split, TDRs .......... 3
ORDINANCE #22, Series of 2015 – Hutton Lot Split 725 Cemetery Lane ................................................ 4
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2015 – 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split ............................... 5
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work Session Code Amendment......................................... 5
RESOLUTION #64, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C1 Policy Resolution ..................................................... 6
RESOLUTION #42, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Direction – Residential Mitigation .................................. 8
P35
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
2
At 5:05 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Myrin and
Frisch present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION
1. Phyllis Bronson stated the Base 2 petitioners have looked like cult church members who may do
more harm than good. The armageddon they fear may have already come. They are seeking to
destroy the first viable good project. We are becoming a town of nimbys and losing vitality. We
have wonderful small lodges but don’t have any projects that fit this demographic. We are being
offered a gift of incalculable value. Base 1 and Base 2 well not perfect, are the first original
projects in a long time and not about speculative real estate. The majority of Aspen elected the
majority of you to be representative government and stand up for good projects.
2. Sara Plats said she started the North Mill artist building next to the Rio Grande park. She thanked
the city for moving the bike path. She would like speed signs. She is dealing with a Comcast
problem with an easement. She would like adjacent neighbors noticed when easements are
approved. She asked the parks department to not make a lot of noise when cleaning in the park.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilmember Frisch said Food & Wine is a wonderful asset and a big success.
2. Mayor Skadron congratulated the Chamber, volunteers and City for a great Food & Wine
postcard weekend.
NOTICE OF CALL UPS
333 W Bleeker – No call up
61 Meadows Rd – No call up
CONSENT CALENDAR
Rubey Park IGA
Mayor Skadron asked why are we seeing this now. John Kruger, transportation, said it is a timing issue.
On February 9 th Council passed the original IGA. This is restating it with the final numbers. There are no
changes to the content just restating it with the final numbers. It was approved prior to the construction.
Resolution 66 – USA Pro Challenge Contract
Mayor Skadron asked if there is anything that is different from past years.
Nancy Leslie, special events, replied the outreach will be heavy in July and August and being out front on
traffic. The race will include Independence pass on both days. They are in the process of finalizing
closure times with State Patrol. Mayor Skadron asked if the working budget is 300,000 dollars. Ms.
Leslie replied it is a work in progress. Mayor Skadron asked if the 300,000 is our budget. Ms. Leslie
said 125,000 dollars is allocated by the City. The rest is fundraised and sponsorship.
Resolution 67 –Westin & Holiday Inn Hotel Contract – USA Pro Challenge
Mayor Skadron asked what is the average room cost. Ms. Leslie replied 89 dollars, the same as last year.
Mayor Skadron said the cost of the meals are variable. Ms. Leslie said the variable is due to some room
attrition between now and the time of the bike race. The costs are fixed but how many are utilized is
variable. Bill Tomcich, stay aspen snowmass, said the Westin and Wildwood provide two thirds of the
room accommodations. The rest are at other properties. Only the one property is requiring a contract.
The total room count is 678.
P36
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
3
• Resolution #65, Series of 2015 – Ice Resurfacer Contract
• Minutes – May 26, June 1, 8, 2015
• Adoption of Charter Amendment Map
• Resolution #70, Series of 2015 – Amended and Restated Rubey Park IGA
• Resolution #66, Series of 2015 – USA Pro Challenge Contract
• Resolution #67, Series of 2015 – Westin & Holiday Inn Hotel Contract – USA Pro Challenge
• Resolution #68, Series of 2015 – Pickup Replacements for Water and Parks Departments
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – Aspen Historical Society 620 W Bleeker Lot Split, TDRs
Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council the museum currently sits on the 53,500 sq ft
property in the west end. It is bounded by West Bleeker, North 6 th Street, West Hallam and North 5 th
Street. The requests include memorializing the existing conditional use as a museum. There is also a
request to subdivide a 9,000 sq ft lot on the corner of 6 th and Hallam from the existing parcel and sever
3,000 sq ft of the allowable floor area as TDRs with the balance to be redeveloped as affordable housing.
With this request to subdivide the new lot it creates a smaller side yard setback than allowed and the
applicant is requesting a variance for a portion of the museum building. Staff is recommending the public
hearing for July 27. Staff has recommended that the current conditions are appropriate for memorializing
the existing conditional use of the property.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said they are proposing a 9,000 sq ft lot in the northwest corner of
the property. They did commit to the lot never being fenced, the lot never being sold to a third party and
any housing built would be deed restricted to museum use and remain open as a park. All access would
come from the existing driveway. There would be very little change to the property.
Councilman Myrin asked for more history of the last time it was raised to sever TDRs from the property
beyond the minutes.
Councilman Daily pointed out the conditional use review criteria and Staff found that three criteria not
met.
Councilman Frisch asked why are they doing this, revenue issues or a development game. He asked
about the lot splits and what can be built. What is the community benefit for mucking up a beautiful
piece of the west end.
Mayor Skadron said he is also not clear about the motivation behind the application. He would like
information on the history of the historical society becoming a taxing district. What are the stipulations
around the City’s ability to dictate what it can and cannot do around the agreement.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 23
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
MEMORIALIZING A CONDITIONAL USE AND APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION,
DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR 620 W. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, N,
O, P, Q ,R, AND S BLOCK 23, CITY AND TOWNSITY OF ASPEN
P37
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
4
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, Series of 2015 – Hutton Lot Split 725 Cemetery Lane
Hillary Seminick, community development, stated the applicant is requesting approval for a lot split that
will divide the existing 39,704 sq ft parcel into two new parcels with parcel one being slightly larger than
parcel two. Access will be provided through an easement in what will be parcel one. 725 has not been
previously subdivided and is eligible for lot split. The Hutton lot is located in the R15 zone district where
the minimum lot size is 15,000 sq ft. The dimensional characteristics of both new lots will comply with
the R15 zone. There is an existing home on the property and it will be straddling the boundary between
the new lots. Staff included a condition that will allow for the existence of the original building only.
Staff recommendation is to adopt on first reading with the public hearing on July 13.
Councilman Frisch asked if the assumption is a 4plex will be built. Ms. Seminick stated they can build
two duplexes. There is no development proposed as part of this application.
Councilman Daily asked if it is consistent with lot sizes on Cemetery lane. Ms. Seminick stated they are
under code both at 17,681. When redeveloped they will be equal to what is allowed.
Councilman Frisch asked if they are not asking for anything else. Ms. Seminick replied there is a
condition addressing school land fees, park fees and affordable housing fees. The applicant receives a
credit for the existing development for what is on the property. There is a condition that will split those
fees.
Mayor Skadron said the existing home straddles the boundary but it will be demolished. Ms. Seminick
stated it is our understanding it will be. A plat needs to be submitted within 180 days. There is a
condition that there needs to be no non-conformities and the house straddling is a non-conformity. They
would not be able to submit the plat with the house there. Mayor Skadron asked about the non-exclusive
access easement of 4,332 sq ft and how it is the same sq ft that reduces the lot two area. Brian McNellis,
representing the applicant, stated it is by design.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #22, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE HUTTON LOT
SPLIT FOR A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 3 AND 12, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10
SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6 TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING A PROTION OF THAT
CERTIAN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 183 AT PAGE 271 IN THE RECORDS OF
THE PITKIN COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHENCE THE WEST ¼ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12
BEARS SOUTH 58 DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST 1614.50 FEET; THENCCE SOUTH 76
DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST 177.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 14 MINUTES WEST
204.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST 219.00 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 34 MINUTES
WEST 200.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE PONT OF
P38
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
5
BEGINNING, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORAD; COMMONLY KNOWN AS 725
CEMETERY LANE.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2015 of first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2015 – 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this was passed by Council in April but there was
an error in the noticing. They are asking for an amendment to change the effective date to change it to 30
days after tonight’s review. The Ordinance is for a lot split at 530 Hallam Street. The additions will be
demolished and relocated on site with a modest addition. The lot will be subdivided. Overall square
footage is 700 more than what is there today.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work Session Code Amendment
Ms. Simon stated this is the third step in the code amendment process. Staffs original proposal was to
eliminate work sessions from the HPC process. Currently, work sessions are required when asking for
floor area bonus and this ordinance will make that optional. They are also trying to better define what
must be submitted including overall site plan, design intent, massing and programming. Full public
notice will be provided and the discussion will be non-binding. The other code amendment is related to
the building code and sites a specific section of the code and this will make it more generic. The
ordinance will also clarify when in the process a floor area bonus is granted.
Councilman Frisch said he likes the progress and it is headed in the right direction.
Councilman Myrin asked if notice is given when a TDR is landed on a non-historic property. Ms. Simon
replied no. He asked why would notice be required for this. Mr. Bendon replied this is for a development
application. Our intent is to make sure everyone knows a development application is pending.
Councilman Myrin asked if they received any public comment on this. Ms. Simon replied no. Mr.
Bendon stated Council feels it is good dialog. Our interest is in making sure neighbors have full access
and information. Mr. True said a lot of this came from the attorney’s office. They were legal meetings
but there was no notice. We reviewed the process and felt the change was needed.
Mayor Skadron said work sessions are non-binding and it appears to be some action is taking place. The
public isn’t partaking fully. This is protecting the public’s interest.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell stated the work session process is helpful. He supports the notion to allow those to
continue to happen and not making them mandatory. He would have been happy to send out a
public notice. Since it is non-binding it might not be inappropriate to have public comment.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
P39
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
6
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #64, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C1 Policy Resolution
Mr. Bendon, said this is a policy resolution and the first step to initiate a code amendment for the
commercial core and commercial zone districts. Staff initiated this request to fix some unintended
consequences of down zoning of Ordinance 25 of 2012. It reduced allowable height and eliminate free
market residential use. As a consequence the removal of free market created a bunch of non-conforming
uses. This created complications including investment limitations to no more than 10 percent per year.
This is a somewhat old planning concept. We are in a process of code amendments to the non-
conforming zone chapter. Staff also hears a non-conforming use presents financing challenges to owners.
Staff is proposing amendments to these zone districts. Staff is proposing something short of what the
Concept 600 folks are looking for. We recognize the 10 percent limitation is an obstacle and not sure
what the purpose is. Staff reviewed this with P&Z and they felt comfortable with our recommendation.
Staff is asking Council to endorse the policy and move into code amendments.
Councilman Myrin said the applicant could pursue their own code changes. Do you think that would be
different. Mr. Bendon said we have not even analyzed that. It would be a PD or code change. We try to
do amendments on a zone district wide basis without calling out a single property. It also goes against a
planned development to address an individual property. Creating property specific carve outs in the
zoning code is against referendum 1. Councilman Myrin asked if it would make sense to just restore the
rights that the previous ordinance took away. Mr. Bendon replied their attempt is to restore the
conforming status to the residential units downtown. We are not trying to undo ordinance 25. They
recognize the units prior to 25 as allowed uses.
Councilman Frisch stated in 2012 the plan was no more free market residential and the height. We were
focused on south of Main Street. There are parcels north that have it. Is this building zoned properly.
Mr. Bendon said it is a different kind of condition since it is on the North side of Main. Councilman
Frisch said it is nice to treat all the buildings the same. Did the 10 percent stipulation have anything to do
with ordinance 25. Mr. Bendon replied no, it has been around for decades. Councilman Frisch asked if
we want to get rid of it. Mr. Bendon said yes. The issue of the non-conforming status is something we
should initiate and take care of. Councilman Frisch asked if improvement leads in to expanding. Are
there limitations on combining units. Mr. Bendon said there are unit size limitations in the code prior to
ordinance 25. It is possible to expand a condo unit. He encouraged Council to look at this as a district
wide thing. Councilman Frisch said he would like to come up with a system wide program as much as
possible. The original intent of ordinance 25 served the community well. How do we tweak the existing
complexes. Mr. Bendon said there is a necessity to treat everyone equally. Zoning applies to the
properties. We regulate land and properties. He encourages council to recognize there is that aspect of
zoning and to look at it on an objective basis.
Councilman Daily said the purpose of this policy resolution is understandable. He is willing to consider
the expansion of units. In allowing the establishment of new free market residential units, he can see
there may be risks associated with it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
P40
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
7
1. Herb Klein, representing the Concept 600 owners, said the owners feel they are collateral
damage. It is a mixed use building with long time local residents. There are 24- 2 bedroom units,
6- 3 bed room units. It is a non-conforming building so no expansion can take place. He
prepared ordinance language that can solve the problem. They would like to have deck expansion
permitted as well as roof overhangs on the top floor. Combining units has always been
considered expansion even though no new square footage has been created. They would like to
be able to be eligible to apply to combine units. He handed out proposed amended language.
2. Lindsay Smith stated she lived here for 15 years. She handed out photos of the porch extension.
She told Council they need help in restoring the rights they had prior to ordinance 25.
3. Ed Van Walraven, co-owner of one of the units said upgrades are necessary. He rents the unit out
to working locals at less than market rate.
4. Pat Auldhouse , owner since 1984. Spoke about heat and snow accumulation on the fourth floor
deck without a roof. Would like the ability to expand and build a roof over the deck that they had
prior to ordinance 25.
5. Bob - Unit 208. Over 40 year owner with long term rental, short term rental and seasonal rental.
Not a luxury condo but unique. Would like to get their rights back so they can stay unique.
6. Bill Stirling said he is a business resident of the building since 1978. He has witnessed the ebb
and flow of the building. He wants to make it a level playing field. The unintended consequence
has been the inability of being able to get loans due to the non-conforming nature.
7. Paul Otto is the past president and current treasurer of Riverview condos. When I heard what
happened to concept 600 without being notified I was scared it could happen to us. Amazed this
process has become so complicated. He urged council to make an exception and give it to
concept 600.
8. Jim Smith, president of concept 600 HOA. Would like to have the property rights back. There
are exceptions in the code for specific buidings/areas. He would like the property rights back and
to be conforming. They will not and cannot increase the size of their building.
9. Peter Fornell commend council and comdev for recognizing an unintended consequence and
taking action on it. It is not specific to the concept 600 building but every property in the cc and
c1 zone. He urged council not to spot zone. Correct unintended consequence across the range it
was done.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Myrin pointed out page 383 of the packet. His preference is to start with c1 since it is a
smaller zone and not apply with cc until we know what it will impact. He would like to see ordinance 25
apply as an effective date for the zone.
Councilman Daily said he is comfortable acting on both cc and c1. He thinks Herb Klein’s language is
appropriate. Mr. Bendon said the resolution addresses the non-conforming status. There needs to be
more analysis on decks and overhangs but not weave that into zone districts.
Councilman Frisch said the nonconformity issue needs taken care of as soon as possible and the 10
percent cap needs taken care of. Improve means not adding an extra inch just making what I have better.
I don’t want improve to mean expand. We need an answer to a porch overhang as an expansion question.
He is fine with combination as long as they don’t go over the 2000 limit. As far as expanding decks and
normal expansions I want to treat everyone the same in CC and C1. He does not want to get into spot
zoning.
Mayor Skadron said staff’s recommendation addresses the unintended consequences by ordinance 25. It
does not allow anything defined as an expansion. Concept 600 also has a recommendation that addresses
the consequences and allows for expansions. Councilman Myrin also has a recommendation but only for
P41
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
8
C1. Mr. Bendon does not have the same apprehension as Councilman Myrin. Councilman Myrin said he
would like to understand the impact of CC more.
Mayor Skadron said it would act to change the issues the city created by putting back in place the uses
and privileges prior to ordinance 25 but Peter is right and we should not zone around one building. We
need to restore these permissions without spot zoning. He supports the Staff recommendation.
Councilman Daily said he is pretty close to Councilman Myrin. He supports both zone districts and allow
for certain expansions already allowed by the code.
Councilman Frisch said he does not have a problem with expansion as long as it sticks to the rules, no
problem with both zones, no problem with porch or roof. The expansion of decks needs more thought.
The goal is to see as many lights on in units as possible and treat everyone as fair and equal as possible.
Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #64, series of 2015 with modification to section one to
strike the second to last line “expansion of existing free market residential units and the word and”
Mayor Skadron stated he will not support this. He is not prepared to act in a way with unintended
consequences that will need to be undone in the future. While he believes the owners of Concept 600
should have their rights restored, he believes it should be done without undoing the intent of ordinance
25.
Councilman Frisch asked him what concerns him the most and he replied expansion/combining of units.
Councilman Myrin said everyone else in CC and C1 have to follow the code when expanding units except
for non-conforming units and this is about aligning those rights. This is about trying to be upfront.
Mayor Skadron said he agrees with correcting the unintended consequence of ordinance 25.
Second by Councilman Frisch.
All in favor except Mayor Skadron. 3 to 1 vote. Motion carried .
RESOLUTION #42, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Direction – Residential Mitigation
Mr. Bendon said the City has impact mitigation requirements to offset the impacts of additional
development on the community for parks, schools, transportation, air quality and housing. These are to
offset new development. When something is torn down only the new development has the impact fees
assessed. Residential impact fees have been in place since 1990 at a rate of one FTE for every 2000 sq ft
of development and was lowered to one FTE for every 3000 sq ft. There is a need to update the
requirement. Staff contracted with RRC associates last year. The report suggested the standard should be
a max of .445 FTE for 3000 sq ft of floor area. He will focus on questions 5, 6 and 11 from the memo.
#5- credit provided for existence of RETT. The presence of the tax shouldn’t interfere with new
development. They don’t need to overlap. Lowering the impact fee in exchange for the tax may be work
around to the tax. Mike Maple suggested to provide a reduction in the impact mitigation requirement
based on the number of employee years that the property has supported the workforce. Staff has some
concerns that the impact requirements now are based on the impact the community experiences because
of expansion. We currently have in place the ability for deferral of mitigation requirement until the
property is sold to a nonworking resident. This helps address self mitigation. There are challenges of
administrating the program. Staff is not recommending in favor of Mr. Maples approach. The RETT tax
is in place to try to address a long standing community problem. The presence of the tax does not undo or
cure the impacts on the community when a property expands.
P42
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
9
#6 – Should City assess the full impact fee. We can assess up to 100 percent of the fee. The standard
lowering is already a significant reduction.
#11 – Should cash in lieu continue as a mitigation option. Staff recommends it continue. They
recommend examining an upper limit as to what it accepts. Cash in lieu is the least desirable option.
Affordable housing certificates is a relatively new program. They suggest keeping cash in lieu but keep
an upper limit.
Councilman Myrin asked about the report results. Five percent utilize pet sitters and five percent use
child care. He questioned the results. Mr. Bendon said RRC was pleased with the result rate and
statistical accuracy. Our recommendation is the report is solid. Councilman Myrin said some things
don’t feel right. He supports #1, needs to know more for #2, agree with Council on #3 and #4, agrees
with Staff on #5.
Councilman Frisch said he appreciates they are from different pots but they are from the same
pocketbook. He is sensitive to the view of what is fair.
Councilman Daily supports Staff’s recommendation. He agrees with the comment in the memo that
providing an impact fee credit to compensate for the applicability of this tax effectively waives the voter
approved tax. If we go down that road we should be talking to the voters not Council.
Mayor Skadron said he agrees with Staff’s recommendation. Applying an impact fee waiver and whether
it should be adjusted should be asked to the voters not to Council.
#6- Should the City assess the full impact fee. Staff recommended the full impact fee should be assessed.
Councilman Frisch said we need to see how the numbers play out. This gets multiplied by something. If
that number becomes too much then we have a discussion.
Mayor Skadron said if we talk about assessing an impact fee at a rate less than the full amount it does not
mean the community feels less of an impact.
Councilman Myrin agrees with Staff.
Councilman Daily agrees with Staff.
Mayor Skadron agrees with staff.
#11 – Should cash in lieu continue as a mitigation option.
Councilman Frisch said he agrees with staff. Collecting little bits of money for a big project is a good
option. We need to make sure what we collect in whatever form actually houses the workers. Is the
program being effective. Mayor Skadron said it places the burden of mitigation on the community’s
shoulders. Councilman Frisch said as long as we collect the right amount of money to house the worker.
Councilman Daily agrees it should remain an option. Looking at placing an upper limit is worth talking
about.
Councilman Myrin agreed with considering upper limit. His hesitation is any cash in lieu. We should
incentivize credits. All options need to reflect true market value and float with the market over time.
Eliminate cash in lieu for all but less than one FTE.
Mayor Skadron said he thinks Councilman Myrin is right.
Councilman Frisch said if someone pays the RETT and doesn’t come here versus someone who lives here
there needs to be something different for what they pay. Mr. Bendon said it is tricky to apply different
P43
VII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 2015
10
policies to people based on their behavior. It is problematic territory. That is why the deferral program
exists. Mitigating your own impact.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell said for the RETT he is sensitive that people are paying to mitigate more than once
and a house is paying more than once. Waivers to individuals who can prove they live and work
in their home and the loss they will incur in RETT when they sell. There are logistical
nightmares and it speaks of fraud. Already reaping a number of values of the community. If the
cash in lieu number got the adjustment it needed you will get the benefit of more than me sitting
here. All three of those will produce what we want. We need to keep cash in lieu so we have a
mechanism to know what to mitigate for different categories.
2. Tim Semarau said he can’t understand why residential mitigation is wildly different than
commercial mitigation. The inconsistencies are inappropriate.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch asked about timing. Mr. Bendon said the prospect of the fee going down has put
some people in a perplexing situation. It is good to move this to the ordinance phase. They are close
enough to go in to ordinance phase.
Councilman Myrin said he needs more information on the survey but this should move forward. He has
hesitation on #11 and would lean towards removing the cash in lieu.
Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #43 with modification to strike the underlined sentence;
seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. 3 to 1 vote. Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue the Call up of HPC approval of 233 E Hallam Street to July 13,
2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 10:00pm; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion
carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk.
P44
VII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
DATE: June 13, 2015
RE: Board Appointments
By approving the consent calendar, Council is making the following appointments:
Planning & Zoning Commission Spencer McKnight, 2 nd alternate
Local Licensing Authority Sam Barney
Historic Preservation Commission Willis Pember, regular
Michael Brown, 2 nd alternate
Board of Appeals & Examiners Chet Feldman
Thomas Marshall
Richard de Campo
Open Space & Trails Howie Malory
Gyles Thornely
Housing Authority Ron Erickson
Becky Gilbert, recommended for new joint alternate
Renee West, recommended for joint regular
Commercial Core & Lodging Don Sheeley
Terry Butler
Steve Fante
Charles Cunniffe, alternate
Election Commission Bob Leatherman
David Hyman
The City Clerk is confident in Bob and David’s continued contributions and requests their re-
appointment.
Next Generation Advisory Board Matthew Evan
Clay Stranger
Christien Bradt
P45
VII.b
P
4
6
V
I
I
.
c
P
4
7
V
I
I
.
c
P
4
8
V
I
I
.
c
P
4
9
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
0
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
1
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
2
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
3
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
4
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
5
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
6
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
7
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
8
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
9
V
I
I
.
c
P
6
0
V
I
I
.
c
P
6
1
V
I
I
.
c
P
6
2
V
I
I
.
c
P
6
3
V
I
I
.
c
P
6
4
V
I
I
.
c
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015
RE: 1175 Doolittle Circle – Planned Development Minor Project Review
& 8040 Greenline Review - First Reading of Ordinance 24, 2015
APPLICANT/OWNERS: Castle Ridge
Associates LTD, c/o Hill Management Co.
REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez -
Menendez Architects
LOCATION: 1175 Doolittle Circle, Castle
Ridge Apartments
CURRENT ZONING & USE: R-15/PD; used
as multi-family housing.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The site will
continue to be used as multi-family housing.
SUMMARY: The applicant is interested in
demolishing two small maintenance
equipment storage sheds on the lot and
replacing them with one larger shed in
approximately the same location. The
current sheds are substandard in size and do
not meet the maintenance storage needs of
the housing development. Also the existing
sheds were never memorialized on the
original plat or in any known approvals.
There is no site-specific approval for the
Castle Ridge Apts. property. According to
Section 26.445.110.H of the Land Use
Code, in the absence of an approved site
specific development plan , what exists on
the property at the time of approval represents
the approved dimensions of the Planned
Development. The addition of a 988 sq. ft. shed
will require an amendment for a floor area
increase. Any new development on this site is
also subject to 8040 Greenline Review.
Allowing the requested maintenance shed will
provide needed on-site storage for maintenance
equipment and vehicles, and will also
legitimizing the structure on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the
application to meet all of the relevant review
criteria for 8040 Greenline and Minor Project
reviews. Castle Ridge has demonstrated a need
for a shed structure that adequately stores all
necessary
maintenance
equipment for
the property,
and Staff
recommends
approval of
the request.
Figure A: Image
of current sheds
on site,
surrounded by
fence.
P65
VIII.a
Page 2 of 5
Figure B: Location of subject parcel
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval – pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.445.110.D. City Council is the final review authority in this matter.
• 8040 Greenline Review – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020. Typically
Planning & Zoning Commission is the review board in this matter. However, pursuant to
Section 26.304.060.B.1, reviews may be combined at the discretion of the Community
Development Director, so long as all reviews are properly noticed. City Council will be
the final review authority in this matter.
PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The Castle Ridge Apartments are located in the
R-15/PD zone district, located just south of
Aspen Valley Hospital and west of Castle Creek
Rd. Castle Ridge was originally approved as
the Water Plant Housing Project in 1980, and is
Lot 3 of the Thomas Property Subdivision
Exception.
There are eight multi-family residential
buildings on the site with 10 units per building.
Two small sheds with accompanying decks and
a surrounding fence were constructed at some
undetermined time near the rear of the property
to store maintenance equipment on-site. The
sheds total 323 sq. ft. in size and do not appear
on the original plat.
The parcel is located above 8040’ feet
elevation, therefore all new development on the
site is subject to the heightened 8040 Greenline
Review.
Staff has found no past approval for Castle Ridge Apts. According to Section 26.445.110.H of
the Land Use Code, in the absence of an approved site specific development plan, the existing
development on the property at the time of approval represents the approved dimensions of the
Planned Development, which is estimated at 64,251 sq. ft. The proposed 988 sq. ft. increase in
floor area will require a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval.
CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant has indicated that the current sheds are inadequately sized to
store all of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of grounds, and is interested in
demolishing the two small maintenance sheds and decks and replacing these structures with a
988 sq. ft. maintenance building for equipment and vehicles in the same location. The new shed
is proposed at a height of 16’ 3” with a metal roof and cedar wood exterior, finished dark brown
to match the surrounding structures.
P66
VIII.a
Page 3 of 5
Figure D: Location of existing sheds
Figure E: Location of proposed shed
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has located no
evidence regarding the construction of the two
existing maintenance sheds, decks and fence on
the site. However, it is reasonable to find this
type of structure on a multi-family property
with multiple buildings.
The existing sheds are located towards the rear
of the property, on relatively flat ground between Building F and Building G.
The applicant is proposing to locate the new shed in the approximate same location.
Figure C: North elevation of proposed shed
P67
VIII.a
Page 4 of 5
Staff and Engineering has reviewed the applicant’s request against the criteria for a Minor
Amendment to a Project Review approval and 8040 Greenline review and notes the following:
Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval: Staff and Engineering finds the proposed
shed’s location to be suitable for the site. The ground is relatively flat in this location, and the
proposed shed does not interfere with the sloped ground the adjacent rear of the parcel. There
are no known man-made or natural hazards in this location. The proposed shed is oriented to the
parking lot area and Doolittle Circle, and opens directly onto the existing asphalt surface. The
shed’s unobstructed location makes it easily accessible by emergency, maintenance and service
vehicles.
The proposed shed will help to create a more orderly, functional storage space for the
equipment and vehicles essential to the maintenance of the site. When Staff visited the site
some equipment, such as a riding lawn mower, was stored outside of the sheds’ fenced area.
Staff believes that by providing a structure that is sized to meet storage needs for maintaining
the property the area will appear cleaner and safer.
The proposed shed will be constructed from channel rustic cedar wood siding and painted dark
brown to match the neighboring residential buildings. It is proposed as one-story with a gabled
roof, and will be subordinate to the residences on the site.
Engineering finds no concerns with the application. The applicant will need to submit a
Drainage Report prior to receipt of building permit to indicate whether drainage patterns are
changing as a result of any potential increase in impervious surface. Engineering will require
the applicant to clean out the existing drainage swale and basin if needed to ensure proper
drainage on the site.
8040 Greenline Review: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or water pollution as a result of this proposal, nor any
changes to the City’s air quality.
Any necessary grading will be limited primarily to the area already disturbed by the existing
structures and asphalt roadway. Disturbance to terrain, vegetation and natural land features are
expected to be minimal.
The proposal requires no additional roadways, and no impacts on open space or scenic
resources will be created as a result of this application. Any water or electrical utilities needed
at this structure are already provided to the Castle Ridge development.
At 16’3” the proposed shed is well under the 25’ maximum height for the R-15 zone district.
The proposed structure is the minimum size necessary for adequate storage of necessary
maintenance equipment. As mentioned previously, the shed will be painted to match the
surrounding residential buildings with a dark brown earth tone color that will blend in with the
surrounding landscape.
P68
VIII.a
Page 5 of 5
This parcel is served by Doolittle Drive, which has been properly maintained by the City of
Aspen since its creation. The ingress and egress for the proposed shed is on Doolittle Dr.
Adequate access will be maintained for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff finds all relevant review criteria regarding Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval
and 8040 Greenline review to be met, and the addition of 988 sq. ft. to the Planned Development
to be insubstantial in nature. Staff recommends City Council approval of this application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2015 upon first reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Site Plan
EXHIBIT B – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Application
P69
VIII.a
Ordinance No.24, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 3
Ordinance No. 24
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEWAND MINOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR 1175 DOOLITTLE CIRCLE, KNOWN AS
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A METES AND
BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel No. 273513201701
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Castle Ridge Associates LTD, c/o Hill Management Company, represented by Luis
Menendez, requesting approval of 8040 Greenline review and Planned Development
Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Moderate-Density Residential (R-15)
with a Planned Development (PD) overlay; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Minor Amendment to a Project
Review approval and 8040 Greenline review that will amend the original plat for Cast le
Ridge Apartments, approved in 1983 and recorded at Reception No. 248557 with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and add 988 sq. ft. of floor area to the site to be used
for an on-site maintenance storage shed; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445.110 of the Land Use Code an
application for a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval may be granted
approval, approval with conditions or denial by the City Council at a duly noticed public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.435.030 8040 Greenline review of the Land
Use Code Planning and Zoning Commission is generally the review body for this review.
However, Section 26.304.060.B.1 of the Code allows for the combination of reviews, at
the discretion of the Community Development Director and the request of the applicant,
so long as all reviews are properly noticed. Therefore, City Council is the final review
authority in this matter; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and recommended approval of the applicant’s request for 8040 Greenline review and a
Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request 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 at a public hearing held on August 10, 2015 and
recommended approval of the PUD Amendment; and,
P70
VIII.a
Ordinance No.24, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the PUD Amendment proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable development standards.
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 OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: General Development Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves the following land use reviews: 8040 Greenline
review and a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval that amends the 1983 plat
for the subject property and allows the addition of 988 sq. ft. of floor area, to be used as a
maintenance storage shed in the location indicated by the approval. Application for a
building permit shall include a drainage report, pursuant to Engineering Dept.
requirements. The applicant may be required to clean out the existing drainage swale and
basin.
Section 2:
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 Aspen 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 3:
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 4:
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.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of November, 2013, 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 shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
P71
VIII.a
Ordinance No.24, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of July, 2015.
_________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attest:
___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P72
VIII.a
Exhibit A
Site Plan
A
P
7
3
V
I
I
I
.
a
1
Exhibit B
Review Criteria
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. 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. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Response: There are no regulatory plans in affect for this area of the City. Staff finds
this criterion to be not applicable.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslid e
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The Minor Amendment to the Planned Development involves the demolition
of two small storage sheds and their accompanying decks, and their replacement with a single
larger storage shed. The new shed will occupy the same location the current sheds occupy,
but with a larger footprint. There will be no disturbance of any lands unsuitable for
development due to natural or man-made hazards, as indicated above. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
P74
VIII.a
2
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
Staff Response: The area where the new shed is proposed is in the same location as the
existing shed, with a larger footprint. The increased footprint will remain on a flat
area of the site, and does not interfere with the sloped ground to the adjacent rear of
the parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Response: Staff has no concerns with the disturbance of any geological features,
vegetation or structures on the site. The site where the new shed is proposed is flat,
between two existing residential buildings, and opens onto an asphalt surface. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Response: The proposed shed is oriented to the parking lot area and Doolittle
Circle. This orientation will be most efficient for access by maintenance and related
needs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff Response: The goal achieved here is to create a more orderly, functional storage
space for the equipment essential to the maintenance of the Castle Ridge Apartments
property. The existing sheds are small and substandard for storage of all of the essential
maintenance equipment. Consequently some items are being stored on the ground outside
of the shed. Staff believes that by providing a shed that meets the maintenance equipment
needs of the complex the area is benefitting by appearing cleaner and safer. Staff finds
this review criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Response: The increase in floor area for the proposed larger shed is will be suitable
for the use of the structure, which is maintenance equipment for use at the Castle Ridge
Apartments. The small sheds currently on the site are substandard for the needs of the
maintenance needs at Castle Ridge, as evidenced by the equipment that lies in the area
outside of the sheds. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P75
VIII.a
3
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Response: The proposed shed will be constructed from cedar wood and painted dark
brown to match the neighboring residential buildings. The shed will be one-story with
gabled roof. It will match the building that are already on -site, but will remain
subordinate in size. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. 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, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Response: The increase in size of the storage shed will not require an increase in the
number of off-street parking spaces for the PD. Staff finds this criterion to be not-
applicable.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Response: The applicant is going through a detailed review with the scope of this
current application. This criterion is not applicable.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including thos e outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
Staff Response: The proposed shed is not subject to Commercial Design Standards or
Historic Preservation chapter of the Land Use Code. According to Chapter 26.410, multi -
family housing is only subject to the standards regarding building orientation, access, and
building elements. The proposed shed is oriented to Doolittle Dr. Access to the parcel
remains unchanged by this application, and there are no changes proposed to the multi-
family units which will maintain their individual street-oriented entrances and street-
facing principal windows. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
P76
VIII.a
4
Staff Response: The shed is proposed with metal roofing and channel rustic cedar siding
which will be stained to match the other buildings on the site. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Given the scope of this project Staff does not feel the project warrants
improvements to pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be not
applicable.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Engineering finds no issues with the application. The applicant will need to
submit a Drainage Report prior to receipt of building permit to show how drainage patterns
are changing as a result of any potential increase in impervious surface. Staff finds this
criterion to bet met.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Engineering will require the Applicant to clean out the existing drainage
swale and basin if this is needed to ensure proper drainage on the site.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development 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.
Staff Response: There are not changes to the existing unobstructed legal vehicular access to
Doolittle Dr. as a result of this application, and not security/privacy gates are proposed. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
P77
VIII.a
5
26.435.030C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above
or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all
requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Staff Response: The new shed is being proposed on the same area of the site where the
existing two sheds are found. The location is a flat area between buildings F and G.
This is a flat area and is generally found to be suitable for development. Engineering
will require a drainage report prior to the issuance of building permit. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or water pollution as a result of this proposal.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
1. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in
the City.
Staff Response: Staff anticipates no adverse effects to the air quality as a result of this
proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Response: The proposed shed will replace two smaller sheds in the same location.
Staff and Engineering have examined the proposal and find it to be compatible with the
flat terrain on this area of the parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff Response: Any grading for the proposed shed is minimal in nature, and will be
limited primarily to the area already disturbed by the existing structures and asphalt
roadway. Disturbance to terrain, vegetation and natural land features is expected to be
minimal. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
P78
VIII.a
6
Staff Response: The proposed shed will remain in the same location as the existing sheds,
and will be located between buildings F and G on the parcel. These buildings are
clustered, and no additional roads, cutting or grading will be required as a result of the
proposed larger shed. There will be no additional impacts created on open space or scenic
resources as a result of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Response: The proposed structure is one-story, and reaches a height of 16’3”. The
maximum height for the R-15 zone district is 25’. The proposed structure is the minimum
size necessary for adequate storage of necessary maintenance equipment. The shed will be
painted to match the surrounding residential buildings with a dark brown earth tone color
that will blend in with the surrounding landscape. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff Response: Any water lines or electrical utilities needed for this structure have
already been provided to the PD. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Staff Response: This parcel is served by Doolittle Drive, which has been properly
maintained by the City of Aspen since its creation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
8. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Response: The ingress and egress for the proposed shed is on Doolittle Dr.
Adequate access will be maintained for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
9. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Staff Response: There is no required Parks Dept. review for this minor application. Staff
finds this criterion to be not applicable.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, §7; Ord. No. 3-2012, §8)
P79
VIII.a
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email:LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
May 29, 2015
Ms. Sara Nadolny
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Castle Ridge Apartments (1175 Doolittle Circle, Aspen)
Dear Ms. Nadolny,
Attached, please find a completed Land Use Application, and the required submission
documents, for an administrative review of the proposed replacement and expansion of the
existing maintenance sheds at the employee housing project known as Castle Ridge
Apartments.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Luis A. Menendez
P80
VIII.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Property
Owner (“I”):
Phone No.:
Email:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
Billing
Address:
(send bills here)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand
that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these
flat fees are non-refundable.
$_________ flat fee for _____________________. $_________ flat fee for _____________________.
$_________ flat fee for _____________________. $_________ flat fee for _____________________.
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I
understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is
impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable
legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not
returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30
days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
$___________ deposit for _______ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $35 per hour.
$___________ deposit for ______ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit
amount will be billed at $265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Name:
T i t l e : ____ City Use:
Fees Due: $___________ Received: $____________
January, 2013 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
P81
VIII.a
ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment
Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision Exemption (includes
condominiumization)
Final SPA (& SPA
Amendment)
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other:
Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
P82
VIII.a
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance Between
Buildings
Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P83
VIII.a
ASLU
PD Amend/8040 Greenline
403 Doolittle Dr.
273513204825
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 4.4.13, updated by SN on 4.10.15
PROJECT: Castle Ridge Apts, 403 Doolittle Dr.
REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez, 970.544.4851 ext. 114
REQUEST: PD Amendment & 8040 Greenline Review
DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is interested in building a new garage/storage shed on the site for storage of
maintenance equipment and vehicles. The site is home to the Castle Ridge Apartments, and is zoned R-15/PD.
Castle Ridge was originally approved as the Waterplant Housing project (circa 1980) and is recorded as Book 9,
Page 68. As the recorded plat is not very detailed the existing conditions of the residential buildings are considered
the site specific development plan. Currently on-site there is are two storage sheds and two decks off of these sheds.
The potential applicant would like to remove these structures and replace them with one garage, approximately 1,000
sq. ft. in size.
To add a new structure, the PD approval will need to be amended. Additionally, the property’s location is subject to
8040 Greenline review. Depending on the full scope of the project, the application may be reviewed administratively
for both an Insubstantial PD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review Exemption. If Staff determines that the project
does not meet the applicable review criteria the application will require review by the Planning & Zoning Commission
in a public hearing. The following fee schedule is based upon an administrative review and an increased deposit will
be required if reviewed by a board.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20a
pp%20form.pdf
Below is Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.435.030.B Greenline Review Exemption
26.445.110.A Insubstantial Amendments (Planned Development)
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
Review by: Staff for complete application
Parks Dept. referral
Engineering Dept. referral
Public Hearing: None
Planning Fees: $1,300 for four (4) hours of staff review time
P84
VIII.a
2
Referral Fees: Parks Dept (flat fee) - $650
Engineering Dept - $275 (for one hour of staff review time)
Total Deposit: $2,225 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of
$325/hour; additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate of
$275/hour)
To apply, submit the following information:
¨ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
¨ Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
¨ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
¨ Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
¨ HOA Compliance form (Attached)
¨ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
¨ A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation
showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
¨ Written responses to all review criteria.
¨ An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
¨ 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need
to be submitted:
¨ 1 additional copy of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
¨ Total deposit for review of the application.
¨ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P85
VIII.a
P86
VIII.a
P87
VIII.a
May 29, 2015
Ms. Sara Nadolny
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Castle Ridge Apartments (1175 Doolittle Circle, Aspen)
Dear Ms. Nadolny,
This letter serves to authorize our architect, Mr. Luis Menendez of Menendez Architects,
to act on our behalf regarding the Land Use and Building Permit application process
required for the approval of a new maintenance shed at the above referenced property.
Mr. Menendez’s contact information:
Luis Menendez
Menendez Architects
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Telephone: 970-544-1874
Email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
My contact information:
Mrs. Donna Hill
Castle Ridge Associates LTD
P.O. Box 95
Saint Ann, MO 63074
Telephone: 314-423-6667
Email: DHILLDJH@aol.com
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Donna Hill
P88
VIII.a
City
C970
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name: Castle Ridge Associates LTD, c/0 Hill Management Company
Email: DHILLDJH@aol.com Phone No.: 314-423-6667
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
1175 Doolittle Circle, Aspen
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners
association or covenant beneficiary.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners
association or covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: _________________________ date:________
Owner printed name: _Donna Hill________________________
or,
Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________
Attorney printed name: _________________________
P89
VIII.a
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email:LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
May 29, 2015
Re: Castle Ridge Apartments (1175 Doolittle Circle, Aspen)
Project Description
Castle Ridge Apartments is an employee-housing complex consisting of eight, 2-story,
residential buildings and two, 1-story, attached maintenance equipment storage sheds with
decks. The project was originally approved as the Waterhouse Housing project and
developed by the city of Aspen in 1980-1981.
Excluding decks, the eight buildings total approximately 63,928 square feet of floor area. The
existing sheds to be replaced total 323 square feet of floor area and 300 square feet of wood
deck area. The total area of existing enclosed space is 64,251 square feet.
The proposed project consists of removing the existing storage sheds and decks and replacing
them with a new one-story, 988 square foot, structure for the storage of maintenance
equipment and vehicles. The existing sheds are too small to store all of the maintenance
equipment, supplies and vehicles and the overflow of the same outside the sheds creates an
unsightly condition for the residents.
Per the attached Pre-Application Conference Summary the proposed improvement project is
subject to 8040 Greenline review and Insubstantial PD Amendment.
8040 Greenline Exemption
Per Land Use Code Section 26.435.030.B projects are exempt from 8040 Greenline and may
be reviewed administratively if all of the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of
the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of
the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than
twenty-five percent (25%).
Project meets the standard - the proposed shed is 988 square feet, and replaces 323
square feet of existing storage shed space, which represents only one percent (1%) of
the existing floor area.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant received a
permit pursuant to said Section.
P90
VIII.a
Project meets the standard - the project is designed to leave all existing trees in place.
In the event that any of the existing trees require removal a tree removal permit will
be obtained.
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard
and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation.
Project meets the standard - the proposed shed is to be located between two existing
buildings (Buildings F & G) where there is no apparent evidence of geologic hazard
and where the existing sheds have been located since the development of the project.
The new structure will not create increased erosion or sedimentation in that all of the
roof water will be channeled to the existing drainage system via grassy swales. The
area between the existing asphaltic paving and the new shed will be paved with
pervious material.
4. All exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches the totals specified
in Subsection 26.435.030.B.1, and 8040 Greenline review must be obtained
pursuant to Subsection 26.435.030.C.
Project meets the standard – there have been no previous 8040 Greenline exemptions
for this property.
8040 Greenline Review Standards
In addition to meeting the 8040 Greenline review exemption standards, the project meets all
8040 Greenline review standards listed in Section 26.435.030.C as follows:
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including
mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant
shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, caue them to be
removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
Project complies with requirement – the parcel is already developed with 8 multi-
family residential buildings plus the existing sheds that are to be replaced. The
replacement building is proposed to be located where the existing sheds and decks
currently exist between buildings F and G and where there is no evidence of previous
mudflows or rock falls and avalanche dangers. The building is proposed to be located
on a gently sloping (approximately 14%) part of the site.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of
water pollution.
Project complies with requirement – the project will not change the existing course of
drainage. All drainage from the new structure will continue to be directed to the
P91
VIII.a
existing swale and drainage culvert to the east of the structure. The roof water will be
conducted via a grassy (for treatment) swale to the existing culvert.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the City.
Project complies with requirement – the proposed building will not have any wood
fuel equipment that would contribute to air pollution and will be heated via electric
baseboard heaters.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is
compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is
to be located.
Project complies with requirement – the proposed building is to be located on a gently
sloping (approximately 14%) part of the site where the existing sheds and deck are
located. It is on a part of the site that has mostly already been disturbed with previous
development. The new building will be smaller in size and bulk as the two existing
multi-residential buildings on either side of it. The exterior finishes of the new
structure will match those of the adjoining buildings.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Project complies with requirement – grading will be minimized to what is required to
construct the proposed project. The project has been designed to preserve the existing
trees. All disturbed soils will be reseeded.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads,
limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a
scenic resource.
Project complies with requirement – the proposed building will be located where the
site already contains development. Grading will be limited to what is needed for the
new building. No new roads or driveways will be necessary to serve the new building.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized.
Project complies with requirement – the proposed building is only one-story and 988
square feet, which will be significantly smaller than the two-story, 7,991 square foot
buildings on either side. Additionally, the new building will be partially cut into the
slope of the land to further reduce its height and bulk.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
P92
VIII.a
Project complies with requirement – the project will be located in an existing
development where adequate utility service already exists. The building will only
require water for one hose bib/hydrant, possibly a service sink and electricity for
power, lighting and electric baseboard. There is no natural gas service on site.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads
can be properly maintained.
Project complies with requirement – the proposed project will be located in an
existing development that is served by Castle Creek Road. The building will be
served by Doolittle Circle, which is the private road within the existing development
and is maintained by the property owner.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Project complies with requirement – there is already adequate ingress and egress to
the site, and to the location of the proposed building via Doolittle Circle for fire
protection and snow removal.
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are
implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Project complies with requirement – not applicable.
Insubstantial Amendments
Per Section 26.445.110.A of the Land Use Code, the proposed project falls under the
category of Insubstantial Amendment to a PD by meeting the required criteria as follows:
1. The request does not change the use or character of the development.
Project meets the criteria – the proposed project replaces existing structures that
house the same use as the proposed structure and is an accessory use to the other
buildings on the site. The new building will be of the same character as the existing
buildings with the same exterior finishes.
2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project’s
original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Project meets the criteria – the original approval is not very detailed but the existing
shed structures, that are to be replaced, were apparently built by the City when the
City developed the original project prior to selling it to the current Owner. It is
unlikely that the original approval would not have included provisions for
maintenance equipment storage for a multi-family residential project of this size and
configuration.
P93
VIII.a
3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project’s allowed
use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area.
Project meets the criteria – the proposed project is an allowed accessory use to the
multi-family residential use and is well below the allowed height. The original
approval does not define a specific maximum floor area but the proposed building
replaces existing floor area and only increases it by an amount equal to approximately
one percent (1%) of the existing floor area.
4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to
a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been
foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances
stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Project meets the criteria – the original approval is not detailed with respect to
dimensional requirements and the proposed improvement should be considered an
insubstantial change that is necessary to safely and properly store maintenance
supplies, equipment and vehicles. The original approval plat shows buildings with
footprints that are irregular and undefined in size, area and precise location. This
suggests that precise total floor area was not of concern and that certain flexibility in
floor area was allowed for the project. Thus, further supporting that the proposed
increase in area is insubstantial to the original approval.
The existing storage sheds are of inadequate size to store what is necessary to
maintain the property. Currently, some equipment, supplies and vehicles, including a
loader used for snow removal, must be stored outside where they are accessible to the
children that live in the complex. It would be safer to store all equipment and supplies
within the confines of one structure that could be locked for security. In addition, the
equipment and supplies that are stored outside create an unsightly condition that the
Owner would like to improve for the benefit of the tenants of the employee housing
complex.
Given the type and the insubstantial nature of the proposed project we feel that it is a good
candidate for an administrative review and that the added costs and time that would be
required for a Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council review would represent an
unnecessary hardship to the Owner of this employee housing project.
P94
VIII.a
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email:LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
Castle Ridge Apartments
Maintenance Shed
1175 Doolittle Circle, Aspen
Legal Description
Lot 3, Castle Ridge Housing Site as Lot 3 is shown on that certain map entitled “The City Thomas Property
Subdivision Exception” filed in Plat Book 14 at Page 41, March 10, 1983, as Reception #248557, Pitkin County
Records Assessor Parcel #2735-13-201701
Vicinity Map
SITE
P95
VIII.a
P
9
6
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
7
V
I
I
I
.
a
S
SEX. SEWE
R
L
I
N
E
E
E
EX. WATER MAIN
E
X
.
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
ET
C
W W
W
W
W
8070
8
0
5
0
8050
8
0
5
0
8060
8062
8064
8066
8068
8058
8056
80
5
4
8052
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
KEYNOTES
DO
O
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
I
R
C
L
E
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
UTILITY
PEDISTALS
IRRIGATION
VALVE BOXES
AND SPIGOT
LOCATION
SEWER
MANHOLE
64' P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
A
D
AND
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
SEWER
MANHOLE
STEPS
CONC.
CONC.
STEPS
(TYP.)
ELEC.
TRANSFORMER
(BUILDING G)
(BUILDING F)
IN
V
CP 100 (PK NAIL)
8
0
4
8
.
0
7
8051.66
8
0
5
0
.
5
8
8052.
3
0
80
5
0
.
8
2
80
5
0
.
4
6
8051.47
SS
(64' W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
(64'
W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
C
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
C
O
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
ETC
S
W
A
L
E
SH
E
D
2
0
"
C
M
P
CO
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
EDGE ASPHAL
T
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
±8051.9
2
±8050.
7
9
S
H
E
D
DECK
ET
C
DECK
SHED
8"-8"-5"
ASPEN
4" ASPEN
8" ASPEN
5" ASPEN
6" COTTONWOOD
6" COTTONWOOD
EXISTING MAINTENANCE SHED BUILDING TO BE
REMOVED.
EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED.
EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO BE REMOVED.
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM
DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
E
N
C
E
15
'
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
UTILITY SHED
DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTH
ARCHITECTURAL
NORTH
A0.00
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
P
9
8
V
I
I
I
.
a
S
SEX. SEWE
R
L
I
N
E
E
E
EX. WATER MAIN
E
X
.
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
ET
C
W W
W
W
W
8070
8
0
5
0
8050
8
0
5
0
8058
8056
8054
8052
8060
±14'-6"
±
1
1
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
1
7
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
DO
O
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
I
R
C
L
E
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
UTILITY
PEDISTALS
SEWER
MANHOLE
64' P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
A
D
AND
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
SEWER
MANHOLE
STEPS
CONC.
CONC.
STEPS
(TYP.)
ELEC.
TRANSFORMER
(BLDG.G)
(BLDG.F)
IN
V
CP 100 (PK NAIL)
8
0
4
8
.
0
7
8051.66
8
0
5
0
.
5
8
8052.
3
0
80
5
0
.
8
2
80
5
0
.
4
6
8051.47
SS
(64' W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
(64'
W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
C
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
C
O
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
ETC
S
W
A
L
E
SH
E
D
2
0
"
C
M
P
CO
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
EDGE ASPHALT
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
NOTE:
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0" = SITE ELEVATION 8051.50 FT
±8051.9
2
±8050.
7
9
8052.00
80
5
2
.
0
0
8055.0
805
2
.
5
TW
8056.0
T
W
80
5
4
.
7
5
TW
8053.5
80
5
3
.
5
8053.25
PROPOSED
MAINTENANC
E
S
H
E
D
KEYNOTES
STIPPLING INDICATES NEW COMPACTED
ROADBASE PAVING OVER GRAVEL BASE.
PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE, TYPICAL.
EXISTING CONTOUR TO BE MODIFIED SHOWN
DASHED, TYPICAL.
NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL.
NEW MAINTENANCE SHED BUILDING.
NEW FLOW LINE (GRASSY SWALE).
RESTORE ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING DISTURBED
FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH NEW CITY APPROVED
SEED MIX..
EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVE BOXES AND SPIGOT
TO REMAIN. MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM
AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR NEW BUILDING.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1
2
2
2
3
3
8
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
80
5
1
.
5
8051.5
A0.01
8054.0
8053.0
8055.5
15
'
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
MAINTENANCE SHED
SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTH
ARCHITECTURAL
NORTH
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
P
9
9
V
I
I
I
.
a
S
SEX. SEWE
R
L
I
N
E
E
E
EX. WATER MAIN
E
X
.
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
ET
C
W W
W
W
W
8070
8
0
5
0
8050
8
0
5
0
8058
8056
8054
8052
8060
±14'-6"
±
1
1
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
1
7
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
DO
O
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
I
R
C
L
E
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
UTILITY
PEDISTALS
SEWER
MANHOLE
64' P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
A
D
AND
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
SEWER
MANHOLE
STEPS
CONC.
CONC.
STEPS
(TYP.)
ELEC.
TRANSFORMER
(BLDG.G)
(BLDG.F)
IN
V
CP 100 (PK NAIL)
8
0
4
8
.
0
7
8051.66
8
0
5
0
.
5
8
8052.
3
0
80
5
0
.
8
2
80
5
0
.
4
6
8051.47
SS
(64' W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
(64'
W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
C
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
C
O
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
ETC
S
W
A
L
E
SH
E
D
2
0
"
C
M
P
CO
N
C
.
W
A
L
K
EDGE ASPHALT
CONC
.
W
A
L
K
NOTE:
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0" = SITE ELEVATION 8051.50 FT
±8051.9
2
±8050.
7
9
8052.00
80
5
2
.
0
0
8055.0
805
2
.
5
TW
8056.0
T
W
80
5
4
.
7
5
TW
8053.5
80
5
3
.
5
8053.25
PROPOSED
MAINTENANC
E
S
H
E
D
KEYNOTES
STIPPLING INDICATES NEW COMPACTED
ROADBASE PAVING OVER GRAVEL BASE.
PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE, TYPICAL.
EXISTING CONTOUR TO BE MODIFIED SHOWN
DASHED, TYPICAL.
NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL.
NEW MAINTENANCE SHED BUILDING.
NEW FLOW LINE (GRASSY SWALE).
RESTORE ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING DISTURBED
FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH NEW CITY APPROVED
SEED MIX..
EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVE BOXES AND SPIGOT
TO REMAIN. MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM
AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR NEW BUILDING.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1
2
2
2
3
3
8
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
80
5
1
.
5
8051.5
A0.02
15
'
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
MAINTENANCE SHED
SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTH
ARCHITECTURAL
NORTH
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
P
1
0
0
V
I
I
I
.
a
SS
S
S
S
S
S
SS
SSS
SS
S
S
S
SS
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
W W
W
W
W
E
E
CT
V
T&
E
T&
E
T&
E
T&
E
T&
E
T&
E
DYH
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
8110
80
6
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
5
0
8100
8080
8070
8060
8080
8090
805
0
8040
8060
8120
8070
8100
8110
8090
8050
8
0
4
0
8030
8030
80
2
0
8
0
2
0
8
0
1
0
79
9
0
80
0
0
8
0
5
0
8040
8
0
3
0
8080
8070
8100
8050
80
1
0
80
2
0
80
3
0
809
0
80
9
0
8
0
7
0
8
0
1
0
8000
8010
8
0
5
0
8060
± 192'-10"
±
1
7
2
'
-
1
"
±
4
2
2
'
-
8
"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"1
LOT 3
(PER 14 PLATS 41)
AREA = 362,869 º SQ. FT. (8.330º ACRES)
CASTLE RIDGE HOUSING SITE
DO
O
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
I
R
C
L
E
DO
O
L
I
T
T
L
E
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
S
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
R
O
A
D
DOOLITTLE
C
I
R
C
L
E
-SS-
LOT 24
CITY THOMAS PROPERTY
CITY THOMAS PROPERTY
LOT 25
LOT 2-PARCEL A
MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING
(PLAT BOOK 41 PAGE 41)
(PLAT BOOK 41 PAGE 41)
(PLAT BOOK 39 PAGE 67)
SS
SS
(BLDG.H)
SS
(BLDG.G)
(BLDG.F)
ST&
E
(BLDG.C)
T&E
JP T&ET&E
T&
E
(BLDG.A)
S
S
S
S
T&
E
T&
E
T
T
T
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
(BLDG.D)
W
W
T
W
(BLDG.E)
S
S
T
W
(BLDG.B)
T
T
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
T
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
S
S
S
S
T&
E
JP
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4
0
º
3
9
'
2
7
"
W
N
3
5
º
2
4
'
3
5
"
W
2
9
9
.
2
4
'
13
8
.
3
6
'
S
3
6
º
1
4
'
2
5
"
W
S 86º00'49" E
454.74'
12
9
.
9
8
'
(64'
W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
2
6
2
.
6
9
'
15
4
.
1
2
'
N
0
9
º
4
5
'
4
4
"
E
84
.
0
8
'
(6
0
'
W
I
D
E
R
/
W
)
N
2
4
º
2
5
'
5
2
"
E
71.
0
7
'
S
3
2
º
1
7
'
1
4
"
W
S
0
1
º
0
0
'
4
8
"
E
1
9
0
.
4
3
'
S
4
4
º
1
3
'
5
9
"
E
(64' WIDE
R
/
W
)
1
8
1
.
0
0
'
S
3
3
º
3
1
'
5
9
"
E
1
5
0
.
7
0
'
27
6
.
6
7
'
S
5
2
º
5
0
'
5
9
"
E
1
1
1
.
1
4
'
S
4
3
º
2
1
'
5
9
"
E
S
0
7
º
0
5
'
5
9
"
E
ASP
H
A
L
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
(
A
R
E
A
)
ET
C
ETC
PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE
SHED
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
20
'
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
64'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
A
D
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15
'
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15
'
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20
'
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
64' PRIVATE
R
O
A
D
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' SEWE
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
2
0
'
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
UTILITY SHED
SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTH
ARCHITECTURAL
NORTH
A0.03
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 06/08/15
MT
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
6/8/15
P
1
0
1
V
I
I
I
.
a
1
A3.01
1
A3.01
2
A3.01
2
A3.01
1
A3.01
1
A3.01
2
A3.01
2
A3.01
1 2 3
2
A
2
1 1
A
B
B
38
'
-
0
"
26'-0"
A B
22
A
1 1
B
9'-3 1/2" R.O.2'-1"9'-3 1/2" R.O.2'-1"
15
'
-
0
"
1'-7 1/2"1'-7 1/2"
KEYNOTES
FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2
A1.01
ROOF AND FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1
METAL ROOFING (SAME STYLE & COLOR AS ON
EXISTING BUILDINGS) OVER HIGH TEMPERATURE
ICE & WATER SHIELD. USE GAF VERSASHIELD
ROOFING UNDERLAYMENT BETWEEN METAL
ROOFING AND ICE & WATER SHIELD IF METAL
ROOFING DOES NOT HAVE A CLASS 'A' FIRE
RATING, TYPICAL.
FACTORY FINISHED GALVANZED/GALVALUME
SHEET METAL RIDGE CAP FLASHING TO MATCH
ROOFING, TYPICAL.
5" THICK SLOPED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB
OVER 6 MIL PLASTIC VAPOR BARRIR ON 4"
COMPACTED GRAVEL BASE ON COMPACTED SOIL.
DASHED LINE INDICATES ROOF OVERHANG
ABOVE., TYPICAL.
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
FACTORY FINISHED GALVANZED/GALVALUME
SHEET METAL ROOF EDGE FLASHING TO MATCH
ROOFING, TYPICAL OF ALL ROOF EDGES.
ROOF CANOPY BELOW (ABOVE DOOR).
DASHED LINE INDICATES FACE OF STUD WALL
BELOW.
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL.
WOOD FRAMED WALL (2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C.),
TYPICAL.
INSIDE FACE OF CONCRETE WALL BELOW.
CONCRETE WALL OF OFFSET 1 1/2" FROM FACE OF
STUDS.
LIGHT DASHED LINE INDICATES OUTSIDE FACE OF
FOUNDATION WALL BELOW, TYPICAL.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1
2
3
4
4
5
SL
O
P
E
10
0
'
-
0
"
ED
G
E
O
F
S
L
A
B
10
0
'
-
6
"
ED
G
E
O
F
S
L
A
B
6
7
6
8
1
4
9
11
11
12
12
12
10
10
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
MAINTENANCE SHED
P
1
0
2
V
I
I
I
.
a
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 102'-0"
8'
-
1
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
AB 12
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 103'-3"
6'
-
1
0
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 104'-6"
5'
-
7
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
1 2AB
ELEV. 100'-0"
10
'
-
1
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
EDGE OF
CONC. SLAB
ELEV. 96'-6"
3'
-
6
"
B.O FOOTING B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 96'-6"
5'
-
6
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 97'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 98'-11"
5'
-
7
"
±1
6
'
-
3
"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION
2
1
KEYNOTES
METAL ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING.
1x8 (VERIFY, MATCH EXISTING) HORIZONTAL
CHANNEL RUSTIC CEDAR SIDING, STAIN TO MATCH
OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE.
CEDAR FASCIA, STAIN, TYPICAL, MATCH EXISTING
BUILDINGS.
CEDAR DOOR TRIM, STAIN, TYPICAL, MATCH
EXISTING BUILDINGS.
CEDAR CORNER TRIM, STAIN, TYPICAL, MATCH
EXISTING BUILDINGS.
ENTRY DOOR.
INSULATED SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR
RIDGE CAP FLASHING TO MATCH METAL ROOFING,
MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGS
GALVANIZED/GALVLUME FACTORY FINISHED
SHEET METAL FLASHING TO COVER INSULATION,
EXTEND 6" MINIMUM BELOW GRADE, TYPICAL
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT, MATCH EXISTING
BUILDINGS.
EXTERIOR WALL MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE
SPECIFICATION BELOW.
DASHED LINE INDICATES TOP OF EXISTING GRADE.
ALONG BUILDING WALL, TYPICAL.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
23
8
6 7
5
4
5
9
9
18
1
3
1
19
9
7 4
9
3
10 10
1111
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE
MINKA GROUP MODEL 8102-A138-L KIRKHAM
11" WIDE IN ASPEN BRONZE FINISH
9
12
12
12
6
12
6
12
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A2.01
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
REVIEW 05/27/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
MAINTENANCE SHED
P
1
0
3
V
I
I
I
.
a
A4.01
1
A4.01
2
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 102'-0"
8'
-
1
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 103'-3"
VA
R
I
E
S
TOP PLATE
ELEV. VARIES
AB
1'-0"1'-0"
12
1'-0"1'-0"
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 104'-6"
5'
-
7
"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
ELEV. 100'-0"
VA
R
I
E
S
TOP PLATE
ELEV. VARIES
EDGE OF
CONC. SLAB
3'-0"
ELEV. 96'-6"
B.O. FOOTING
3
'
-
6
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 97'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 96'-6"
5'
-
6
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 98'-11"
5'
-
7
"
NOTES:
1. ALL FIBER BATT INSULATION SHALL BE FORMALDEHYDE FREE.
2. CONTINUOUS RIGID FOAM WALL INSULATION SHALL BE 1 1/2" DOW STYROFOAM BRAND SCOREBOARD EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM
INSULATION WITH R-5 PER INCH THERMALRESISTANCE VALUE.
3. DRAINAGE/INSULATION BOARD SHALL BE 3 1/2" THICK TREMCO WARM-N-DRI BOARD.
4. NAIL BASE ROOF INSULATION PANELS SHALL BE GAF THERMA-CAL PANELS
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION
6 6
12 12
INSULATION SCHEDULE
R-15 INSULATION/DRAINAGE BOARD
EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALLS R-26.5 TOTAL: R-7.5 CONTINUOUS RIGID FOAM INSULATION ON EXTERIOR + R-19 FIBER BATT CAVITY INSULATION
ALL NON-VENTILATED ROOFS R-27.5 5" THICK NAIL BASE POLYISOCYANURATE RIGID INSULATION
LOCATIONTYPE
A
B
C CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS
INSULATION TYPE 'A',
SEE SCHEDULE
INSULATION TYPE 'B',
SEE SCHEDULE
INSULATION TYPE 'C',
SEE SCHEDULE
INSULATION TYPE 'B',
SEE SCHEDULE
INSULATION TYPE 'A',
SEE SCHEDULE
INSULATION TYPE 'C',
SEE SCHEDULE
DOOR SCHEDULE
1 A STEEL1 3/4"FACTORY PAINT WOOD STAIN8'-0"9'-0"TRACK, ELECTRIC OPERATOR,
WEATHERSTRIPPING
- -- -- -- -
MARK TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT THICKNESS MATERIAL HARDWARE SETFINISHFRAMEFINISHHEADSILL COMMENTSJAMB
2
3 A STEEL1 3/4"WOOD STAIN8'-0"9'-0"TRACK, ELECTRIC OPERATOR,
WEATHERSTRIPPING
- -- -- -- -
B 3'-0"8'-0"1 3/4"WOOD/GLASS STAIN WOOD STAIN - -- -- -- -
1 -
NOTES:
1.
HARDWARE SETS:
DOOR TYPES:
TYPE 'A': INSULATED SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR
TYPE 'B': HALF GLASS WOOD DOOR
FACTORY PAINT
BUILDING SECTIONS
A3.01
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
MAINTENANCE SHED
P
1
0
4
V
I
I
I
.
a
1"
METAL ROOFING OVER HIGH TEMPERATURE
ICE & WATER SHIELD
2x8 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2"
1'-0"
4"
24 GA. FACTORY
FINISHED GALVANIZED
SHEET METAL FLASHING
2x6 OUTRIGGER
1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE
PLYWOOD ROOF
SHEATHING
METAL ROOFING
HIGH TEMPERATURE ICE & WATER
SHIELD
5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE
PLYWOOD ROOF
SHEATHING
2"
4"
2x8 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2x6 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2x6 NAILING CURB
24 GAUGE FACTORY
FINISHED GALVANIZED
SHEET METAL FLASHING
1x8 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2x6 OUTRIGGER
NAIL BASE INSULATION PANEL
2x8 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2x6 SUB-FASCIA
24 GAUGE FACTORY
FINISHED GALVANIZED
SHEET METAL FLASHING
1x T&G CEDAR SOFFIT
BOARDS
2x6 OUTRIGGER
1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD
ROOF SHEATHING
HIGH TEMPERATURE ICE
& WATER SHIELD
METAL ROOFING
HALF-ROUND FACTORY
FINISHED GALVANIZED
SHEET METAL GUTTER
12"
1/4"
2x6 R/S CEDAR TRIM
1x8 R/S CEDAR TRIM
2x6 NAILING
CURB
3SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
TYPICAL ROOF EAVE
4SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
TYPICAL ROOF RAKE
5SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
ENTRY ROOF EAVE
A4.01
3
A4.01
4
A4.01
5
ELEV. 100'-0"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. VARIES
VA
R
I
E
S
T.O. CONC. WALL
ELEV. 102'-0"
TOP PLATE
ELEV. 110'-1"
8'
-
1
"
1
B
1'-0"
1'-0"
EDGE OF
CONC. SLAB
ELEV. 96'-6"
B.O. FOOTING
3'
-
6
"
B.O. FOOTING
ELEV. 96'-6"
5'
-
6
"
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
RIGID INSULATION, SEE INSULATION
SCHEDULE
1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD
WALL SHEATHING
FIBER BATT INSULATION, SEE
INSULATION SCHEDULE
INTERIOR WALL FINISH MATERIAL
POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
FOUNDATION WALL
REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE
DRAINPIPE (WITH FILTER SOCK)
AND FREE-DRAINING
GRANULAR MATERIAL
WRAP GRAVEL IN FILTER
FABRIC, TYPICAL
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
RIGID INSULATION, SEE INSULATION
SCHEDULE
1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD
WALL SHEATHING
FIBER BATT INSULATION, SEE
INSULATION SCHEDULE
6
12
2x6 OUTRIGGER
INTERIOR WALL FINISH
MATERIAL
ROOF TRUSS
HALF GLASS ENTRY DOOR
4" ROAD BASE
2x8 OUTRIGGER
2x FASCIA BOARDS
1x FASCIA BOARD
FACTORY FINISHED SHEET METAL
FLASHING
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
WALL SECTION1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
WALL SECTION2
METAL ROOFING OVER HIGH
TEMPERATURE ICE & WATER SHIELD
NAIL BASE INSULATION PANEL
5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD
ROOF SHEATHING
INSULATION/DRAINAGE BOARD, SEE
INSULATION SCHEDULE
4" FREE DRAINING GRAVEL BASE ON
COMPACTED SOIL
POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FOOTING
2x8 OUTRIGGER
FACTORY FINISHED SHEET METAL
FLASHING
4" FREE DRAINING GRAVEL
BASE ON COMPACTED SOIL
WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS
A4.01
CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS
UTILITY SHED
Sheet number:
Sheet title:
Project:
Print Date:
Drawn By:
Issue:Date:Revision:Date:
LU SUBMITTAL 05/29/15
MS
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611
voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com
5/29/15
P
1
0
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
CC and C-1 1st Reading, July 13, 2015
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: CC and C-1 Code Amendment
Ordinance 25, Series of 2015
DATE: July 13, 2015
(PH August 10, 2015)
SUMMARY :
The attached Ordinance is for amendments to the City’s Land Use Code to address legally
established free-market residential units in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1)
zone districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 1 st reading of proposed code amendments related to the CC and C-1 zone districts.
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 second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2013, City Council approved a code amendment to the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) zone districts that eliminated free-market residential units as an allowed use in
these zones (Ordinance 25, Series 2012). This had the effect of rendering all existing free-
market residential units as non-conforming uses. This meant that existing free-market residential
units could not expand, and were subject to certain limits on investment and maintenance in the
unit.
Recently, a group of owners from the Concept 600 building approached the Community
Development Department to request relief from the prohibition on free-market residential uses,
particularly the investment limitation. A number of owners in that building and others have had
difficulty finding bank financing as well as getting homeowners insurance because their units are
considered non-conforming.
P106
VIII.b
CC and C-1 1st Reading, July 13, 2015
Page 2 of 2
OVERVIEW:
Staff proposes a code amendment that would allow free-market residential units legally
established or approved prior to the adoption of Ordinance 25, Series 2012 in the CC and C-1
zones. No new free-market residential units could be established in these zones. Based on
Council feedback during the public hearing on the Policy Resolution, staff has included the
ability to expand existing units up to the previous unit size cap of 2,000 sq ft of net livable (2,500
sq ft with the landing of an historic TDR). Floor area, however, is proposed to be limited to what
exists today.
Staff believes this change is consistent with the direction of the original CC and C-1 code
amendments, while recognizing that most existing free-market residential units are not likely to
be eliminated by their owners. This code amendment would enable existing owners to maintain
their units, and would eliminate the code-related financing obstacles. The code amendment
would allow internal expansions or combination of units, but would not allow additional floor
area.
REFERRALS & OUTREACH:
A meeting was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain feedback on the
proposed code amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission supported the code amendment
as proposed by staff. A copy of the meeting minutes is attached as Exhibit C. In addition, staff
has worked with the Concept 600 owners and representatives. City Council approved a Policy
Resolution on this code amendment, attached as Exhibit D.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2015, on first reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – CC and C-1 Code Redlines
Exhibit C – P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit D – Approved Policy Resolution
P107
VIII.b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
First Reading Ordinance 25, Series 2015
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE No. 25
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.710.140 – COMMERCIAL CORE (CC) ZONE DISTRICT, AND CHAPTER
26.710.150 – COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE DISTRICT, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE.
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 Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1)
Zone Districts; 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 June 22, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.64, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Land Use Code for the CC and C-1 Zone Districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.710.140 – Commercial
Core (CC) Zone District and Chapter 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1) Zone District; 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, 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 26.710.140(B)(3) – Commercial Core (CC), Permitted uses, Uses allowed on
second floors , shall be amended as follows:
3. Uses allowed on second floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare
lodge, affordable multi-family housing.
Section 2: Chapter 26.710.140(B)(5) – Commercial Core (CC), Permitted uses, Uses allowed on
P108
VIII.b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
First Reading Ordinance 25, Series 2015
Page 2 of 5
third floors , shall be amended as follows:
5. Uses allowed on third floors: Lodging and associated commercial uses, only when the
entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses.
Section 3: Chapter 26.710.140(B) – Commercial Core (CC), Permitted uses , shall be amended
to add the following subsections:
6. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were legally established
(having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a
Development Order) prior to Ordinance 25 (Series of 2012). No new Free-Market
Residential Units may be established.
7. Home Occupations and Vacation Rentals in legally established residential units are
permitted on any building level.
Section 4: Chapter 26.710.140(D)(12) – Commercial Core (CC), Dimensional requirements,
Floor area ratio (FAR) , shall be amended to add the following subsection:
e. Free-Market multi-family housing : Limited to the existing FAR. No expansion to FAR
shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such residential
use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to
occupy a greater floor area.
Section 4: Chapter 26.710.140(D) – Commercial Core (CC), Dimensional requirements , shall be
amended as follows:
[Subsections 1 – 13 are unchanged, except as outlined above ]
14. Net Livable Area (square feet):
a) Affordable multi-family housing : No limitation.
b) Free-Market Residential : Overall net livable for a building or project area is
limited to the existing net livable square footage. No expansion to overall net
livable area shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in net livable area
occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use
shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater net livable area. Individual
units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
i. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject to
the net livable size limitations herein.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.470 for procedures related to combining
and demolition of residential units.
ii. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by
extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates
(“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following:
P109
VIII.b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
First Reading Ordinance 25, Series 2015
Page 3 of 5
1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate
that is extinguished.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple
units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by
transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e.,
no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring
development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for
extinguishing certificates.
15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total free-market residential net livable area shall be
no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in
Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
Section 5: Chapter 26.710.150(B) – Commercial (C-1), Permitted uses, shall be amended as
follows:
[Subsection 1 shall be unchanged ]
2. Uses allowed on second floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing.
3. Uses allowed on third floors: Lodging and associated commercial uses, only when the
entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses.
4. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were legally established
(having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a
Development Order) prior to Ordinance 25 (Series of 2012). No new Free-Market
Residential Units may be established.
5. Home Occupations and Vacation Rentals in legally established residential units are
permitted on any building level.
Section 6: Chapter 26.710.150(D)(12) – Commercial (C-1), Dimensional requirements, Floor
area ratio (FAR) , shall be amended to add the following subsection:
f. Free-Market multi-family housing : Limited to the existing FAR. No expansion to FAR
shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such residential
use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to
occupy a greater floor area.
P110
VIII.b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
First Reading Ordinance 25, Series 2015
Page 4 of 5
Section 7: Chapter 26.710.150(D) – Commercial (C-1), Dimensional requirements , shall be
amended as follows:
[Subsections 1 – 13 are unchanged, except as outlined above ]
14. Net Livable Area (square feet):
a) Affordable multi-family housing : No limitation.
b) Free-Market Residential : Overall net livable for a building or project area is
limited to the existing net livable square footage. No expansion to overall net
livable area shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in net livable area
occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use
shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater net livable area. Individual
units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
i. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject to
the net livable size limitations herein.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.470 for procedures related to combining
and demolition of residential units.
ii. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by
extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates
(“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following:
4) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate
that is extinguished.
5) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple
units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by
transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e.,
no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per unit).
6) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring
development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for
extinguishing certificates.
15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total free-market residential net livable area shall
be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described
in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
Section 8:
Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 9: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
P111
VIII.b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
First Reading Ordinance 25, Series 2015
Page 5 of 5
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 10: 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 11: 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 12:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the __ th 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 ____________, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY , adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P112
VIII.b
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
CC and C-1, 1st Reading – 7/13/2015
Page 1 of 2
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 is not in conflict with any applicable portion of Title 26. It amends the
CC and C-1 zone districts to allow legally established free-market residential units (having
received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a Development Order)
to remain in these zones. It does not allow increases in floor area for the use, nor does it allow
new residential units. 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 allowing existing free-market residential units to
be maintained. Despite the code prohibition on free-market residential units, it is highly unlikely
that these units will disappear. This code amendment clarifies the 2013 CC and C1 zone districts
changes (Ordinance 12, Series 2012) by maintaining the prohibition on new free-market
residential units and expansion of existing units, while enabling regular maintenance and upkeep
of existing free-market residential units. This is consistent with the AACP goals of creating
certainty in the land use process (pg 27) for these homeowners, as well as controlling and
limiting the location and massing of free-market homes (pg 25). Potential benefits to making the
use conforming include removing the owners’ disincentive to invest in the upkeep of their
properties, and removing the barrier that a nonconforming designation has to attaining financing
for such improvements. The existing prohibition on new free market residential uses would
remain.
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 objective of this code amendment is to enable residents to maintain their existing residential
units located in the CC and C-1 zone districts. Staff finds this objective is compatible with Aspen’s
community character, the land use code, and the public interest.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P113
VIII.b
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
CC and C-1, 1st Reading – 7/13/2015
Page 2 of 2
P114
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit B: Land Use Code Redlines
26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use
of land for retail, service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use
buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central
business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable
housing, free-market housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and
tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are
appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted
on ground floors.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core
(CC) Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and
building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Lodging uses, only
when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial use.
2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building
elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Lodging uses, only when
the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial use. Office uses
are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty
(40) feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This
prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north
of Main Street. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor.
Automobile drive-through service is prohibited.
3. Uses allowed on second floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging,
timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing., home occupations and vacation
rentals in new residential units and any residential unit established prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 25 (Series of 2012).
4. Uses allowed on basement, ground and second floors: Retail and restaurant uses,
neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses,
recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures,
storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and
incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and
farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section
15.04.350(B).
5. Uses allowed on third floors: Lodging and associated commercial uses, only when the
entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses, and vacation
rentals in residential units established prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 25
(Series of 2012).
6. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were legally
established (having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or
P115
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 2 of 8
applied for a Development Order) prior to Ordinance 25 (Series of 2012). No new
Free-Market Residential Units may be established.
5.7.Home Occupations and Vacation Rentals in legally established residential units are
permitted on any building level.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in
Chapter 26.425:
1. Gasoline service station.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to
all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height (feet):
a) For properties located on the south side of a Street:
(1) Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two story elements of a building.
b) For properties located on the north side of a Street:
(1) Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two story elements of a building.
(2) Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be
increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter
26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives
and Guidelines.
(a) Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements
and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not
an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
(b) The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of
the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to
review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging
P116
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 3 of 8
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. City Council may
approve third story conditioned space that exceeds this footprint limitation
if the proposed development is compatible with the community character
and is in harmony with the public interest.
9. Minimum floor to floor heights:
a) Minimum First Floor to Second Floor floor-to-floor: Thirteen (13) feet.
b) Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c) Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling
height of the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up
to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject
to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public
amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum
FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 2:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child
care center and similar uses: 2.75:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 2.5:1 if the individual lodge units on
the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
d.e. Free-Market multi-family housing: Limited to the existing FAR. No expansion to
FAR shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such
residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be
enlarged to occupy a greater floor area.
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
14. Net Livable Area (square feet):
a) Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
b) Free-Market Residential: Overall net livable for a building or project area is
limited to the existing net livable square footage. No expansion to overall net
livable area shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in net livable area
occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use
shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater net livable area. Individual
units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
P117
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 4 of 8
i. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject
to the net livable size limitations herein.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.470 for procedures related to combining
and demolition of residential units.
ii. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by
extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates
(“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following:
1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate
that is extinguished.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple
units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by
transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area
(i.e., no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per
unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring
development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for
extinguishing certificates.
13.
14.15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total free-market residential net livable area
shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses
described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
P118
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 5 of 8
26.710.150 Commercial (C-1).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the
establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities
for affordable residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential dwelling units. A
transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been
implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the commercial
core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a separate chapter in the commercial
design guidelines
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1)
Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on basement, ground and second floors: Retail and restaurant uses,
neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, lodging uses, office uses, arts, cultural and
civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and
breakfast, accessory uses and structures, uses and building elements necessary and
incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage
accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is
obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use
of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited.
2. Uses allowed on second floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, home
occupations, and vacation rentals in new residential units and any residential unit
established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 25, 2012.
3. Uses allowed on third floors: Lodging and associated commercial uses, only when the
entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses, and vacation
rentals in residential units established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 25, 2012.
4. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were legally established
(having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a
Development Order) prior to Ordinance 25 (Series of 2012). No new Free-Market
Residential Units may be established.
3.5.Home Occupations and Vacation Rentals in legally established residential units are
permitted on any building level.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter
26.425:
1. Affordable multi-family housing or home occupations on the ground floor.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet):
P119
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 6 of 8
a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height:
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses:
i. For properties located on the south side of a Street:
1. Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two story elements of a building.
ii. For properties located on the north side of a Street:
1. Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. Thirty-six (36)
feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to thirty-
eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and
the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines.
2. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and
other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
P120
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 7 of 8
3. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the
gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to
review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. City Council may
approve third story conditioned space that exceeds this footprint limitation if
the proposed development is compatible with the community character and is
in harmony with the public interest.
9. Minimum floor heights:
a. Minimum First Floor to Second Floor floor-to-floor height: Eleven (11) feet.
b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of
the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.5:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses):
Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6
Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not
permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development.
f. Free-Market multi-family housing: Limited to the existing FAR. No expansion to
FAR shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such
residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be
enlarged to occupy a greater floor area.
P121
VIII.b
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 8 of 8
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
13.
14. Net Livable Area (square feet):
a) Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
b) Free-Market Residential: Overall net livable for a building or project area is
limited to the existing net livable square footage. No expansion to overall net
livable area shall be permitted. Any subsequent reduction in net livable area
occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use
shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater net livable area. Individual
units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
iii. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject to
the net livable size limitations herein.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.470 for procedures related to combining
and demolition of residential units.
iv. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by
extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates
(“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following:
4) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate
that is extinguished.
5) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple
units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by
transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e.,
no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per unit).
6) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring
development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for
extinguishing certificates.
14.15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total free-market residential net livable area
shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses
described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
P122
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Mr. Gibbs added that allowing houses to timeshare may encourage higher occupancy which he
supports. Mr. Mesirow added he would support changes to allow higher occupancy as well.
CC / C-1 Clarifications
Ms. Levy provided the background regarding the impacts to free market residential units located in CC
and C-1 zone districts with the enactment of Ordinance 25, series 2012. Permitted uses on the fourth
floor are not addressed in the code, despite the existence of several buildings with four floors above
ground level in both districts. The City has received requests from owners of the fourth floor units who
wish to upgrade or expand their units. The current code allows the units to continue to exist, but
consider them units of non-conforming use and therefore subject to the non-conforming portion of the
code. The owners of the units experience difficulties obtaining financing and building permits based on
the non-conforming status.
Staff is proposing to amend the code to clarify the free market residential units established prior to
Ordinance 25, series 2012 continue in CC and C-1 as conforming as long as they do not expand.
Currently there is a 10% cap for a 12 month period to improve or maintain a non-conforming unit.
One of the properties impacted is the Concept 600 building located at 600 E Main St.
Mr. Bendon explained the non-conforming portion of the code needs a complete review and upgrades.
He also explained at the time Ordinance 25, series 2015 was approved, emphasis was placed on
reducing height to 28 ft and eliminating new penthouses and not necessarily realizing the impacts to
existing units. He is aware there is a substantial number of units impacted by this ordinance. He also
feels the 10% cap does not make sense for the residential units.
Mr. Bendon then stated this was not technically a public hearing but was aware of members of the
public at the meeting who may want to provide comment if allowed.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for members of the public to provide comment if they wished.
Mr. Jim Smith lives at the Concept 600 building is also president of the homeowners association. He
stated he became aware of the issues when he attempted to obtain a building permit six months ago to
expand their porch. He stated they would like to see the long existing free market resident units
recognized as conforming. He reviewed old meetings in an effort to determine the focus of the efforts to
approve Ordinance 25, series 2012 which he feels focused on future development instead of the existing
units. He also feels it was an unintended consequence. He would like the code to be clarified to allow
units to be maintained, upgraded and improved as needed as well as allow other provisions available
prior to the ordinance.
Ms. Lindsey Smith also lives at the Concept 600 building. She described the type of tenants in the
building including long term renters, short term renters, and locals. The free market units are not
separated from the renters. She feels the building represents a cross section of the visitors and residents
of Aspen. Many improvements have been completed to the building to meet safety and ADA
requirements. She reiterated the same requests as Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bill Sterling is a commercial user of the building as of 1978. He is troubled by the non-conforming
status and feels it may negatively impact the real estate market values and impede financing. He would
like the ordinance to be amended to allow flexibility to maintain and upgrade the units. He feels the
ordinance had unintended consequences.
Page 4
P123
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Mr. Jody Edwards represents the unit owners and feels Staff’s proposal is a good first step. He is
concerned the owners will not be able to expand their units. As examples, he stated owners may want
to expand their deck to the near wall, combine w adjacent units or extend the top roof to cover their
deck. He noted some owners had completed similar projects in the past.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff for rebuttal.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff wants to focus on making the units conforming to stay with the intent of the
ordinance. The owners have other mechanisms to utilize to pursue expansions or changes in use for the
units.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for comments from the commissioners.
Ms. Tygre does not like to change code that only affects one property but feels the ordinance was over-
reaching. She feels it is best to keep the scope narrow at this point in time. Mr. Gibbs agreed.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the intent of City Council was to cease development of larger penthouses. Mr.
Bendon stated he doesn’t expect the units to amortize away and feels at the time the ordinance was
approved, the focus was on the impact the penthouses had on the commercial use of the buildings
along with height, mass and scale.
Mr. McNellis asked how the 10% cap was determined. Mr. Bendon stated it is an outdated percentage
and Ms. Levy added that she found other cities are eliminating the cap altogether.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff will present options to City Council to consider to move forward.
Land Use Code Applicability
Ms. Garrow described the proposed code amendments to address minor amendments, major
amendments and multi-step processes.
P&Z supports staff’s recommendations.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
Page 5
P124
VIII.b
Resolution No. 64, Series 2015
CC and C-1 code amendment
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 64
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR THE CC AND C1 ZONE
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the CC and C-1 zone
districts; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with the Planning and Zoning Commission and
certain existing free-market residential property owners; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on June 22, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 64, Series of 2015, by
a three to one (3-1) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
City Council hereby directs staff to draft and pursue a code amendment to the CC and C-1
Zone Districts. The objective of this code amendment is to enable residents to maintain
their existing free-market residential units located in the CC and C-1 zone districts. The
prohibition on new free-market residential units shall remain in place.
Section 2:
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 resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
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
P125
VIII.b
Resolution No. 64, Series 2015
CC and C-1 code amendment
Page 2 of 2
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 22 day of June, 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P126
VIII.b
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015
RE: Obermeyer Place – Rezoning and Minor Amendment to a Planned
Development Project Review Approval, First Reading of Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 2015
APPLICANT/OWNERS: Obermeyer Place
Condominium Association
REPRESENTATIVE: Jerome Simecek,
Director of Operations
LOCATION: Obermeyer Pl., 601 Rio Grande
Place (mgmt. office), Aspen, CO 81611
CURRENT ZONING & USE: SCI, with a few
units that are permitted both SCI and NC
uses. This parcel contains a mix of
residential, commercial, service and
industrial uses, as well as a fitness club.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The property will
continue the same mix of uses. The
applicant is requesting a zoning change
from SCI to NC, and a PD amendment to
continue SCI uses.
SUMMARY: Obermeyer Pl. was approved in
2003 and zoned SCI with a series of office
and limited NC uses. The SCI zone district
is very limiting in its allowed uses, while
the NC zone district allows for more general
categories of uses, including commercial.
Since the project’s opening, many owners of
Obermeyer Pl. units have struggled to find
tenants with businesses that fit the list of specific
uses of the SCI zone district. The result is empty
units, contributing to the lack of vitality in this
area. Based on this ten-year history and City
Council’s goal to reinvigorate the SCI properties,
Staff encouraged the Obermeyer Pl. owners to
apply for this rezoning. Staff supports rezoning
the project to NC as the expansion in uses will
increase the likelihood that vacant units can be
filled. Amending the PD to permit SCI uses will
ensure no existing use becomes non-conforming,
and will still allow those industrial uses to locate
here.
On May 26th P&Z reviewed this case in a public
hearing and provided a recommendation of denial
for the rezoning and PD amendment. The
Commission recommended Council examine and
amend the entire SCI zone district instead.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the
request to rezone the SCI units within the
Obermeyer Place PD to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), and to amend the PD to permit
SCI uses. NC zoning will allow this project to
best meet community needs, fill dormant spaces
with productive businesses and is not expected to
provoke redevelopment.
P127
VIII.c
Page 2 of 5
Figure B: Location of subject property
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
Rezoning – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.060. Staff has obtained a referral
from the P&Z. City Council is the final review authority in this matter.
Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval – pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.445.110. City Council is the final review authority in this matter.
PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND:
Obermeyer Place is located just north of the
commercial core between Main St. and Rio
Grande Pl. The parcel measures approximately
2.6 acres in size, and contains five separate
buildings with a mix of uses.
The zoning for the property is Service,
Commercial, Industrial (SCI) with a Planned
Development (PD) overlay. The planned
development approval allows for an 850 sq. ft.
space and the outdoor seating area outside of
building #5 for either SCI or Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) uses. Additionally, the
approval lists eight spaces that are considered to
be legally established non-conformities for the
SCI zone district. These spaces are all office
uses, with the exception of the fitness club.
These non-conforming uses existed prior to the
redevelopment of Obermeyer Pl. and were allowed to be maintained within the redeveloped PD.
The Obermeyer Pl. PD was granted final approval in 2003 via Ordinance No. 18. The final plat
was recorded in June, 2004.
Obermeyer Place was envisioned as a vibrant area adjacent to the downtown core that provided a
place for service-oriented and industrial businesses, surface and underground parking for public
and private needs, free-market and deed-restricted housing, and that served as a link between the
river and the city’s core area.
RECENT HISTORY: In 2013 the City Council directed Staff to examine the SCI zoned areas
within the City and determine whether these areas are functioning successfully. In response,
Staff performed public outreach and held community meetings to gauge owners’ experience in
these locations, and their potential interest in rezoning. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) was
found to be the most logical zone district that would reflect the current needs and uses of the
tenants, while allowing for more variety of uses.
A high level of interest in change was found at Obermeyer Pl. where owners expressed difficulty
in attracting businesses to the area that concur with the zoning. As a planned development,
P128
VIII.c
Page 3 of 5
Obermeyer Pl. serves as an excellent example of where rezoning may work. The dimensions of
structures are set by the PD, and there is no threat at this point of redevelopment. Respondents
overwhelmingly expressed that an expansion of allowed uses may be the key factor in
revitalizing the area and allowing perpetually vacant spaces to be filled.
CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is interested in changing the underlying zoning of
Obermeyer Place from SCI to NC. The applicant is further proposing an amendment to the PD
approvals to allow the uses associated with the SCI zone district within any unit in Obermeyer
Pl. The rezoning will expand the allowed uses, while the PD amendment will prevent the
creation of non-conforming uses for existing businesses that are current tenants of Obermeyer
Place, for example, the wood shop. It will also still allow for all SCI uses to locate in this area.
P&Z REFERRAL: On May 26, 2015 this matter went before P&Z in a public hearing to provide
a recommendation to City Council. After a lengthy discussion, P&Z provided a recommendation
of denial for the current requests, recommending the City Council revisit and amend the entire
SCI zone district code language to determine changes that might be made to resolve the issues
presented in this current land use case.
STAFF COMMENTS: The SCI zone district permits a very narrow set of uses (see Exhibit A).
For example, typesetting and coffee roasting are two of the permitted uses, while office use is
not. This specificity of uses creates a burden on Obermeyer Pl. unit owners to find tenants with
businesses that fit within the limited
list of uses allowed within the SCI
zone district.
Staff regularly receives requests
from business owners who are
interested in locating at Obermeyer
Pl, but often these requests are
denied as the business does not fit
within the allowed uses. Exhibit B
to this memo outlines the common
requests that have been denied in
recent years within all SCI zoned
areas. This has had the unintended
consequence of many units
remaining vacant for long periods of
time.
Through the years a number of
businesses have considered spaces
within Obermeyer Pl. Aspen
Medical Care physician’s offices required an amendment to the SCI zoning. The Aspen Police
Dept. has recently located in one of the Obermeyer buildings, which required a temporary use
approval. The nature of Obermeyer Pl. is changing and more office-type businesses are seeking
success in this area. Rather than consider these on a case by case basis, Staff suggests changing
the zoning to allow such uses and recognize the progression of industries. For instance, the
Figure C: Image of vacant unit at Obermeyer Place
P129
VIII.c
Page 4 of 5
current evolution of typesetting, an allowed use in SCI, may now appear more as an office, with
a desk and computer as its primary tools.
In response to the review criteria for rezoning, Staff does not anticipate any changes to demands
on public facilities that was not originally planned for with the development of Obermeyer Pl,
nor will the rezoning exceed the availability of current public facilities. Staff does not anticipate
any significant adverse impacts to the natural environment as a result of this proposal; the zoning
change would merely allow an expansion of uses in an area that was constructed to handle such
usage.
The NC zone district permits uses such as retail, office and public uses among others. Rezoning
the property to NC increases the likelihood of bringing more businesses to the area. The
proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character and in harmony
with the public interest and intent of the Land Use Code.
The surrounding zone districts include C-1 and CC, which are both commercial zone districts,
R/MF/PD which is a residential parcel, R-6/PD which contains the Fraternal Order of the Eagles,
and PUB/PD which is the Rio Grande Park area. Commercial and residential uses are permitted
within the NC zone district. The Fraternal Order of the Eagles is located on a site that would
typically be used residentially; however, this fraternal club is also compatible with the
commercial uses found in the NC zone district. The Rio Grande Park to the north provides an
excellent buffer from the mix of uses associated with the NC zone district, and the level of
vitality that was initially anticipated for Obermeyer Pl. Staff finds that the rezoning will
maintain compatibility between Obermeyer Pl. and the surrounding parcels.
The majority of the criteria related to the Minor PD Amendment do not apply to this application.
The Obermeyer Pl. Planned Development Guide sets the dimensions of the structures on the site
which is not proposed to be changed with this application. Staff finds that the proposal to
maintain SCI uses in conjunction with the proposed rezoning will aid in a significant community
goal, which is to enhance the vitality of this region and allow for uses that are difficult to locate
within the city.
When it was first created, Obermeyer Pl., with its underlying SCI zoning, was expected to
function as a vibrant, essential part of the city that allowed for uses that would otherwise be
difficult to locate elsewhere, potentially forcing them out of the Aspen community. However,
the demand for industrial types of businesses has not been strong. The exclusionary zoning of
the SCI zone district’s uses has provided too narrow an industry selection, and has not brought in
the businesses once imaged. Staff believes that by opening up the allowed uses in the way that
the NC zone district does Obermeyer Pl. has a better chance at becoming that successful, vibrant
community space that was originally planned.
While the SCI zone district code language may benefit from an overhaul, Staff finds the
functionality of Obermeyer Pl. to still more closely align with the permitted uses within the NC
zone district.
Staff finds all relevant criteria regarding rezoning and an amendment to the Planned
Development approvals to be met, and recommends City Council approval.
P130
VIII.c
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2015 upon first reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A1 – Zone Comparison Overview
Exhibit A2 – Land Use Code Sections SCI and NC
EXHIBIT B – Denied requests for locating in the SCI zone district
EXHIBIT C – Results of Neighborhood Meeting in Obermeyer Pl.
EXHIBIT D – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E – P&Z Resolution No. 9, Series of 2015
EXHIBIT F – Application
P131
VIII.c
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 3
Ordinance No. 26
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR REZONING AND MINOR PD AMENDMENT FOR OBERMEYER
PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIVED AS ALL LANDS BETWEEN EAST BLEEKER
STREET AND RIO GRANDE PLACE, ALL LAND BORDERING EAST BLEEKER
STREET BETWEEN SPRING STREET AND RIO GRANDE PLACE, AND
PORTIONS OF RIO GRANDE PARK, AND MORE PRECISELY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel No. 273707324003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Obermeyer Place Condominium Associates (Applicant), represented by Jerome
Simecek, requesting the Aspen City Council approve a Rezoning and Minor PD
Amendment at Obermeyer Place; and,
WHEREAS, the Obermeyer Place COWOP PD was granted final approval via
Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003 by the Aspen City Council; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, an
application for Rezoning may be granted a recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions or denial by the Cit y Council at a duly noticed public hearing after receiving a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request
for Rezoning at a duly noticed public hearing on May 26, 2015 and has provided a
recommendation of denial by a vote 1 to 3 of the application (with one Commissioner in
support of the request) through P&Z Resolution No. 9, Series of 2015; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445.110 of the Land Use Code, a Minor PD
Amendment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council
at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and recommended approval of the applicant’s request to Rezone Obermeyer Place from
Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and recommended approval of the applicant’s request for a Minor PD Amendment that
will vary the uses to allow the continuation of SCI uses at Obermeyer Place; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request 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
P132
VIII.c
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 3
and considered public comment at a public hearing held on August 10, 2015 and
recommended approval of the Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the Rezoning and Minor PD
Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards.
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 OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: General Development Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves the following land use reviews: Rezoning
Obermeyer Place from Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), and a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval al lowing
Obermeyer Place to retain all SCI uses as an amendment to the Planned Development
(PD) approval.
Section 2:
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 Aspen 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 3:
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 4:
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.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of August, 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, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
P133
VIII.c
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of July, 2015.
_____________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attest:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Attached:
Exhibit A: Full legal description of property
P134
VIII.c
Exhibit A-1
Zone Comparison Overview
SCI NC
Min gross lot area (sf) 3,000 None
Min lot area per dwelling unit None None
Min lot width None None
Min front yard setback None 5'
Min side yard setback None 5'
Min rear yard setback None 5'
Max height 35' 28'
FAR Max 2.25:1 1.5:1
P135
VIII.c
1
Exhibit A-2
Land Use Code Sections
SCI and NC
26.710.160 Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district is to
preserve and enhance locally-serving, primarily non-retail small business areas to ensure a more
balanced permanent community; to protect the few remaining such small business parks
historically used primarily for light industrial uses, manufacturing, repair, storage and servicing
of consumer goods, with limited retail, showroom, or customer reception areas. The SCI zone
district contains uses that may not be appropriate in other zone districts or do not require or
generate high customer traffic volumes, and permits customary accessory uses.
B. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district. Each of the permitted uses may have, in
combination, a limited percent of the floor area, as noted below, devoted to retail sales,
showroom, or customer reception, and such uses shall be ancillary to the primary commercial
use. This floor area percentage may be increased through Special Review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.430.050, and according to the standards of Section
26.710.160(E)1.
1. SCI Uses which may use up to 100% of the floor area for retail sales, showroom, or
customer reception include the manufacturing, repair, customizing, servicing, detailing,
sales, and rental of consumer goods such as:
a. Building materials, components, hardware, fixtures, interior finishes and equipment.
b. Household appliances such as ranges, refrigerators, dishwashers, etc.
c. Automobiles and motorcycles, Motor-driven cycles, and Motorized bicycles,
including parts.
d. Non-motorized vehicles such as bicycles and river-related recreational items, for
rental or in combination with a service use related to guiding or touring.
e. Fabric and sewing supply.
2. SCI Uses which may use, in combination, up to 25% of the floor area for accessory retail
sales, showroom, or customer reception including the manufacturing, repair, alteration,
tailoring, and servicing of consumer goods such as, electronic equipment; floral
arrangements; furniture; clothing; or sporting goods:
a. Typesetting and printing, including copy center.
b. Photo processing laboratory.
c. Locksmith.
d. Post Office branch.
e. Shipping and receiving services.
P136
VIII.c
2
f. Internet auction consignment outlet
g. Laundromat.
h. Commercial dry cleaning.
i. Recycling center.
j. Artist studio.
k. Veterinary clinic.
l. Animal boarding facility.
m. Animal grooming establishment.
n. Brewery and brewing supply, with on-site alcoholic beverage consumption limited to
the hours of noon to 9 pm Mondays through Saturdays and noon through 6 pm on
Sundays and limited to six samples of six ounces, or four samples of six ounces and
one sample of 16 ounces, per person, per day; this consumption limitation to be
suspended for wholesale buyers.
o. Coffee roasting and supply
p. Commercial Kitchen or Bakery.
q. Design Studio, limited to the Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision.
r. Marijuana Cultivation Facility, which may include up to 25% of the floor space used
for a medical marijuana establishment or a retail marijuana establishment (i.e. sales).
s. Marijuana Product Manufacturing Facility, which may include up to 25% of the floor
space used for a medical marijuana establishment or a retail marijuana establishment
(i.e. sales).
t. Marijuana Testing Facility, which may include up to 25% of the floor space used for
a medical marijuana establishment or a retail marijuana establishment (i.e. sales).
3. SCI Uses which may use, in combination, up to 10% of the floor area for accessory retail
sales, showroom, or customer reception:
a. Building/landscape maintenance facility.
b. Automobile washing facility.
c. Warehousing and storage.
4. Primary Care Physician’s Office Uses permitted:
a. On Upper Floors, pursuant to Section 26.710.160 (D)11(b).
b. Limited to a cap of 3,500 square feet at the Obermeyer Place PD, upon execution of
an Insubstantial PD Amendment.
5. Permitted Accessory Uses:
a. Service yard accessory to a permitted use.
b. Sales and rental accessory and incidental to a permitted use.
P137
VIII.c
3
c. Accessory buildings and uses.
d. Home occupations.
e. Offices, accessory to a permitted or conditional use, not to exceed 10% of a
commercial unit.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district, subject to the procedures established in
Chapter 26.425.050 Procedures for Review, and the standards established in Section
26.710.160(F).
Under Section 26.710.160(C)1-3, the Commission shall establish the appropriate amount of floor
area to be devoted to retail sales, showroom, or customer reception for each conditional use
during the review, pursuant to the review standards of Section 26.710.160 (F)1.
Under Section 26.710.160(C)4-5, the Commission shall review the site plan to determine
compliance pursuant to the review standards of Section 26.710.160(F)2-3, and establish
conditions of approval as needed.
1. Consignment retail establishment.
2. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
3. Gasoline service station.
4. Affordable Multi-Family Housing on Upper Floors.
5. Free Market Multi-Family Housing on Upper Floors
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): 3,000
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement.
7. Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height: 35 feet.
9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No Requirement.
10. Pedestrian Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
P138
VIII.c
4
11. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to
a total maximum FAR of 2.25:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial Uses: 1.5:1.
b. Primary Care Physician’s Office uses: .25:1 FAR, only if a minimum of .75:1 FAR
of Commercial uses, listed in Section 26.710.160(B)1-3, exist on the same parcel.
c. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: .5:1.
d. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: .25:1, only if a minimum of .75:1 FAR of
Commercial Uses listed in Section 26.710.160(B)1-3 exist on the same parcel.
e. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: .5:1, only if a minimum of .75:1 FAR of
Commercial Uses listed in Section 26.710.160(B)1-3 exist on the same parcel, and a
minimum of .25:1 FAR of Primary Care Physician’s Office Uses exist on the same
parcel.
12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): 2,000 sq. ft. of net
livable area.
a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing
Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates (“certificate” or “certificates”),
subject to the following:
1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate that is
extinguished.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However,
the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is
2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e., no more than 500 additional square feet may
be applied per unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing
certificates.
E. Special Review Standards. Whenever the dimensional standards of a proposed
development within the SCI Zone District are subject to Special Review, the development
application shall be processed as a Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.050, and shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. To increase the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom, or
customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and appropriateness for
such additional space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of the SCI
Zone District. The additional approved percentage for a specific use shall be limited to
that use and not applicable to subsequent uses in the same space.
P139
VIII.c
5
F. Conditional Use Review Standards.
1. To establish the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom, or
customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and appropriateness for
the space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of the SCI Zone District.
The approved percentage for a specific use shall be limited to that use and not applicable
to subsequent uses in the same space.
2. Applicant must demonstrate that the affordable housing and/or free market housing is
substantially removed and physically separated from Commercial Uses on the same
parcel, to the extent practicable, so as to isolate residential uses from commercial impacts
and to adequately provide for on-loading, off-loading, circulation and parking for
commercial uses.
3. Applicant must implement a prohibition on the cross-ownership of free market residential
units and commercial space, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 2-1999, §1; Ord. No. 22-2005, §1; Ord. No. 4-2008; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord. No.
39-2013, §3)
P140
VIII.c
6
26.710.170 Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District is to
provide for the establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or
frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, thereby reducing traffic circulation and parking
problems, to provide opportunities for affordable and free-market residential density, to support
vacation rentals of residential dwelling units, and to provide a transition between the commercial
core and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on upper floors: lodging, affordable multi-family housing, free-market
multi-family housing, home occupations and vacation rentals.
2. Uses allowed on all building levels: retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial
uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses,
academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessor y uses and structures, uses
and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking
accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market,
provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Subsection 15.04.350(b).
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing or home
occupations on the ground floor.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): five (5).
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): five (5).
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): five (5).
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height: twenty-eight (28) feet, which may be increased to thirty-two (32) feet
through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412.
9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement.
P141
VIII.c
7
10. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
11. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 1.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 1:1.
b. Lodging, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses,
child care center and similar uses: 1:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: .5:1.
d. Free-market multi-family housing: .25:1, which may be increased to .5:1 if
affordable housing floor area equal to 100% of the free-market residential floor area
is developed on the same parcel.
12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling size (square feet): one thousand five
hundred (1,500) square feet of net livable area.
a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing
historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"),
subject to the following:
1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate that is
purchased.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units.
However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring
development rights is 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e., no more than 500
additional square feet may be applied per unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing
certificates.
13. Commercial/residential ratio: The total free-market residential net livable area shall be
no greater than the total floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs
26.710.170.D.11.a and b combined on the same parcel.
(Ord. No. 38-2000, §2; Ord. No. 12-2005, §1; Ord. No. 12-2006, §14, 15; Ord. No. 11, 2007;
Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord. NO. 34-2011, §15)
P142
VIII.c
Exhibit B
Recent Denied Request for
Locating in the SCI Zone District
The planning department initiated a service position to provide assistance to those who need answers
on planning‐related issues in the City between the hours of 9am‐12pm and 1pm – 3:30 pm, every week
day. This is a rotating position that is filled by a different member of the planning staff daily. In 2008
the department began tracking the questions received during these hours. Below is a breakdown by
category of the requests that are commonly asked regarding the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI)
zone district. These are requests that have been denied by the planning department due to their
incompatibility with Section 26.710.160 of the Land Use Code.
1. Marijuana‐related requests. A common request is for medical marijuana dispensaries that are
looking to locate in this zone district. One such request involved becoming a joint tenant within
the Aspen Laundry. Another request was for the cultivating of hydroponic “plants” and
“flowers” in this zone district.
2. Office‐related requests. Another very common request is to allow offices in the SCI zone
district. These requests have ranged from a law office, property management/rental, insurance,
and event production company offices. More general commercial office type requests are
found throughout the request tracker spreadsheet.
3. Medical‐related. Requests within this category have included psychotherapist and dental
offices. Medical offices are allowed in Obermeyer Place, however these are limited to Primary
Care Physician’s offices only, are limited to upper floors, and capped at 3,500 sq. ft.
4. Interior Design & Architecture. These requests can be difficult to permit or deny without a
great deal of staff discussion. The Andrews‐McFarlin Subdivision is the one space within the SCI
zone district that allows design studios. Therefore staff cannot approve the majority of these
requests.
5. General Retail & Related Services. Common requests are for those looking to locate their
commercial retail businesses in the SCI zone district. Permitted uses within this zone district can
be extremely specific and limiting. Due to the extent of retail activity, staff could not approve
requests for a frame/framing shop, office supplies store, home consignment, and solar voltaic
sales.
6. Other. Lastly, there are always a number of requests that staff receives which are found to be
inconsistent with the SCI zone district. These include security systems, web design/IT, taxi
business, child learning center, yoga studio and a distillery with a restaurant component. Also, a
P143
VIII.c
significant number of individuals have requested to use SCI spaces for personal storage of items,
files, and vehicles. While storage is an allowed use, this is intended to allow for storage
businesses, and not simply for personal storage.
P144
VIII.c
Exhibit C
Results of Neighborhood Meeting
for Obermeyer Place
SCI Zone Meeting 3
Obermeyer Place
501 Rio Grande Pl #7
April 23, 2013 @ 2 pm
Participants: 7
Expanding uses:
o Free‐marked residential tends to create conflicts with commercial
Businesses are often the losers in this scenario
o Free‐market residential has a tendency to suppress what uses are allowed in area
o Redevelopment could push out existing businesses
Current Zoning:
o Use limits do not make sense, outdated & strange
o Owners of spaces cannot sell or rent due to use restrictions
o Case‐by‐case zoning is too discretionary
E.g. – primary care physician allowed but no dentist
Dog washer allowed but no hair stylist
o Too many Code changes too often!
o Difficult to decipher allowed uses in Code
Zoning Changes:
o NC makes sense for Obermeyer
o Obermeyer is different than other SCI properties and should be zoned differently
P145
VIII.c
1
Exhibit D
Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to change the underlying zoning of Obermeyer
Place from Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
amend the PD to allow the continuation of SCI uses. NC allows for a wider, more general
variety of uses, and maintaining the SCI uses an allowed per the PD approval will prevent the
creation of any nonconformity in regards to the existing uses. The surrounding zone districts
include C-1 and CC, which are both commercial zone districts, R/MF/PD which is a
residential parcel, R-6/PD which contains the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, and PUB/PD
which is the Rio Grande Park area. Commercial and residential uses are permitted within the
NC zone district. The Fraternal Order of the Eagles is located on a site that would typically be
used residentially; however, this fraternal club is also compatible with the commercial uses
found in the NC zone district. Lastly, Rio Grande Park to the north provides an excellent
buffer from the mix of uses associated with the NC zone district, and the level of vitality that
was initially anticipated for Obermeyer Place. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any changes to demands on public facilities or that
the proposed amendment would exceed the availability of the current public facilities.
Obermeyer Place was created with the intent of these facilities being utilized at a higher
degree than are being currently utilized, due to many vacant units. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to the natural
environment as a result of this proposal. The proposed zoning change would merely allow an
expansion of allowed uses in an area that is already built to handle such usage. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
P146
VIII.c
2
Staff Response: Obermeyer Place was intended to be an area of vitality adjacent to the City’s
downtown core that would to serve, in part, as a desirable location for businesses that could
not locate elsewhere due to zoning restrictions. This vision was supported by the City as well
as private parties. Obermeyer Place was created as a COWOP (Convenience and Welfare of
the Public) project.
By rezoning the property to NC, while still allowing the uses found in SCI, the applicant, with
Staff’s support, hopes to bring additional businesses to the area, such as was originally
intended for Obermeyer Place. The proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible
with the community character and in harmony with the public interest and intent of the Land
Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P147
VIII.c
3
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. 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. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Response: There is no proposed development or redevelopment associated with this
request. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The Obermeyer PD has already been developed, with final approval granted
via Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. No new development is proposed as part of this current
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the approved site plan as a result of this current
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
P148
VIII.c
4
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the built environment as a result of this current
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Response: The Obermeyer PD has already been developed, and was approved via
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. There are no new buildings or redevelopment of existing
buildings proposed as part of this current application. Staff finds this criterion to be not
applicable.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff Response: Obermeyer Place was approved and developed as a COWOP (a development
for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public), with the vision that this would be a vibrant
area that contributed to the city’s residential and business opportunities. It was imagined to
be an area just north of the commercial core where hard to locate service and industrial
businesses could thrive. However, through the years it is found that less and less of these
types of businesses are locating here, leaving vacant units and creating dead space. The
proposed Minor PD Amendment will work in conjunction with the proposed rezoning of the
property to continue to allow service and industrial businesses to locate in Obermeyer Pl. This
amendment further ensures that existing service and industrial uses do not become non-
conforming.
Finding a way to increase vitality in an area that was designed and built for this purpose is
surely a significant community goal that may be achieved through the requested rezoning and
PD amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Response: The current application does not proposed any dimensional changes to the
approved Obermeyer Place PD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
P149
VIII.c
5
Staff Response: There are no changes to the approved dimensions requested as part of this
application. Obermeyer Pl. currently is zoned SCI. This portion of the application deals with
a PD amendment to continue the allowance of SCI uses. These uses are existing, and
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. 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, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the approved parking at Obermeyer Place requested
as part of this PD amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Response: The applicant is requesting no dimensional flexibility, or changes to the
approved PD dimensions as part of this PD Amendment application. Staff finds this criterion
to be not applicable.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the built environment associated with this
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the existing materials found within the Obermeyer
Pl. PD associated with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
P150
VIII.c
6
Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities already approved and in place for Obermeyer Place. Staff finds this criterion to be
not applicable.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: There is no new development or redevelopment associated with this Minor
PD Amendment request. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Staff believes adequate infrastructure is already in place at the Obermeyer Pl.
This proposed Minor PD Amendment, in conjunction with the requested rezoning, will not
cause any stress to the system that was not already planned for with the initial development of
the PD. The spaces reserved for commercial, service and industrial businesses are
underutilized in Obermeyer Pl. with many vacancies. The intent of the rezoning, in
combination with this PD amendment, is to open up the allowed uses to fill these vacant
spaces and bring vitality to this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development 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.
Staff Response: The current development has perpetual unobstructed vehicular access to a
public way through the Obermeyer Pl. There are no changes proposed to the development as
part of this current application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
P151
VIII.c
P152
VIII.c
P153
VIII.c
P154
VIII.c
P155
VIII.c
P156
VIII.c
P157
VIII.c
P158
VIII.c
P159
VIII.c
P160
VIII.c
P161
VIII.c
P162
VIII.c
P163
VIII.c
P164
VIII.c
P165
VIII.c
P166
VIII.c
P167
VIII.c
P168
VIII.c
P169
VIII.c
P170
VIII.c
P171
VIII.c
P172
VIII.c
P173
VIII.c
P174
VIII.c
P175
VIII.c
P176
VIII.c
P177
VIII.c
P178
VIII.c
P179
VIII.c
P180
VIII.c
P181
VIII.c
P182
VIII.c
P183
VIII.c
P184
VIII.c
P185
VIII.c
P186
VIII.c
P187
VIII.c
P188
VIII.c
P189
VIII.c
P190
VIII.c
P191
VIII.c
P192
VIII.c
P193
VIII.c
P194
VIII.c
P195
VIII.c
P196
VIII.c
P197
VIII.c
P198
VIII.c
P199
VIII.c
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Policy Direction – 7/13/2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
Resolution 72, Series of 2015
DATE: July 13, 2015
SUMMARY :
The attached Resolution outlines policy direction for amendments to the City’s Land Use Code
to clarify which land use code a project may rely on when part of a multi-step process or when
amending a previous approval.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, Staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City’s Land Use Code. 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 second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND :
The Community Development Department often receives inquiries from project applicants
wondering which land use code applies to their project. These questions arise when projects are
part of a multi-step process, such as a project requiring Conceptual HPC Review, and Final HPC
Review, as well as when a vested project requests an amendment to the approval. Staff has a
written policy addressing this issue (attached as Exhibit C), and proposes to formally incorporate
it into the Land Use Code.
OVERVIEW:
Nearly all projects require amendments to their approvals, and this code change would clarify
how to determine which land use code an amendment is subject to. In addition, it would address
which land use code is in effect when multi-step land use processes are required.
P200
IX.a
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Policy Direction – 7/13/2015
Page 2 of 3
Minor Amendments: Most amendments are simple, non-substantive changes that do not affect
a project’s original representations. For example, in 2014 the Aspen Club received an
amendment approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend a few retaining wall
heights in a setback area along the back of the property. The City applied the same codes to the
amendment as were in effect when the project originally received approval. The proposed code
amendment would clarify that the vested land use code applies.
For the purposes of this code amendment, staff proposes that minor amendments are those which
do not change the inherent nature, use, massing, character, dimensions, or design of the project
or which change these attributes in such a subtle way as to be immaterial. All other amendments
would be considered major.
Major Amendment: Other project amendments appear as completely new projects with nothing
resembling the former project – different uses, new site plan, different massing and architecture,
etc. Staff believes processing these types of “amendments” under an out-of-date code is
inappropriate. This has also been a concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
specifically during the reviews of the Aspen Townhomes amendment and the Boomerang
amendment. Staff believes these “amendments” should be considered new projects and subject
to the land use code in effect upon submission of the amendment. Staff’s proposal would require
these so-called major amendments to be subject to the code in effect upon submission, and would
prevent an applicant from using a decades old land use code.
Multi-Step Processes: Often a project is subject to multiple land use reviews. For instance, a
project may be subject to a Conceptual Commercial Design Review and a Final Commercial
Design Review. For these projects, existing department policy is to review them according to
the land use code in effect on the date of the complete application for the first-step. For instance,
a project requiring subsequent applications for Conceptual HPC Review and Final HPC Review,
is reviewed according to the land use code in effect when the complete Conceptual HPC
application is made.
Multiple applications that are not part of a code required multi-step process would be subject to
the land use code in effect for each individual submission. For instance, an application for a
Subdivision would not vest an applicant in that code for a subsequent separate application for
Commercial Design Review.
REFERRALS & OUTREACH :
A meeting was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain feedback on the
proposed code amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission supported the code amendment
as proposed by staff. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the suggested approach and
supports staff’s recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
P201
IX.a
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Policy Direction – 7/13/2015
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 72, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit C – Administrative Policy on Land Use Code Reliance
P202
IX.a
Resolution No. 72, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 72,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS
TO CLARIFY WHICH CODE AN APPLICANT MAY RELY ON FOR VARIOUS LAND USE
APPLICATIONS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department
received direction from City Council to explore code amendments to clarify which land use code a
project may rely on when part of a multi-step process or when amending a previous approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Land Use Code
and/or City Charter to implement City Council’s direction; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds
it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on July
13, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015, by a _____ to ____ (_ – _) vote,
requesting code amendments to clarify which land use code a project may rely on when part of a multi-
step process or when amending a previous approval; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for
processing amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals related to
creating a clearer and more predictable land use review process, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
City Council herby directs staff to process amendments to the City Land Use Code to clarify which land use
code a project may rely on when part of a multi-step process or when amending a previous approval, by:
• Defining a “major amendment” and “minor amendment” to previously approved projects and
outlining a process for each; and
• Clarifying when and how multi-step land use requests are processed in relation to vesting in a
particular land use code.
Section 2:
P203
IX.a
Resolution No. 72, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
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.
FINALLY, adopted this ___day of ____ 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P204
IX.a
Land Use Code Reliance Policy Direction; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to clarify how the land use code
applies to project subject to a multi-step process, as well as approved projects requesting
amendments. The proposed amendment implements existing City policy.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a policy to “create certainty in zoning and the
land use process.” Updating the vested rights portion of the Code is in concert with this policy
by clarifying how the land use code applies to various applications.
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 predictable and clear zoning review.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P205
IX.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Page 5
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff for rebuttal.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff wants to focus on making the units conforming to stay with the intent of the
ordinance. The owners have other mechanisms to utilize to pursue expansions or changes in use for the
units.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for comments from the commissioners.
Ms. Tygre does not like to change code that only affects one property but feels the ordinance was over‐
reaching. She feels it is best to keep the scope narrow at this point in time. Mr. Gibbs agreed.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the intent of City Council was to cease development of larger penthouses. Mr.
Bendon stated he doesn’t expect the units to amortize away and feels at the time the ordinance was
approved, the focus was on the impact the penthouses had on the commercial use of the buildings
along with height, mass and scale.
Mr. McNellis asked how the 10% cap was determined. Mr. Bendon stated it is an outdated percentage
and Ms. Levy added that she found other cities are eliminating the cap altogether.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff will present options to City Council to consider to move forward.
Land Use Code Applicability
Ms. Garrow described the proposed code amendments to address minor amendments, major
amendments and multi‐step processes.
P&Z supports staff’s recommendations.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P206
IX.a
P207
IX.a
P208
IX.a
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planning Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Hutton Lot Split
Second Reading of Ordinance #22, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: July 13 th , 2015
APPLICANT : Robert Hutton
REPRESENTATIVE : BMC Planning + Design
LOCATION : 725 Cemetery Lane
PARCEL ID : 2735-122-00-008
CURRENT ZONING : R-15, Moderate Density
Residential
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : The lot is a parcel
described in meets and bounds and is
commonly known as 725 Cemetery Lane. For
full legal description, please refer to the draft
ordinance.
SUMMARY : The Applicant requests to
subdivide a 39,704 sf gross lot area parcel
with an existing single family home into two
lots. Lot 1 will be allocated 22,023 sf of gross
lot area and Lot 2 will be allocated a gross lot
area of 17,681 sf. The net lot area of each lot
will be 17,681 sf and therefore equal as
currently calculated by the land use code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff
recommends approval of the request to
subdivide the property commonly known as
725 Cemetery Road.
Figure 1. Image of Subject Property
P209
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 2 of 7
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SINCE FIRST READING
The First Reading for the Hutton Lot Split was held on June 22, 2015. The information provided
below is intended to clarify the Application and address questions or concerns stated by City
Council at First Reading. The remainder of the Staff Memo has not changed; however, Figure 3
was edited to remove a typo and moved within the Project Summary section of the memo to
address formatting issues.
Access Easement
There is a parcel, known as 729/731 Cemetery Lane and referred to in the Staff Memo as
Ironwood Condos, to the west of the subject property. The Ironwood Condos parcel does not
have frontage to Cemetery Lane and is boarded by the Aspen Golf Course on three sides and the
subject property to the east. Access to the Ironwood Condo parcel is provided by a non-exclusive
access easement, a technical term for the shared driveway. Staff has provided Figure A below to
further clarify the site vicinity as it relates to Ironwood Condos.
Future Development
While no development for the lot is proposed at this time; the Applicant has represented the
client has expressed interest in redeveloping the property with a duplex on each newly created
lot. All future development would be subject to the requirements of the R-15 Zone District.
Non-Conformities
According to Section 26.480.040.D, Existing Structures, Uses and Non-Conformities; if the
approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure, the structure may continue until
Figure A.
Subject property
in red, Ironwood
Condos in blue.
The Figure is
oriented to the
east.
P210
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 3 of 7
recordation of the subdivision plat. The Code allows for “certain assurances that the non-
conformities will be remedies after recordation of the subdivision plat” by a legal mechanism
acceptable to the City Attorney. The proposed lot split line would create a non-conforming
building because the existing building would span the newly created lot line. As noted in the
Staff Review Criteria in Exhibit B, to provide said assurance; the Ordinance includes a condition
of approval that allows the structure to remain for the life of the original structure only. Upon
demolition, as defined in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, all structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall
comply with the R-15 Zone District provisions with respect to the newly created lot boundaries
and setbacks.
Existing Floor Area –Impact/Mitigation Fees
Impact fees are assessed on the floor area of a new development when a structure is demolished.
Replacing the existing development is not subject to impact fees; therefore, the existing floor
area is considered a “credit” towards impact fees for new development. Floor area calculations
must be provided prior to demolition of the existing to document this credit. As a part of the
building permit process, fees are assessed on the floor area of the new development and the
existing development floor area credit is then deducted from this figure. Affordable Housing,
School Land Dedication, and Parks fees are then assessed on the net new floor area of the new
development.
***Memo from First Reading Continues Below***
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE :
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the City Council:
• Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of creating one (1) additional development
parcel on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all
of the following conditions are met… (see Exhibit B, Review Criteria).
A lot split is considered an exemption from the full review associated with other forms of
subdivision, and does not require a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
prior to City Council.
BACKGROUND :
The subject parcel, legally described in meets and bounds, currently has a single family structure
on the property. The meets and bounds parcel was first described in a land patent to Samuel
Flanagan in April of 1894. A land patent is an exclusive land grant between the US Government,
at that time the US General Land Office, and the grantee. The land was exchanged between
various parties and further subdivided over the years while the property was within Pitkin
County jurisdiction. The lot to the rear known as Ironwood Condominiums at 729 and 731
Cemetery Lane, was severed from the 725 Cemetery Lane parcel in April of 1964, while the
property was beyond City Limit. Additionally, the creation of this parcel was prior to the
adoption of Ordinance 6, 1969; which established Subdivisions within the City of Aspen. 725
Cemetery Lane, shown in Figure 2, has not been previously subdivided under City of Aspen
Land Use Regulations and is therefore eligible for a lot split.
P211
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Figure 2. Subject Parcel Location Map (site highlighted in yellow)
PROJECT SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests of the City Council approval for a lot split that will divide the current
39,704 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels as shown in Figure 3. Lot 1 will be allocated 22,023 sf of
gross lot area and Lot 2 will be allocated a gross lot area of 17,681 sf. The lot area allocation is
summarized in Table 1. Hutton Lot Split Allocations.
Table 1. 725 Hutton Lot Split Allocations
Gross Lot Area Lot Area Deductions Net Lot Area 1
Fathering Parcel 39,704 sf 4,342 2 35,362 sf
Lot 1 22,023 sf 4,342 2 17,681 sf
Lot 2 17,681 sf 17,681 sf
1 Net lot area was calculated March 2015 in accordance with 26.575.020.C Measuring Net Lot Area and is subject to
change.
2 The lot area deductions are attributed to a vehicular access easement for 729/731 Cemetery Lane.
No new development is proposed with this application, and no new utilities are required as a
result of the lot split.
P212
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 5 of 7
Figure 3. Hutton Lot Split Site Plan
STAFF COMMENTS :
Staff finds the application to meet all of the relevant requirements for subdivision, as well as
those associated with lot split. The proposed lot split will not change the character or use of the
parcels, and is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. No new development
is proposed at this time.
The two new lots are within the R-15 Zone District, where the minimum lot size is 15,000 sf.
The dimensional characteristics of both Lot 1 (22,023 sf) and Lot 2 (17,681 sf) comply with the
requirements of the R-15 zone district. The existing home straddles the boundary between the
two lots. To avoid creating a non-conformity, the Ordinance includes a condition of approval that
allows the structure to remain for the life of the original structure only. Upon demolition, as
defined in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, all structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall comply with
the R-15 Zone District provisions with respect to the newly created lot boundaries and setbacks.
The proposed fathering parcel contains one single family home, roughly in the center of the lot.
Should the lot split be granted, one lot would receive one growth management allotment for a
single family home or duplex as defined in 26.470.060.2(a)(1). The growth management
allotment associated with the fathering parcel would be allocated to the other lot. This would
P213
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 6 of 7
result in each lot receiving an allotment for a single family home or duplex. No additional land
use review for a growth management allotment would be required as a result of this lot split.
The property is eligible to receive a credit for the existing floor area on the property. This credit
will be used towards impact fees at time of Building Permit. Staff has recommended this credit
be allocated between the two newly created lots as a condition of approval. Credit for the
existing floor area shall be allocated between the two lots evenly; with the exception of floor area
credit as it is applied to School Land Dedication. 100% of the floor area applied to School Land
Dedication fees shall be applied to Lot 1. This allocation, notated by “fee type”, is shown in
Table 2. This floor area credit allocation has been included as a condition of approval and may
be amended by the Community Development Director.
Table 2. Existing Floor Area Credit Allocation Table
Fee Type Lot 1 Lot 2
School Land Dedication 100% 0%
Parks 50% 50%
Affordable Housing 50% 50%
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS :
• Parks Department – Future development will require separate landscape/tree protection
reviews and permits. Approved tree permits will be required prior to demolition or
significant property change, should a tree be affected. There are two 15 inch spruce trees
on Lot 2 the Parks Department would like to see preserved.
• Water/Utilities – As proposed the lot split has negligible utility impacts. If either lot is
developed in the future, utility design should be incorporated to address individual
services and meters for both lots. The Marolt Holden Ditch, owned by City and
maintained by City runs on the east lot line of both Lots 1 and 2. An easement is not
recorded for either property. While a prescriptive easement exists for the ditch, it is
recommended the Applicant and the City enter an Agreement for the ditch easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds the application to be consistent with the applicable review
standards as found in the City Land Use Code. Staff is recommending approval of this request.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P214
IX.b
Hutton Lot Split
Staff Memo
July 10, 2015
Page 7 of 7
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance # 22, Series of 2015, approving the
Hutton Lot Split.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Proposed Plat
Exhibit B – Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Access Easement
Exhibit D – Application
P215
IX.b
1
ORDINANCE NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
HUTTON LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 725
CEMETERY LANE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-073-16-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
BMC Planning + Design on behalf of Robert Hutton, requesting Lot Split review for the property
commonly known as 725 Cemetery Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-15); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a Lot Split review by the City Council and
approval to divide the current 39,704 square foot lot into two lots; allocating 22,023 square feet of
gross lot area to Lot 1 and allocating 17,681 gross square feet to Lot 2; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the lot split 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 at a duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2015, the City Council
opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the
Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2015, approving Lot Split, which would allow the division 725
Cemetery Lane, a 39,704 square foot lot into two lots, allocating 22,023 square feet of lot area to
Lot 1 and allocating 17,681 square feet of lot area to Lot 2; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the lot split proposal meets or exceeds all
the applicable development standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the Lot Split request to divide the 39,704 square foot lot into two lots;
allocating 22,023 square feet to Lot 1 and allocating 17,681 square feet to Lot 2; and,
P216
IX.b
2
Section 2: Plat
The Applicant shall record a lot split plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Chapter
26.490, Approval Documents; within 180 days of approval. The existing home need not be
demolished to accommodate the newly created lot boundaries. The existing structure may remain
for the life of the original structure only. Upon demolition, as defined in Section 26.104.100,
Definitions, all structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall comply with the applicable zone district
provisions with respect to the newly created lot boundaries and setbacks.
Section 3: Subdivision
No further subdivision may be granted for the newly created lots. No additional units shall be
constructed without the required land use approvals and growth management allocations.
Section 4: Engineering
The existing driveway and curb cut configuration shall be abandoned upon demolition of the
existing residence Access to the newly created Lot 1 is required to be off the existing 20' “Non-
Exclusive Easement” as recorded in Book 572 Page 384. A new curb cut along Cemetery Lane will
not be permitted on this lot. Lot 2 shall be allowed one curb cut along Cemetery Lane.
Section 5: Parks
The Parks Department will require separate landscape and tree protection reviews for each new lot
upon the request for building permit. Staff will determine if an approved tree permit will be
required prior to demolition or significant property changes. Tree removal mitigation will be
handled through cash-in-lieu payment or by on-site plantings, such as street trees. Planting in the
public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way requirements. Improvements
to the right-of-way should include new grass and irrigation. The applicant shall work with the Parks
Department to design an appropriate trench box for any new tree plantings. Plans for tree plantings
shall be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
Section 6: Water/Utilities
Upon future development of either lot, utility design shall be incorporated into plans that will
address individual services and meters for each lot. The Holden-Marolt Ditch runs along the
western boundary of each newly created parcel. Prior to recording the plat for the lot split, an
easement agreement acceptable and approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded and the ditch
with reference to the recorded easement be shown in its full easement width on the plat.
Section 7: Existing Floor Area Credit Allocation
The floor area calculations for the existing single family home shall be provided with the
demolition permit in accordance with Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements. Floor
area credit applies to three forms of mitigation. Credit for the existing floor area shall be
allocated between the two lots evenly; with the exception of floor area credit as it is applied to
P217
IX.b
3
School Land Dedication. 100% of the floor area applied to School Land Dedication fees shall be
applied to Lot 1. This allocation, notated by “fee type”, is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Floor Area Credit Allocation Table
Fee Type Lot 1 Lot 2
School Land Dedication 100% 0%
Parks 50% 50%
Affordable Housing 50% 50%
If the floor area calculations are not provided prior to demolition, the applicant forfeits the right to
any floor area credit. This condition may be amended by the Community Development Director.
Nothing herein shall exempt development on these lots to the applicability of impact fees,
amendments to fee schedules or adoption of new impact mitigation requirements.
Section 8: Vested Property Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for
a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
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, 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, 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: Hutton
Lot Split, A tract of land situated in lots 3 and 12, section 12, township 10 south, range 85 west of
the 6th principal meridian, being a portion of that certain tract of land described in book 183 at page
271 in the records of Pitkin County, described as follows: beginning at a point on the westerly line
of county road whence the west 1/4 corner of said section 12 bears south 58 degrees 17 minutes
west 1614.50 feet; thence south 76 degrees 26 minutes west 177.70 feet; thence north 25 degrees 14
minutes west 204.22 feet; thence north 76 degrees 26 minutes east 219.00 feet to a point on the
westerly line of said county road; thence south 13 degrees 34 minutes east 200.00 feet along the
westerly line of said county road to the point of beginning, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado by
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2015, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 9:
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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
P218
IX.b
4
Section 10:
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 11:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13 th day of July, 2015, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Section 12:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 22 nd of June, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13 th day of July, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P219
IX.b
Ordinance 22, Series 2015
Exhibit A
Hutton Lot Split
5
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 3 AND 12, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10
SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING A PORTION
OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 183 AT PAGE 271 IN
THE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHENCE THE WEST 1/4
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12 BEARS SOUTH 58 DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST
1614.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST 177.70 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 14 MINUTES WEST 204.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76
DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 219.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 34 MINUTES EAST 200.00
FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
P220
IX.b
P
2
2
1
I
X
.
b
1
Exhibit B
Review Criteria
26.480.060. Minor subdivisions.
The following types of subdivision may be approved by the City Council, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, and the standards and limitations of
each type of subdivision, described below:
A. Lot Split. The subdivision of a lot 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, according to the following standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General Subdivision
Review Standards.
Staff Response: The lot split will meet 26.480.040 Review Standards A-C. The lot split
meets Review Standard D, with the following condition:
The existing structure will span the parcel boundary between the two lots;
however, an assurance will be included in the ordinance a condition of
approval will be included into the ordinance that allows the structure to
remain for the life of the original structure only. Upon demolition, as defined
in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, all structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall
comply with the R-15 Zone District provisions with respect to the newly
created lot boundaries and setbacks. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. No more than two lots are created by the lot split. No more than one lot split shall occur
on any one fathering parcel.
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing two lots as a result of this lot split. The
fathering parcel has a gross lot size of 39,704 sf with a net lot area of 35,362 sf. There is
a 4,342 sf non-exclusive access easement along the northern portion of the lot. The lot
split will create two lots. Lot 1 will have a gross lot area of 22,023 sf and a net lot area of
17,681 sf. Both the gross and net lot area of Lot 2 will be 17,681 sf.
The proposed lots are located in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district,
which requires a minimum gross lot area of 15,000 sf. The proposed lot dimensions will
conform to the requirements of the R-15 zone district. Staff finds these criteria to be met.
3. The 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: A final subdivision plat reflecting the lot split shall be recorded pursuant
to the requirements of Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, Chapter 26.490 and Title 29,
Engineering Design Standards, as amended.
P222
IX.b
2
The existing single family home will span the parcel boundary between the newly created
lots, resulting in a non-conformity. This non-conformity is addressed in review criteria
26.480.040.D, Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. No subdivision
agreement shall be required between the applicant and the City. Staff finds these criteria
met.
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations
in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
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.
Staff Response: The lot split shall not obstruct any legal vehicular access. A non-
exclusive access easement (Exhibit D) to 729/731 Cemetery Lane is located on the
northern portion of Lot 1 and no changes to said easement are proposed. The existing
driveway and curb cut shall be abandoned and access to the two newly created lots shall
be in accordance with Engineering Standards. Lot 1 shall be provided access from the
existing 20’ Non-Exclusive Access Easement as recorded in Book 572 Page 384 (Exhibit
D). No security and/or privacy gates are proposed. Staff finds these criteria met.
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.
Staff Response: The fathering parcel is located on Cemetery Lane, which is outside of the
original Aspen Townsite. The applicant has supplied the dimensions of 12 neighboring
parcels and calculated the mean lot area of 17,828 sf and a mean lot width of 105 feet. At
22,023 and 17,681 sf; with a 106 and 94 feet front lot line(s), respectively; the lot split
will result in parcels with dimensions similar in character to other lots the Cemetery
Lane area. Staff finds these criteria met.
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.
Staff Response: The fathering parcel has a gross lot size of 39,704 sf with a net lot area
of 35,362 sf. There is a 4,342 sf non-exclusive access easement along the northern
portion of the lot. The lot split will create two lots. Lot 1 will have a gross lot area of
22,023 sf and a net lot area of 17,681 sf. Both the gross and net lot area of Lot 2 will be
17,681 sf. The dimensional characteristics of Lot 1 and Lot 2 comply with the
P223
IX.b
3
requirements of the R-15 zone district. Both new lots are wholly within the R-15 zone
district; therefore, a rezoning application is not required. Staff finds these criteria met.
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.
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 existing structure will span the parcel boundary between the two new
lots, resulting in a non-conformity. As an alternative to the demolition of the structure
prior to recordation of the final subdivision plat, a condition of approval will be included
into the ordinance that allows the structure to remain for the life of the original structure
only. Upon demolition, as defined in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, all structures on
Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall comply with the R-15 Zone District provisions with respect to the
newly created lot boundaries and setbacks. Staff finds these criteria met.
P224
IX.b
P225
IX.b
P226
IX.b
P227
IX.b
P228
IX.b
P229
IX.b
Lot Split Application
725 Cemetery Lane (PID# 2735-122-00-008)
Submitted: March 2015
P.O. Box 73, Aspen, CO 81612
970-948-0002
www.bmcaspen.com
P230
IX.b
www.bmcaspen.com P.O. Box 73 Aspen, CO 81612 970-948-0002
March 16, 2015
Chris Bendon, AICP, Director
City of Aspen Community Development
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 725 Cemetery Lane Lot Split
Dear Chris:
Please accept this application for a Lot Split for the property located at 725 Cemetery Lane owned by
Robert Hutton (ID # 2735‐122‐00‐008). Enclosed you will find 10 copies for distribution, each addressing
the appropriate code section(s) and including the requirements outlined in the pre‐app prepared by
Amy Simon and Jessica Garrow dated February 27, 2015. We have also includes the Agreement to Pay
form and a check to initiate the application review.
Please let us know at your earliest convenience if an item was not included that is required for the
application to be deemed complete and scheduled for review with City Council.
We appreciate you and your staff’s time in reviewing this application and are available to answer any
questions as they may arise.
Sincerely,
Brian McNellis AICP, ASLA
BMC Planning + Design
P231
IX.b
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance Between
Buildings
Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P232
IX.b
ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment
Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision Exemption (includes
condominiumization)
Final SPA (& SPA
Amendment)
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other:
Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
P233
IX.b
P
2
3
4
I
X
.
b
P
2
3
5
I
X
.
b
P
2
3
6
I
X
.
b
P
2
3
7
I
X
.
b
Property Location: 725 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO Vicinity Map (City of Aspen)
Legal Description
A TRACT OF LAND SIUTATED IN LOTS 3 AND 12, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10
SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING A
PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 183 AT
PAGE 271 IN THE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD
WHENCE THE WEST 1/4 CORNEROF SAID SECTION 12 BEARS SOUTH 58
DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST 1614.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 26
MINUTES WEST 177.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 14 MINUTES
WEST 204.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 219.00
FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 34 MINUTES EAST 200.00 FEET ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO.
P238
IX.b
Project Overview
This application requests approval to subdivide (Lot Split) a parcel of land in accordance with
Section 26.480.060 ‐ Minor Subdivisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. The property is located
at 725 Cemetery Lane and is 39,704 square feet in size (over 2.5 times the minimum lot size
allowed within the R‐15 zoned district as currently designated). If granted, the Lot Split will
allow for the creation of two smaller parcels that conform to the character of the Cemetery
Lane neighborhood and the R‐15 zone district.
The residence that occupies the property will be removed to accommodate the subdivision
request. Demolition of the structure will occur prior to recordation of a new subdivision plat.
26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
…C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant must choose to do one or more of
the following forms of neighborhood outreach. Community Development Department
staff may, as part of the pre‐application conference, suggest certain forms of
neighborhood outreach that would be most appropriate for a development application. In
addition, Community Development Department staff may identify specific aspects of the
project or potential impacts of the project that should be addressed as part of the
neighborhood outreach.
…3. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant must provide detailed information on
the project in the form of a project website, a detailed public notice mailing, etc. that
explains the proposal, outlines the review process, provides visual rendering or maps, or
any other information that will describe the project in layman’s terms. The applicant
shall be responsible for coordinating the information. The applicant must conduct a
minimum level noticing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is
aware of a website, etc. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section
26.304.060.E.3.c may be provided.
Response: Staff has determined that neighborhood outreach is appropriate for this proposal and
the applicant is prepared to facilitate an enhanced public notice mailing (described above) that will
be included as part of the typical public noticing requirements.
26.480.060 Minor Subdivisions
The following types of subdivision may be approved by the City Council, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 26.480.030
Procedures for Review, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision,
described below:
P239
IX.b
A. Lot Split. The subdivision of a lot 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, according to the
following standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General
Subdivision Review Standards.
Response: The request complies with the General Subdivision Review Standards (see below).
2. No more than two lots are created by the lot split. No more than one lot split shall
occur on any one fathering parcel.
Response: No more than 2 lots will be created by the Lot Split.
3. The 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.
Response: The Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed by Planning Staff and recorded pursuant to the
requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code and the Clerk & Recorder’s office.
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations
in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
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.
Response: The Lot Split will not obstruct access to any adjacent properties and each of the new
lots shall have direct access to Cemetery Lane’s public right‐of‐way. This proposal will not change
or modify the 20’ wide driveway/access easement along the northern boundary of the subject
parcel and it shall continue to allow access to the property located immediately to the west. No
new streets will be created and no additional road cuts along Cemetery Lane are requested. The
Lot Split will eliminate the current looped driveway and therefore extinguish an existing curb cut
along Cemetery Lane. Security and/or privacy gates will not be used on any access point to the
properties or adjacent properties.
P240
IX.b
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.
Response: Upon researching 12 properties along the western side of Cemetery Lane (on each side
of the subject parcel) it was calculated that the average lot area is approximately 17,828 square
feet with an average width of about 105 feet. If granted, the Lot Split would create two parcels –
one at 17,681 square feet and the other (including the existing access easement) at 22,023 square
feet. The resulting property lines along Cemetery Lane will be 94 and 106 feet respectively. The
proposal will foster a residential condition that is more in conformance with the traditional lot
sizes depicted on the Original Townsite Plat and those existing in the Cemetery Lane
neighborhood.
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.
Response: The resulting lots will exceed the minimal dimensional requirements of the R15 zone
district. No variances or zoning changes are requested as part of this application.
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.
Response: There are no non‐conformities on the property currently. No non‐conformities will be
created by the proposed Lot Split.
26.710.050 Moderate ‐ Density Residential (R‐15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate ‐ Density Residential (R‐15) Zone District is to
provide areas for long‐term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and
customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate‐
Density Residential (R‐15) Zone District typically consist of additions to the Aspen
Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite
which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate‐Density Residential
(R‐15) Zone District.
P241
IX.b
Response: The proposed Lot Split will create two smaller parcels that better conform to the intent
of R‐15 zone district where the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The fathering parcel is
currently 200 feet wide while the minimum in the zone district is 75 feet. If granted, the Lot Split
will establish a more consistent streetscape condition by creating lots that are no greater than 1o6
feet wide. No variances from the R‐15 setback requirements are requested.
P242
IX.b
P
2
4
3
I
X
.
b
Customer Distribution
Our Order Number: Q62006490
Date: 02-24-2015
Property Address: 725 CEMETERY LANE, ASPEN, CO 81611
For Closing Assistance
Kimberly Parham
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-1678 (phone)
303-393-4870 (fax)
kparham@ltgc.com
Closer's Assistant
NIKKI DURRETT
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-1678 (phone)
800-318-8202 (fax)
ndurrett@ltgc.com
For Title Assistance
KIM SHULTZ
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-927-0405 (phone)
970-925-6243 (fax)
kshultz@ltgc.com
Buyer/Borrower
LIBMAN DEVELOPMENT LLC
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
Agent for Seller
Attention: MICHAEL LUCIANO
166 SWINGING BRIDGE LANE
BASALT, CO 81621
970-927-0837 (work)
mike@libmangroup.com,heather@libmangroup.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
Seller/Owner
ROBERT C. HUTTON
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
Attention: RICH JONES
1301 WASHINGTON AVE #300
GOLDEN, CO 80401
303-421-6495 (work)
rjones@ortcolo.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
P244
IX.b
Wire Instructions
Bank:
Address:
ABA No:
Account:
Attention:
ALPINE BANK
600 E HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 81611
102103407
2020010529
Kimberly Parham
Reference Q62006490
*If any of the above information is missing, the wire will be returned to sender.
*If you have questions or concerns, please contact your closer.
*Please remit funds in the form of a cashiers check or wire
***NOTE: Land Title can not accept buyer funds in the form of personal checks, and buyer funds delivered using ACH
payment systems may result in the delay or cancellation of your closing.
P245
IX.b
Land Title Guarantee Company
Estimate of Title Fees
Order Number:Q62006490 Date: 02-24-2015
Property Address:725 CEMETERY LANE, ASPEN, CO 81611
Buyer/Borrower:LIBMAN DEVELOPMENT LLC
Seller:ROBERT C. HUTTON
Visit Land Title's website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices.
Estimate of Title Insurance Fees
ALTA Owners Policy 06-17-06 (Reissue Rate)
Deletion of Standard Exception(s)
Tax Certificate
$3,947.00
$65.00
$21.00
If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at closing.
Total $4,033.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER!
P246
IX.b
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number: Q62006490
Customer Ref-Loan No.:
Property Address:
725 CEMETERY LANE, ASPEN, CO 81611
1. Effective Date:
02-05-2015 at 05:00PM
2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 $4,700,000.00
Proposed Insured:
LIBMAN DEVELOPMENT LLC
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered
herein is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
ROBERT C. HUTTON
5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
A TRACT OF LAND SIUTATED IN LOTS 3 AND 12, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST
OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED
IN BOOK 183 AT PAGE 271 IN THE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHENCE THE WEST 1/4 CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 12 BEARS SOUTH 58 DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST 1614.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST 177.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 14 MINUTES WEST 204.22
FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 219.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 34 MINUTES EAST 200.00 FEET ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Copyright 2006-2015 American Land Title Association. All Rights Reserved
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date
of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
P247
IX.b
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B-1
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62006490
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or
interest to be insured.
Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for
record, to-wit:
1.PROVIDE LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY WITH A CURRENT IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
CERTIFICATE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY TO DELETE STANDARD
EXCEPTIONS 1-3 AND MUST DISCLOSE THE LOCATION OF FENCE LINES ALONG THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, IF ANY. (IF NO FENCE IMPROVEMENTS EXIST ALONG THE PROPERTY
PERIMETERS, THE CERTIFICATE MUST AFFIRMATIVELY STATE SUCH). UPON REVIEW, ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY.
NOTE: ANY MATTERS DISCLOSED BY SAID IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE WILL BE
REFLECTED ON SAID POLICY(S) TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER.
NOTE: LAND TITLE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ORDERING SAID IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
CERTIFICATE.
2.EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
3.RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED JUNE 13, 2013 FROM ROBERT C. HUTTON TO THE PUBLIC
TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ANB BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $495,000.00
RECORDED JUNE 19, 2013, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 600483.
4.WARRANTY DEED FROM ROBERT C. HUTTON TO LIBMAN DEVELOPMENT LLC CONVEYING SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE OWNER'S COVERAGE IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO BE ISSUED
A. UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF A SATISFACTORY FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT FROM
THE SELLER AND PROPOSED INSURED, EXCEPTIONS 1 THROUGH 4 OF THE STANDARD
EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. ANY ADVERSE MATTERS DISCLOSED BY THE FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND
AGREEMENT WILL BE ADDED AS EXCEPTIONS.
B. IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS
AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, EXCEPTION NO. 5 OF THE
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED.
C. UPON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR YEARS' TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS,
EXCEPTION NO. 6 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO READ:
TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2015 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
NOTE: ALL PARTIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT AT CLOSING.
P248
IX.b
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62006490
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of the Company:
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the
Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title
that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the
Public Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority
that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a
public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or
not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
HEREBY GRANTED, AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE
16, 1894 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 45.
9.UTILITY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 1929, IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE 172.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DECLARATION RECORDED AUGUST 08, 1958 IN BOOK
184 AT PAGE 435.
11.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 28, 1964 IN BOOK 206
AT PAGE 560.
12.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 01, 1988 IN BOOK
572 AT PAGE 384.
P249
IX.b
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION,
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company and Meridian Land Title,
LLC, as agents for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal
and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your
trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external
safeguards against unauthorized access to non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by, us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
the public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our
affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly access security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS
NOT PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be
disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are
required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or
criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable
privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or
relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or
the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and
judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
P250
IX.b
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
A)The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.
B)A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real
property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the
contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property)
C)The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's
office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and
recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to
documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for
all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company
conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number
5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B-2 of the
Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A)The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or
townhouse unit.
B)No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in
Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C)The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's
liens.
D)The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E)If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior
to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain
construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate
premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be
necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule
B-2.
A)That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate
and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal
energy in the property; and
B)That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an
insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial
of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or
misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or
claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance
within the Department of Regulatory Agencies.
Commitment to Insure
P251
IX.b
ALTA Commitment - 2006 Rev.
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, (Company) for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or
policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in
the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the requirements; all subject to the provisions
of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in
Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1.The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2.If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or
interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to
Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the
Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the
Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may
amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to
paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3.Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of
Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply
with the requirements hereof or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such
liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies
committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4.This commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action
or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or
interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
5.The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at
the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
www.alta.org.
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the
following:
1.Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the Public Records.
2.Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey or inspection of the Land would
disclose and which are not shown by the Public Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the
effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on
the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
a Stock Company
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612)371-1111
Authorized Officer or Agent
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue
Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
John E. Freyer, President
P252
IX.b
777 CLUB LLC
777 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN GOLF PRO SHOP
299 MILWAUKEE ST #502
DENVER, CO 80206-5045
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1 RE
0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
BARWICK STEPHEN H
705 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIDWELL CAPITAL LLC
2711 N HASKELL AVE STE 1650
DALLAS, TX 75204
BRENNAN CHRISTINE
3 BOARDMAN PL
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139
CALLAHAN CYNTHIA TRUST 74.95%
750 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
CARRIS SANDRA L TRUST NUMBER TWO
PO BOX 966
ASPEN, CO 81612
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
DRUEDING THOMAS W
3 BOARDMAN PL
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139
ENGELS JOHN L & VELMA B
PO BOX 8132
ASPEN, CO 81612
GREENE ANTHONY F
705 CASTLE CREEK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUDSON FRASHER ANN
616 TEXAS ST
FORT WORTH, TX 76102
KATZ ANDREW & DEBORAH
1 SUSSEX ST
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM SW1V4RZ,
MACCASKILL PAUL L
PO BOX 12374
ASPEN, CO 81612
MENSCHER LELYA J
725 CASTLE CREEK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
MEYER FAMILY LLC
101 DESTIN
RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123
NELSON NATHAN & TARA
707 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ORE BUCKET ASSOC LLC
1944 HUDSON ST
DENVER, CO 80220
OREN NEDRA RES TRUST
3526 BAYSHORE VILLAS DR
COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
RABINOW RICHARD A & KATHRYN L E
3711 SAN FELIPE #12-I
HOUSTON, TX 77027
RED MTN GRILL
1000 TRUSCOTT PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROUSH G JAMES
AS TRUSTEE OF ROUSH TRUST
2441 EVERGREEN POINT RD
MEDINA, WA 98039
ROWLANDS DONNA K REV TRST
PO BOX 8310
ASPEN, CO 81612
SALOMON CHESTER B & ARLENE LIDSKY
975 PARK AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10028
SEAMANS STERLING WILLIAM 50%
717 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
SEELEY EILEEN MARIE 50%
717 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
WINCHESTER ROBERT P
PO BOX 5000
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
WPPY LLC
19946 N E 36TH PL
AVENTURA, FL 33180
ZANIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC
0308 MCSKIMMING RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
P253
IX.b
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jessica Garrow/Amy Simon, DATE: 02/27/15
PROJECT: 725 Cemetery Lane
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision
DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant would like to divide the
property located at 725 Cemetery Lane (Parcel ID #
2735-122-00-008) into 2 lots through a Lot Split. A
duplex home is currently located on the site. The
applicant represents that the lot has not been
previously subdivided. The lot is within the R-15 zone district. There is an access easement running
along the north property line that provides access to the landlocked property to the west. Please note
that access easements are deducted from lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR and density. As
per the R-15 zone district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet for a single
family residence and 7,500 square feet per unit for a duplex residence; and the minimum lot width is 75
feet. The newly created lots must comply with the R-15 zone district requirements, as per Land Use
Code Section 26.710.050.
The applicant is interested in pursuing a subdivision review to permit 2 duplexes- one on each newly
created parcel. The newly created lots must meet the R-15 zone district requirements. The process
requires review by City Council. It is strongly recommended that the applicant meet with the
Engineering Department to discuss the proposed curb cuts for the lots.
Neighborhood Outreach is required prior to the first public hearing in accordance with Land Use Code
Section 26.304.035.
A link to the land use application is found here:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures (as applicable)
26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
26.480.030.B Procedures for review – Minor Subdivisions
26.480.040 General Subdivision Review Standards
26.480.060.A Minor Subdivisions – Lot Split
26.490 Approval Documents (for plat requirements)
26.710.050 Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone District
Review by: - Staff for complete application
- City Council
Public Hearing: Yes, City Council
Planning Fees: $4,550 Deposit for 14 hours, additional hours billed at $325 per hour.
Referral Fees: $275 hourly rate for Engineering.
$975 flat fee for Parks.
Total Deposit: $5,800
To apply, submit ONE COPY of the following information for completeness review:
1. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the
name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
P254
IX.b
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
4. Completed Land Use Application.
5. Signed fee agreement.
6. HOA Compliance Policy (attached)
7. Pre-application Conference Summary.
8. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
9. Improvement survey of existing condition.
10. Proposed subdivision plat.
10. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the
review standards relevant to the development application.
11. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements.
ONCE THE APPLICATION IS DETERMINED COMPLETE, PLEASE SUBMIT THE REVIEW FEE. The total number of
application copies needed will be determined by the assigned planner.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be
accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P255
IX.b
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon
RE: Gibson Matchless
Second Reading of Ordinance
Continued from June 8, 2015.
MEETING DATE: June 8, 201
APPLICANT : Gibson Matchless LLC
REPRESENTATIVE : Mitch Haas
Land Planning, LLC
LOCATION : 980 and 990 Gibson
Avenue , also known as Lot 1, Alpine
Acres Subdivision.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Alpine Acres
Condominium Units #1 and #2 and
Inclusive of a Portion of Silver King
Drive (Rec. No. 550853)
PARCEL ID : 2737-074-10-001
CURRENT ZONING : R-6, Medium
Density Residential
SUMMARY : The Applicant ’s amended
request is to re-subdivide 30,786
land containing a duplex into two
single-family home sites. Both new
parcels would be historically
designated and contain an historic
resource.
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon , Community Development Director
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 2015
Continued from June 8, 2015.
201 5
Gibson Matchless LLC
Mitch Haas , Haas
Gibson
, also known as Lot 1, Alpine
Alpine Acres
Condominium Units #1 and #2 and
Inclusive of a Portion of Silver King
, Medium
’s amended
30,786 sf of
containing a duplex into two
family home sites. Both new
parcels would be historically
designated and contain an historic
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends
denial of the original subdivision request
original request would create odd-shaped lots and
significantly more development.
Staff recommends approval of an amended request
to subdivide the property. The amended request
provides simple lot lines, staff’s primary objection
to the previous prop osal. Some further discussion
regarding total floor area is recommended.
proposed ordinance reflects the amended request.
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Staff Memo
7/13/2015
Page 1 of 5
recommends
request . The
shaped lots and
of an amended request
The amended request
provides simple lot lines, staff’s primary objection
osal. Some further discussion
regarding total floor area is recommended. The
proposed ordinance reflects the amended request.
P256
IX.c
SUMMARY : The property is located along Gibson Avenue in the Smuggler neighborhood. The
property is three parcels with a total gross lot area pf
(Alpine Acres
Condominium Units 1 and
2) houses two residential
units that were
condominiumized in 1977.
The other two parcels were
once part of Silver King
Drive, prior to being
acquired by the
condominium association
through quiet title action in
2008. These are referred to
as the Northerly and
Southerly parcels of Silver
King Drive. Total build-out
currently is 4,970 s.f. split
between two homes and up to two ADUs
from HPC. Neither home can exceed 2,486 square feet.
The applicant is seeking to merge all three parcels and
subdivision. The applicant is seeking to provide the n
The Applicant’s original solution for achieving
equal development rights was to
sided lot (Lot 1) and one 10-sided lot (Lot 2)
Each lot could be developed with up to two homes
and two ADUs each. The odd
not meet the Code’s General Subdivision Review
Standards criteria for creating new lots that
approximate the size and shape of
lots in the Original Aspen Townsite or subsequent
additions (26.480.040.B).
recommended denial.
The project was continued with the expectation that staff and the applicant could discuss an
alternate scenario. The applicant has revised the request.
The amended subdivision request
subdivides the land into two simple
shaped lots, addressing staff’s
primary concern. The amended
proposal also limits the development
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
property is located along Gibson Avenue in the Smuggler neighborhood. The
three parcels with a total gross lot area pf 30,786 square feet. Currently, one parcel
between two homes and up to two ADUs . This total number assumes a 500 s.f floor area bonus
from HPC. Neither home can exceed 2,486 square feet.
merge all three parcels and re-subdivide, creating
subdivision. The applicant is seeking to provide the n ew lots with equal development rights.
solution for achieving
to create one 17-
sided lot (Lot 2) .
Each lot could be developed with up to two homes
configurations do
not meet the Code’s General Subdivision Review
Standards criteria for creating new lots that
approximate the size and shape of the rectangular
lots in the Original Aspen Townsite or subsequent
Thus, staff
The project was continued with the expectation that staff and the applicant could discuss an
The applicant has revised the request.
The amended subdivision request
subdivides the land into two simple -
shaped lots, addressing staff’s
concern. The amended
proposal also limits the development
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Staff Memo
7/13/2015
Page 2 of 5
property is located along Gibson Avenue in the Smuggler neighborhood. The
Currently, one parcel
This total number assumes a 500 s.f floor area bonus
subdivide, creating a two-lot
ew lots with equal development rights.
The project was continued with the expectation that staff and the applicant could discuss an
P257
IX.c
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Staff Memo
7/13/2015
Page 3 of 5
on each parcel to a single-family residence plus an ADU. Both new parcels would contain a
historic resource and both would remain historic landmarks.
In order to ensure the two new lots have equal floor area (a desire of the applicant), the
development rights for each lot will be based on a Net Lot Area of 7,808 square feet each. This
number accounts for steep slopes and other lot area deductions. Normally, staff would not
support establishing development rights independent of parcel size, but this subdivision already
has unique floor area limits.
Due to a 1987 subdivision requirement, each single-family home in the Alpine Acres
Subdivision is limited to 2,486 square feet of floor area. This limitation is proposed to continue
to the two newly created lots. The R6 Zoning allows each lot to contain a single-family home of
3,493 s.f. After applying the 2,486 s.f. house-size cap, each lot will have 1,007 s.f. of floor area
left over for an Accessory Dwelling Unit or to sever as Transferable Development Rights. Each
lot will remain eligible for a floor area bonus via HPC.
Total build-out of the amended proposal is 7,986 square feet split between two homes and up to
two ADUs. This total number assumes 1,000 s.f floor area bonus from HPC (one bonus for each
lot). Neither home can exceed 2,486 square feet. Unbuilt floor area could be severed as TDRs.
BACKGROUND :
The proposed subdivision is situated in the northeastern portion of the City, near the historic
Smuggler mine works, and is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential. The existing site
currently has a condominiumized duplex that is made up of two remodeled historic structures,
joined by a garage. The condominiums are located on a single 18,635 square foot lot, and are
accessed from Gibson Avenue.
In 2008 the condominium association took possession through quiet title action of an additional
12,151 square feet that made up the northern and southern portions of Silver King Drive. This is
a platted, but never opened former right-of-way. These two additional lots were added to the
applicant’s holdings. Vacated rights-of-way do not convey development rights according to the
City’s Land Use Code.
The previous owner of 980 sued the City over the City’s position that the former right-of-way
parcels had no independent development right and no floor area. The City prevailed in the
lawsuit with the 980 owner. The 990 owner was not a party to that lawsuit and has asserted that
they have the right to re-litigate the same issues. The proposal suggests a benefit of settling this
dispute by merging all three parcels and re-subdividing the land into two new lots.
Currently, 980 and 990 Gibson are zoned R-6. The zone district standards determine the
permitted uses, and set the dimensional requirements for lots and developments. In addition to
the zoning limit, a 1987 Subdivision Agreement capped the maximum floor area per dwelling
P258
IX.c
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Staff Memo
7/13/2015
Page 4 of 5
unit at 2,486 square feet for lots in the Alpine Acres Subdivision. This floor area cap runs with
the land, and therefore applies to this subdivision proposal.
The entire fathering site is 30,786 square feet of gross lot area. Gross lot area includes the entire
area within a parcel’s boundaries. After accounting for steep slopes, former and current rights-
of-way, the net lot area of the fathering parcel (all three lots together) is 15,616 square feet. The
amended proposal uses this number, split in half to 7,808 square feet, as the net lot area for each
new lot.
STAFF ANALYSIS :
The original application proposed a very unusual-shaped lot, with a narrow 50 foot stretch and a
disassociated flag portion. Staff recommended denial prior to the continuation and further
discussions with the applicant.
The amended application proposes two simple-shaped lots and achieves the applicant’s desire to
divide the development rights equally. The applicant has agreed to restrict the lots to a single-
family home each, with an accessory dwelling unit, and observe the 2,486 s.f. house size cap.
Staff suggests this build-out potential will better suit the neighborhood. After accounting for
each primary house, each property will enjoy roughly 1,000 square feet extra which could be
used for an ADU or severed as a TDR. This represents total of about 2,000 s.f. more than the
properties are allowed today. However, there is some benefit to resolving potential litigation
regarding the City’s position on the former right-of-way parcels.
The Staff does suggest the practical need to apply for and receive HPC floor area bonuses may
be minimal and may benefit from additional discussion. HPC may grant a floor area bonus of up
to 500 s.f. for a superior historic preservation effort. These structures are in need of preservation
work. But, the houses are already capped at 2,486 s.f. each. So, any bonus would add to the
TDR potential which is already 1,000 s.f. per parcel. If maximum bonuses are granted, the total
development rights would be increased by roughly 3,000 s.f. over today’s allowance.
The proposal meets the remaining criteria for subdivision. Although the proposal would create a
nonconformity along an existing garage, the Code allows a nonconforming structure to continue
after the recordation of a plat if the City accepts the Applicant’s assurance, through a legally
binding mechanism, that the non-conformity will be remedied. The draft ordinance includes
language requiring the Applicant to provide this assurance in a subdivision agreement with the
City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends City Council approve the amended
application.
P259
IX.c
Gibson Matchless Subdivision
Staff Memo
7/13/2015
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION : “I move to approve Ordinance #21, Series of 2015, on second
reading, approving the Gibson Matchless Subdivision.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #21, Series of 2015
Memo Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards
Memo Exhibit B – Minor Subdivision Review Criteria
Memo Exhibit C – Flagpole and Flag Area Diagram – (provided on June 8, 2015)
Exhibit D – Application – (provided on June 8, 2015)
P260
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 1
ORDINANCE N0. 21
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
GIBSON MATCHLESS SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS
980 AND 990 GIBSON AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE ALPINE ACRES
CONDOMINIUMS #1 AND #2 AND THE NORTHERLY PARCEL AND SOUTHERLY
PARCEL OF FORMER SILVER KING DRIVE (REC. NO. 550853), ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-073-20-003
.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Gibson Matchless, LLC represented by Land Planning, LLC, requesting the City Council
approve the Minor Subdivision review for the property commonly known as 980 and 990 Gibson
Avenue - legally described as Unit 1 and Unit 2, Alpine Acres Condominiums, #1, according to
the Condominium Map recorded in Book 6 at Page 11 and as described in the Condominium
Declaration thereof recorded August 2, 1977 in Book 332 at Page 722, and the Northerly Parcel
and Southerly Parcel as more fully described in the Amended Decree Quieting Title in Plaintiffs
and Correcting Clerical Errors recorded July 9, 2008 as Reception No. 550853, City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the application intends to combine all three parcels of land together for the
purposes of creating a two-lot subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 980 and 990 Gibson Avenue is currently zoned R-6,
Medium Density Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the property contains two structures listed on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, one at 980 and the other at 990 Gibson Drive; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 26.480.030 Minor Subdivisions shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council after reviewing a recommendation by
the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended denial of the application; and,
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the initial hearing on this matter conducted on May
26, 2015, the applicant proposed a modification of the application. The public hearing on the
application was continued until July 13, 2015 to enable staff to evaluate the proposed changes to
the application; and,
WHEREAS, based on the changes proposed by the applicant, the Community
Development Director recommends approval of the application; and,
WHEREAS, 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 Community Development Director, the applicable referral
agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
P261
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 2
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing held on July 13, 2015, the City
Council approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2015, by a vote of _ to _, approving the Minor
Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the Minor Subdivision proposal meets or exceeds all
the applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS, 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 OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Conditions of Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the Minor Subdivision Review for the division of the lots legally
described above - into two lots to be known as “Lot 1, Gibson and Matchless Subdivision” and
“Lot 2, Gibson and Matchless Subdivision”, with the following conditions:
a. Each lot shall enjoy and be burdened by the development rights of the applicable zone
district designation (currently R-6, but as may change from time to time) as stated in the
Land Use Code, as amended. The development rights shall be based upon each lot
containing a Net Lot Area of 7,808 square feet regardless of the actual measured lot size.
b. Each lot shall be restricted to a density not to exceed one (1) single-family home subject to
the floor area limitation of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit as stated in Ordinance No 35,
Series 1987. Each lot may also have one Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House,
which may utilize floor area in excess of the 2,486 square feet limit up to the total allowable
floor area for the lot.
c. Each Lot shall be listed as a designated historic landmark and be eligible for the benefits and
burdened by the restrictions set forth in the Land Use Code, as amended, for historic
landmarks.
d. Each lot shall have separate water taps and separate sewer taps, and separate connections for
any additional utility services serving each individual lot. All tap fees, materials and
connection costs shall be borne at the expense of the appropriate property owner.
e. Neither Lot shall be further subdivided to create additional lots. This shall not prohibit
condominiumization of improvement within an individual lot.
f. This approval is specifically conditioned upon the execution of a waiver of any and all
existing rights, claims or causes of action on the part of either property owner of any right to
assert that a distinct development right exists on either the Southerly Parcel or Northerly
Parcel that formerly comprised Silver King Drive, which waiver shall be set forth in the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
P262
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 3
g. Alpine Acres Condominiums, #1 including all existing condominium agreements, bylaws,
associations or incorporations shall be dissolved upon recordation of the final plat.
h. All easements shall be shown on the final plat.
i. The plat requirements listed under Section 2: Plat, shall be satisfied.
j. The Subdivision Agreement requirements listed under Section 3: Subdivision Agreement,
shall be satisfied.
Section 2: Plat
Two original signed plats that meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480,
Subdivision , Section 26.490, Approval Documents, and Municipal Code Title 29, Engineering
Design Standards shall be submitted to the City of Aspen for review and approval prior to
requisite recordation with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of final
approval. The final plat shall include:
a. A plat note stating that the driveway access for Lot 1 shall be moved from Gibson Avenue
to Matchless Drive prior to any future development,
b. A plat note stating that any buildings spanning across lot lines shall be removed prior to any
substantial redevelopment,
c. A plat note stating that any required public infrastructure, including sidewalks and
stormwater best management practices, shall be constructed in accordance with the City of
Aspen’s engineering and design standards at the time of the given resulting lot’s
development and at the expense of that property owner,
d. A plat note stating that each lot shall have separate water taps and separate sewer taps, and
separate connections for any additional utility services serving each individual lot. All tap
fees, materials and connection costs shall be borne at the expense of the property owners,
and
e. The identification of all easements.
Section 3: Subdivision Agreements
Within 180 days following the final approval of this ordinance, the Applicant shall submit two
original signed copies of a Subdivision Agreement to the City of Aspen for recordation with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder guaranteeing:
a. Each lot shall enjoy and be burdened by the development rights of the applicable zone
district designation (currently R-6, but as may change from time to time) as stated in the
Land Use Code, as amended. The development rights shall be based upon each lot
containing a Net Lot Area of 7,808 square feet regardless of the actual measured lot size.
b. Each lot shall be restricted to a density not to exceed one (1) single-family home subject to
the floor area limitation of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit as stated in Ordinance No 35,
Series 1987. Each lot may also have one Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House,
P263
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 4
which may utilize floor area in excess of the 2,486 square feet limit up to the total allowable
floor area for the lot.
c. Each Lot shall be listed as a designated historic landmark and be eligible for the benefits and
burdened by the restrictions set forth in the Land Use Code, as amended, for historic
landmarks.
d. The relocation of the driveway access for Lot 1 from Gibson Avenue to Matchless Drive,
e. The removal of any existing structures that would span across a lot line or conflict with
applicable setback requirements as a result of this subdivision approval, prior to any
substantial development of either lot,
f. Commitment of financial sureties guaranteeing the construction of the required public
infrastructure, including sidewalks and stormwater best management practices, in
accordance with the City of Aspen’s engineering and design standards, and
g. A waiver of all rights, claims or causes of action on the part of either property owner
regarding the quiet title action or rights associated with the quiet title action to assert that a
distinct development right exists on either the Southerly Parcel or Northerly Parcel that
formerly comprised Silver King Drive.
No development shall occur on either resulting parcel until the conditions of the Subdivision
Agreement are met.
All future development on either resulting parcel shall be subject to Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) review and approval, to the extent required by the Land Use Code.
The sufficiency and acceptance of the Subdivision Agreement and its associated financial sureties
shall be determined by the City of Aspen Community Development Department, City of Aspen
Engineering Department and the Aspen City Attorney.
Section 4:
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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
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 6:
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 8st day of June, 2015, and the 13 th day of July in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
P264
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 5
hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City of Aspen.
Section 7: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan 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 submit all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within one
year 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, 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: Gibson Matchless
Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County Colorado, as more fully described in City of
Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 21, Series 2015.
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 8:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
[Signatures on following page]
P265
IX.c
Ordinance 21, Series 2015. pg. 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 26 th day of May, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2015.
Attest:
_______________________________ _____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P266
IX.c
Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards
Gibson Matchless Subdivision Preliminary Plat
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.
Staff Findings: Currently, both properties are accessed off of Gibson Avenue, which is a paved
right-of-way that was improved in accordance with the Alpine Acres annexation and subdivision
development agreement. There are approximately ten feet between each condo unit’s individual
driveways. If this lot split proposal is approved, each parcel would be allowed one curb cut, and
the City would require the driveway access for the northern parcel, 980 Gibson (Lot 1 in the
preliminary plat,) to be relocated to Matchless Drive, a gravel right-of-way used to access three
residential lots and the Smuggler Racquet Club. No new right-of-way dedications would be
required to provide adequate public or emergency access, and no private gateways are being
proposed. Staff finds that a satisfactory development agreement as a condition of approval
would satisfy this criteria.
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.
Staff Findings: The preliminary plat proposes the creation of two lot configurations which
deviate significantly from the Original Aspen Townsite, as well as the Alpine Acres Addition that
includes this site under consideration. In order to divide the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) evenly
between the two resulting lots, the applicants are requesting to create one parcel with 18 lot
lines (Lot 1) and another parcel with 10 lot lines (Lot 2). To accomplish this balance in FAR,
the applicants are proposing to connect the primary land mass of Lot 1 to a landlocked land
mass on the far side of Lot 2 via a strip of land roughly two feet wide and 50 feet long that runs
along the northeast lost line of Lot 2.
The City’s original platted lots consist of rectangular blocks that are 270 feet wide by 220 feet
deep, and composed of nine lots on each side, separated by a 20 foot-wide alley. The Alpine
Acres Addition was first subdivided by Pitkin County in 1964. The addition includes two
perpendicular rights-of-way, Silver King Drive (a portion of which was vacated and granted to
Alpine Acres Condominiums via quiet title) and Herron Drive (which later became Matchless
Drive). Lot Two through Five of the Alpine Acres Addition are rectangular lots approximately
86 feet wide by 185 feet long (15,900 square feet each) that front the northeast side of Silver
King Drive, while Lot One - this proposal’s fathering parcel - is a five-sided lot abutting the
southwest side of Silver King Drive.
The subject site is relatively level, with the exception of a few man-made berms and runoff
drainages that have grades greater than 20%. These undulating spots take up approximately
P267
IX.c
1,300 of the fathering parcel’s 18,635 square feet. Thus, topographic conditions do not hinder a
logical lot configuration approximating the quadrilateral shape of the Original Townsite or the
other four lots of the Alpine Acres Addition.
The unusual number of lot lines, the narrow 50 foot stretch, and the incorporation of a seemingly
disconnected flag area of Lot 1 that is on the opposite side of the proposed Lot 2 do not meet this
criteria of the Code.
The applicant responded to this analysis by amending the proposed lot configurations to provide
simple-shaped lots. These amended lots provide compliance with this standard and staff finds
this criterion met.
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.
Staff Findings: The applicants are not requesting a change in zoning. The fathering parcel is
zoned R-6 which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet and a minimum net lot area of
4,500 square feet. Both proposed parcels have more than enough square feet to meet the
required minimum gross lot area (16,444 sf for Lot 1 and 14,342 sf for Lot 2), as well as the
minimum net lot area for FAR purposes (7,808 sf for both lots). Staff finds this criterion met.
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.
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 assurances
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 Findings: An existing garage is currently attached to Alpine Acres Condominiums No. 1
and No. 2 which spans across one of the proposed lot lines that would separate the two lots. The
Applicant is aware structures are not allowed to span across lot lines when subdividing land,
and is willing to demolish the garage as a condition of approval, which staff finds would satisfy
this criteria.
Assurances acceptable to the City of Aspen guaranteeing removal of the garage prior to the
recording a subdivision plat must be in place as a condition of approval. Such an assurance
would meet this criteria of the Code.
P268
IX.c
Exhibit B - Minor Subdivision Approval Criteria
Gibson Matchless Subdivision Preliminary Plat
26.480.060. Minor subdivisions :
A. Lot Split. The subdivision of a lot 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, according to the following standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General Subdivision
Review Standards.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision does not comply with all of the General Subdivision
Review Standards in Section 26.480.040, as discussed in Exhibit A. Specifically, the proposed
subdivision does not approximate the Original Aspen Townsite or the Alpine Acres Addition, of
which this proposed subdivision is a part of. Staff finds the original application to not meet this
criterion.
The applicant responded to this analysis by amending the lot configurations. The amended
proposal would provide simple-shaped lots and conformance with this standard. Staff finds the
amended proposal meets this criterion.
2. No more than two lots are created by the lot split. No more than one lot split shall occur
on any one fathering parcel.
Staff Findings: Lot 5 of the Alpine Acres Addition has not been subdivided by the City of Aspen.
Staff finds this criterion met.
3. The 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 Findings: Staff recommends requiring satisfactory development agreements and sureties as
a condition of approval.
P269
IX.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU : Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Call-up of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, On-site
relocation, and Variances for 223 E. Hallam Street, HPC Resolution
#16, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015
On June 1 st City Council voted to call up a
recent HPC approval for discussion. The call up
procedures are described below.
During a public meeting, City Council shall
consider the application de novo and may
consider the record established by the HPC. The
City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same criteria applicable to
the HPC.
City Council may take the following actions:
1. Accept the decision, or
2. Remand the application to HPC with
direction from City Council for rehearing
and reconsideration, or
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to
conclude the call up review.
Although the final HPC vote on this application was split (4-3), staff believes the review resulted
in a good project. Staff supports the HPC decision and recommends Council select Option #1,
accepting the HPC decision.
If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and
reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial
changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require
a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the
new changes to the application.
Following the conclusion of the call up process, this application will be subject to Final Major
Development Review by HPC.
P270
X.a
BACKGROUND :
223 E. Hallam is a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a Victorian era home. This property was
recently the subject of a subdivision, which separated the 19 th century resource from the Berko
photography studio to the west. HPC was asked to conduct Conceptual design review of a project
that involves demolishing non-historic construction on the site, moving the Victorian to the front of
the property, and expanding it. The project included setback variances and a floor area bonus
request. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the proposal by a vote of 4 -3.
Staff recommended approval of the project and the majority of the board also found that the
Design Guidelines and review standards were met. The approved drawings are attached, along
with the HPC resolution and draft minutes.
DISCUSSION :
The proposed project involves several actions that are typical of residential Major Development
reviews that are heard by HPC. The existing Victorian, like most in Aspen, has experienced
some alterations over the years. The owner plans to restore the home to its original design. In
this case, a significant addition was made to the front of the house, sometime around the 1940’s.
This addition destroyed the original front porch and dramatically changed the architecture. This
intrusive addition will be removed, along with a non-historic outbuilding along the alley. Below
left is the home today, with the addition that was inserted into the front of the house. Below
right is the proposed project, with a front porch reconstructed.
Below are “before and after” figure-ground drawings showing the existing footprint of the home,
including encroachments into the setbacks, and the proposed condition.
P271
X.a
The project involves lifting the Victorian for a new basement and shifting the house forward on
the lot. HPC typically allows this action as a means to distance a historic resource from new
construction, which is best placed at the rear of the site. HPC requires new construction to attach
to the rear of a historic building as lightly and minimally as possible, with a one story connecting
hallway approximately 10 feet in length separating the historic resource from the bulk of the
addition. The applicant is following this
standard model for Aspen preservation projects.
The drawing at the right shows the extent to
which the house location is to be altered, in
blue. (The red shading indicates where the
house might be temporarily placed during
excavation.) The house is to be moved forward
approximately 10 feet and westward
approximately 1 foot. Relocation decisions
often factor in the surrounding historic context.
In this case, there are no other Victorian era
homes on the blockface. The Berko studio, a
new landmark to the west, is being moved
substantially forward and eastward of its
existing location and will have features that will
sit closer to Hallam Street than will be the case
with the subject Victorian. As noted, three
HPC members did not vote in favor of
Conceptual approval of this project. Two
members indicated that their primary concern
was that the applicant did not provide studies of
alternative placements for the home on the lot.
It is staff’s opinion that the HPC has typically
asked for relocations to be closely tied to
original siting. Generally, HPC is more
favorable to a forward movement than a lateral
movement of a historic structure. There was
some suggestion that this project should be
shifted eastward in response to the Berko
Studio approval. Staff, and at least four of the HPC members, did not make that finding.
As part of moving the house, the applicant will salvage existing foundation material and replicate
the historic design. The Conceptual review did include a discussion of possibly lowering the
Victorian so that the first floor level is 7” closer to grade than it is now. The reason this is being
considered is because the applicant would like to avoid being required to construct a handrail on
the steps leading to their newly restored porch. A handrail would not likely have been part of the
original design. HPC discussed this issue and asked that the applicant work with the Chief
Building Official to find a solution that did not change the building height. All aspects of the
final porch design are required to be reviewed in further detail at HPC Final review and building
permit/construction.
P272
X.a
Regarding the proposed addition to the house, staff provided guidance to the applicant in
preparation for the HPC meeting. We worked cooperatively to shift the project from one which
staff initially felt had many conflicts with the HPC design guidelines to one which we fully
supported.
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
APPROVED BY HPC
P273
X.a
The project received a 500 square foot floor area bonus. In selected circumstances, the HPC may
grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects
involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be
demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Staff recommended that the project met 6 of the 8 criteria (a-f.) One HPC member did not
support the Conceptual approval because of the floor area bonus. His concern was that the
restoration of the front porch may involve some conjecture because there are no photographs or
clear documentation of the design. Staff believes that more evidence of the original design will
be uncovered once the 1940’s addition on the front of the house is removed. There are several
aspects of the original porch that do remain in place, including the foundation, the building walls
that surrounded the porch, and the original front door openings. It is not unusual to have to rely
on this sort of information, rather than photos, in an HPC project. Aside from the matter of
porch restoration, staff supported the bonus because of the applicant’s commitment to preserve
all existing historic features of the home, including all original windows, doors, siding and
decorative details, and because we find the proposed addition to be sympathetic and clearly
secondary to the historic resource. The applicant has agreed to work with HPC on a solution to a
concern the board had with an interior design issue (the location of an interior stair relative to the
main bay window) even though interior review is generally beyond HPC’s purview.
The approval included two setback variances. HPC has the authority to consider setback variances
if they allow for better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building.
The project meets the required 5’ sideyard on each side, but does not meet the total combined yard
of 15’. This is only true at the new addition. The Victorian has a large yard on the east side of it.
Part of the new addition comes within 5’ of the rear lot line, rather than 10’ as required. This
resulted from staff’s encouragement to shift the new construction farther to the back of the historic
resource versus the original proposed addition, which met the rear setback but wrapped up along the
east side of the historic house, which was undesirable.
RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends that Council uphold HPC Resolution #16, Series of
2015, granting Conceptual Major Development, On-site relocation, and Variances for 223 E.
Hallam Street. We believe that the project is consistent with HPC policies and previous
approvals.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE ):
“I move to uphold HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P274
X.a
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015
Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from May 13, 2015
Exhibit D: Applicant response
P275
X.a
Z-CVR
Z-001
Z-002
COVER
LAND USE APPROVALS
LAND USE APPROVALS
PLAT
Z-004
Z-005
Z-006
Z-007
SURVEY
ZONING SUMMARY
RDS COMPLIANCE
SITE PLAN
SITE COVERAGE
Z-011X
Z-012X
Z-013X
Z-011
Z-012
Z-013
Z-014
Z-101
Z-102
Z-103
Z-104
Z-201
Z-202
Z-203
Z-204
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
TEMPORARY RELOCATION
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
Z-009
Z-010
ROOF DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
Z-206
Z-207
Z-208
HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY
MATERIALS
STREETSCAPE
SHEET INDEX
PROJECT SITE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam StSCOPE OF WORK
The remodel of a landmarked historic residence - removing two non-
historic additions, removing a non-historic detatched garage, moving
the entire remaining structure to the North West corner of the Lot,
building an addition to the rear of the house, and the addition of a
subgrade level.HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-CVR
COVER
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
7
6
X
.
a
Deed Deed
INDEX OF LAND USE APPROVALS:
Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - (Z-002)
Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - (Z-002)
Book 104, page 38 Sept 2013 - Final Plat
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-001
LAND USE
APPROVALS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
7
7
X
.
a
Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation
Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-002
LAND USE
APPROVALS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
7
8
X
.
a
P
2
7
9
X
.
a
P
2
8
0
X
.
a
Allowable Floor Area
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Allowable Floor Area Reference
Per R-6 26.710.040.D.11
Unique Approvals Reference
Variances Reference
Exemptions Reference
Garage Exemption First 250 sq ft exempt; Next 250 sq ft to exclude 50% of area 26.575.020.D.7.
Deck Exemption 486 sq ft exempt (Allowable floor area 3,240 sq ft x 15%)26.575.020.D.5.
Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft) Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft) Proposed Gross (Sq Ft) Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) Reference
Lower Level 257.75 17.55 3,709.75 144.15
Main Level 2,037.50 1,550.25 2,480.50 2,105.50
Upper Level 1,015.50 1,015.50 1,458.75 1,458.75
Deck Area (including covered front porch)40.00 371.50
TOTAL 3,350.75 2,583.30 8,020.50 3,708.40
Lot is 6,000 sq ft therefore, per R-6 code, this Lot has an
allowable FAR of 3,240 (will apply for a 500 sq ft bonus from
HPC, which would allow for 3,740)
Zoning Allowance & Project Summary
Proposed Development Single Family | Remodel/Addition
Parcel #273-707-316-008
Zone District R-6
Setbacks Existing Reference
Front 3'-0 1/2”10'15'10'N/A 26.710.040.D.2
Rear 10'10'5'10'5'26.710.040.D.3
West Side 5'5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
East Side 1'-7”5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
Combined Side 10'15'N/A 10'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
Distance between Buildings N/A 5'N/A N/A 26.710.040.D.9
Corner Lot no no Plat
Supplemental Breakdown Info Existing Required Proposed Reference
Open Space %N/A Not Required for R-6 N/A 26.710.040.D.10
Site Coverage 33.90%50%42.30%26.710.040.D.7
On-Site Parking 2 (garage)2 2
Land Value Summary Actual Value Reference
Land $3,000,000
Improvements $99,500
Total $3,099,500
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Allowed
(Principal)
Allowed
(Accessory)
Proposed
(Principal)
Proposed
(Accessory)
Pitkin County Assessor
Pitkin County Assessor
Pitkin County Assessor
Net Lot Area
Zone District Requirements Reference
Min. Gross Lot Area (per R-6)6,000 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.1
Min. Net Lot Area (per R-6)4,500 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.2
Lot Size Per Survey Reference
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Area Reductions
Net Lot Area 6,000 Sq Ft Per Plat
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Reductions for area with slopes 0%-20% (100% of parcel area to be
included in Net Lot Area)
Survey
26.575.020-1
Reductions for area with slopes 20%-30% (50% of parcel area to be
included in Net Lot Area)
Survey
26.575.020-1
Reductions for area with slopes greater than 30% (0% of parcel area to be
included in Net Lot Area)
Survey
26.575.020-1
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-004
ZONING SUMMARY
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
1
X
.
a
Residential Design Standards Compliance
Project Name
RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description Referenced Z Sheets
A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.The front facades of all principal structures are parallel to the street. This is not a corner lot. Z-006
2. Build-to lines. Z-006
3. Fences.Z-006
B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.Z-006
a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-101
Z-203
The garage doors are visible from the alley. Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
D. Building Elements Z-201
Z-101
Z-101
There is a significant group of windows in the historic resource that face the street.Z-201
2. First story element.Z-101
3. Windows.The proposed street facing windows do not span between 9' and 12'.Z-201
There are no non-orthogonal windows existing to remain or proposed.Z-201 – Z-205
All light-wells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.Z-101
E. Context 1. Materials.Z-201 – Z-205
Proposed materials will be used in ways that are true to their characteristics.Z-201 – Z-205
c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.There are no proposed highly reflective exterior materials.Z-201 – Z-205
2. Inflection.
Z-201
Z-102
The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both
street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the
front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the
street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this
requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the
building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired.
On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent
(60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line.
On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length.
Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard.
Due to the relocation of the historic resource, more than 60% of the front facade will be within
5 feet of the front yard setback.
Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high,
measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made
berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
The historic fence that is proposed to be located at the front of the house is no more than 42”.
All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total
square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal
building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to
parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory
buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a
primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10)
feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space
over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any
railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum
reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing
must be 50% or more transparent.
More than 10% of the total above grade square footage is located in a secondary mass that is
connected to the primary structure by a subordinate linking element that is 10' in length, 10' in
width and has a plate height of less than 9'.
C. Parking, Garages and
Carports
1. For all residential uses
that have access from an
alley or private road, the
following standards shall
apply:
b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or
double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
The garage doors are visible from the alley and are double stall doors that appear like single
stall doors.
c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either
single-stall or normal double-stall garage doors.
2. For all residential uses
that have access only from
a public street, the
following standards shall
be apply:
a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least
five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport.
b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set
back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.
c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may
be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are
perpendicular to the street (side-loaded).
d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut
within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural
grade.
e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four
(24) feet.
f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall
doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
1. Street oriented entrance
and principal window.
All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall
have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall
have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have
a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face
whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the
following conditions are met:
The historic resource that is proposed to be relocated at the front of the lot has a street
oriented entrance and a street facing principal window.
a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-
most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
The entry door of the historic resource is no more than 10' back from the front most wall of the
building. The entry door is not taller than 8'.
b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet,
shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1)
story in height.
The entry porch of the historic resource is being restored. It is more than 6' in depth and not
more than 1 story in height. It is more that 50 square feet.
c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face
street.
All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which
comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which
is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the
first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not
exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or
living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be
allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story
elements on the front façade shall not be precluded.
The historic resource does not have a first story street facing element and therefore this is not
applicable.
a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would
typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For
interior staircases, this measurement will be
made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt
from this standard.
b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the
building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still
be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection
26.410.010.B.2.
4. Lightwells.All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be
entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.
a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on
all sides of the building.
The quality of the exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the
building.
b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco,
which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as
stone.
The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or
over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2:
a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction
must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story
buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to
Inflect.
There is a 1 story building on the lot to the east of our property and we are inflecting in the
proposed addition to that lot with a 1 story garage.
A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or
portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable
living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be
met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the
street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent
building is one (1) story.
The proposed addition is located behind the historic resource and therefore the inflection is
not visible from the street. It is more than 12' wide on the alley/south side of the lot and has
only one floor of fully usable space.
Residential Design Standards Unique Approvals & Variances
See Land Use Approvals for complete list of approved resolutions and/or admin approvals. This project
does not include any unique approvals related specifically to RDS.
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-005
RDS COMPLIANCE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
2
X
.
a
8'-10"
1
0
'
-
0
"
6'-2"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
EXISTING TREE ON
NEIGHBORS LOT
[LOT 1 OF 223 E
HALLAM LOT SPLIT]
TO BE REMOVED BY
NEIGHBOR
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT
SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
[P
R
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
]
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
SE
T
-
BA
C
K
[G
A
R
A
G
E
]
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT 225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
7895
7896
7897
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
1'-4"
7'-01/2"
7'-37/8"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
EXISTING HISTORIC
FENCE TO BE
RELOCATED TO
PROPERTY LINE
6' PRIVACY FENCE TO
BE LOCATED BEHIND
FRONT FACADE OF
ADDITION PER
26.575.020.E.5.p
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
[P
R
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
]
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
S
E
T
-
B
A
C
K
[G
A
R
A
G
E
]
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
TREE TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED TREE
TREE LEGEND
N
1X EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-006
SITE PLAN
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
3
X
.
a
6,000.00 sq ft
1,550.25 sq ft
487.25 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
EXISTING SITE
COVERAGE:
33.9%
6,000.00 sq ft
2,507.25 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
ALLOWABLE SITE
COVERAGE:
50%
PROPOSED SITE
COVERAGE:
41.7%
N
EXISTING SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-007
SITE COVERAGE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
4
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
21
3
456
7 8
9
10
11
12
1513
14
16
17
18 19
157.25 sq ft 155.25 sq ft
301.25 sq ft 301.25 sq ft
124.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft
143.25 sq ft
264.50 sq ft194.25 sq ft
5.00 sq ft 31.50 sq ft
198.50 sq ft
104.00 sq ft
277.25 sq ft
204.00 sq ft
19.50 sq ft
19.50 sq ft 177.00 sq ft
227.50 sq ft
21.50 sq ft
2.75 sq ft
1918
1 2
3
4
3
56
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
7
Demolition Calculations
Roof Demolition
Roof Label Individual Roof Area (Sq Ft)
1157.25157.25
2155.25155.25
3144.00144.00
4143.25143.25
5264.50
6194.25
75.00
831.502.75
9198.50
10 104.00
11 277.25
12 204.00
13 19.50 19.50
14 19.50 19.50
15 177.00
16 227.50 227.50
17 21.50 21.50
18 301.25 301.25
19 301.25 301.25
Roof Surface Total (Sq Ft)2,946.25
Roof Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)1,493.00
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75
Total 53.93%
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Area of Roof to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
EXISTING ROOF
TO REMAIN
ROOF TO BE
DEMOLISHED
ROOF DEMO
LEGEND
N
ROOF DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF DEMO FILLS - FLAT PLANE METHOD 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-009
ROOF DEMOLITION
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
5
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
I
J
K
LM
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V
S
W
X
Y
Z
AA
HISTORIC
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
P H
M
S
R BB
CC
DDEE
FF
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
54.00 sq ft
163.50 sq ft
181.25 sq ft 135.00 sq ft
153.25 sq ft
171.00 sq ft
41.25 sq ft 38.25 sq ft
12.50 sq ft12.50 sq ft
25.25 sq ft
19.00 sq ft
14.50 sq ft10.00 sq ft 88.75 sq ft 112.75 sq ft
166.25 sq ft
32.50 sq ft
72.25 sq ft30.25 sq ft 30.25 sq ft
202.25 sq ft
13.75 sq ft
30.00 sq ft
34.75 sq ft
49.25 sq ft15.25 sq ft
208.25 sq ft
161.50 sq ft
197.00 sq ft
164.50 sq ft
A B C D E
F HG I J K
L M N O P
Q R S T U V W
BB
CCDD
EE
FF
X Y Z
AA
387.75 sq ft
300.00 sq ft
10.75 sq ft
13.75 sq ft
3.75 sq ft3.75 sq ft
126.00 sq ft
9.25 sq ft
3.50 sq ft
49.75 sq ft
18.25 sq ft
44.50 sq ft
18.25 sq ft
226.25 sq ft
26.50 sq ft
8.50 sq ft
232.50 sq ft
8.00 sq ft
5.75 sq ft
226.25 sq ft
29.00 sq ft
33.00 sq ft8.75 sq ft 8.75 sq ft
Demolition Calculations
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)
A163.50 163.50
B181.25 181.25
C135.00 135.00
D153.25 153.25
E171.00 171.00
F41.2510.00
G38.2514.50
H387.7569.25
I88.75 88.75
J112.75 112.75
K166.25 166.25
L32.50 32.50
M300.0032.00
N126.0012.75
O49.7518.25
P226.2535.00
Q44.5018.25
R232.5013.75
S226.2529.00
T30.258.75
U75.2533.00
V30.258.75
W202.25 202.25
X208.25 208.25
Y161.50 161.50
Z197.00 197.00
AA 164.50 164.50
BB 13.75
CC 30.00
DD 34.75
EE 49.25
FF 15.25
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75
Total 53.93%
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Area Reduced for Fenestration
(Sq Ft)
Area of Wall to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
Demolition CalculationsWall Demolition Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)A163.50 163.50B181.25 181.25C135.00 135.00D153.25 153.25E171.00 171.00F41.2510.00G38.2514.50H387.7569.25I88.75 88.75J112.75 112.75K166.25 166.25L32.50 32.50
M300.0032.00
N126.0012.75
O49.7518.25
P226.2535.00
Q44.5018.25
R232.5013.75
S226.2529.00
T30.258.75
U75.2533.00
V30.258.75
W202.25 202.25
X208.25 208.25
Y161.50 161.50
Z197.00 197.00
AA 164.50 164.50
BB 13.75
CC 30.00
DD 34.75
EE 49.25
FF 15.25
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75
Total 53.93%
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Area Reduced for Fenestration(Sq Ft)Area of Wall to be Removed(Sq Ft)
Demolition Calculations
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)
A163.50 163.50
B181.25 181.25
C135.00 135.00
D153.25 153.25
E171.00 171.00
F41.2510.00
G38.2514.50
H387.7569.25
I88.75 88.75
J112.75 112.75
K166.25 166.25
L32.50 32.50
M300.0032.00
N126.0012.75
O49.7518.25
P226.2535.00
Q44.5018.25
R232.5013.75
S226.2529.00
T30.258.75
U75.2533.00
V30.258.75
W202.25 202.25
X208.25 208.25
Y161.50 161.50
Z197.00 197.00
AA 164.50 164.50
BB 13.75
CC 30.00
DD 34.75
EE 49.25
FF 15.25
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75
Total 53.93%
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Area Reduced for Fenestration
(Sq Ft)
Area of Wall to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
EXISTING WALL
TO REMAIN
WALL TO BE
DEMOLISHED
WALL DEMO
LEGEND
N
MAIN LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"UPPER LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"WALL DEMO FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-010
WALL DEMOLITION
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
6
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
12
'
-
3
1/
2
"
16'-03/8"
16'-03/8"
12
'
-
3
1/
2
"
4.
3.
2.
1.
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
CRAWL
CRAWL
CRAWL
257.75 sq ft
16'-03/8"12'-31/2"16'-03/8"12'-31/2"
7'
-
0
"
112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft 112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft
15.00 sq ft 12.00 sq ft
1.2.3.4.
EXPOSED WALL AREA
WALL BELOW GRADE
Floor Area Calculations
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1112.25
286.00
3112.2515.00
486.0012.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)396.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)27.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.8%
Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)257.75
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
N
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND
FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-011X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
7
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
40.00 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
1,550.25 sq ft
487.25 sq ft
Floor Area Calculations
Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)487.25
Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)40.00
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-012X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
8
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
OPEN TO
BELOW
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
771.75 sq ft
243.75 sq ft
Floor Area Calculations
Existing Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)771.75
Upper Level Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)243.75
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.5
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-013X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
8
9
X
.
a
43'-0"
34
'
-
0
1/
2
"
4'-0"
16
'
-
3
1/
8
"
3'
-
0
"
12
'
-
3
3/
8
"
3'
-
0
"
8'
-
5
"
42
'
-
1
1
1/
2
"
45'-81/8"
16
'
-
3
1/
8
"
3'
-
0
"
19
'
-
1
7/
8
"
3'
-
0
"
7'
-
1
1/
2
"
48
'
-
6
1/
2
"
1'-37/8"
28
'
-
5
1/
2
"
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3,709.75 sq ft
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
G G
A A
B B
C C
3
3
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Lower Level Exposed Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1473.00
2374.50
344.00
4537.0057.00
5571.00
6606.7557.00
714.50
8313.00
Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,933.75
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)114.00
% of Exposed Wall (Sq Ft) (Exposed / Total)3.89%
Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,709.75
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40
43'-0"34'-01/2"4'-0"
42'-111/2"
16'-31/8"3'-0"19'-17/8"3'-0"1'-61/2"
45'-81/8"
48'-61/2"
7'-11/2"3'-0"19'-17/8"3'-0"16'-31/8"
1'-37/8"28'-51/2"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
9'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
9'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
0
"
374.50 sq ft473.00 sq ft
313.00 sq ft14.50 sq ft
44.00 sq ft 537.00 sq ft
28.50 sq ft28.50 sq ft
571.00 sq ft 606.75 sq ft
28.50 sq ft 28.50 sq ft
1.2.3.4.
5.6.7.8.
EXPOSED WALL AREA
WALL BELOW GRADE
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
N
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-011
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
0
X
.
a
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
D
W
D
W
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
G G
A A
B B
C C
3
3
500.00 sq ft
71.50 sq ft
48.00 sq ft
1,980.50 sq ft
ATTIC FRONT
PORCH PER
26.575
020.D.5
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1980.50
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.00
Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1980.50
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00
Total Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)48.00 Main Level – Exempt
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)252.00 Upper Level
Total Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)323.50
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
N
PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-012
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
1
X
.
a
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
G G
A A
B B
C C
3
3
970.00 sq ft
108.50 sq ft
488.75 sq ft
143.50 sq ft
ATTIC EXEMPT
PER 26.575
020.D.3
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 488.75 + 944.75
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)42.00 Main Level – Exempt
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)252.00 Upper Level
Total Deck Floor Area 323.50
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
NN
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-013
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
2
X
.
a
CURRENT LOCATION
OF HOUSE
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF HOUSE
POTENTIAL LOCATION OF HOUSE
DURING CONSTRUCTION
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
N
1 TEMPORARY RELOCATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-014
TEMPORARY
RELOCATION
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
3
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
CRAWL
000
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
W
CD
W
CD
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
G G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
REC ROOM
001
STAIR
002
MECH
004
BEDROOM 1
006
LAUNDRY
005
BEDROOM 2
009
BATH 1
007
CLOSET 1
008
BATH 2
010CLOSET 2
011
BEDROOM 4
015
BATH 4
017
CLOSET 4
016
BEDROOM 3
012
BATH 3
014
CLOSET 3
013
PWDR
003
BAR
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
N
1X EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-101
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
4
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
G G
1.1
Z-201
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
2.1
Z-202
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
ENTRY
101
STAIR
102
LIVING ROOM
103
BAR
104
HALL
105
KITCHEN
108
DINING ROOM
110
PANTRY
109
FRONT
PORCH
D
W
D
W
PWDR
106
MUDROOM
107
FAMILY ROOM
111
GARAGE
112
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
CD W
CD
W
F
F
RG
RG
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
LIVING ROOM
101
BEDROOM
102
BATH
104KITCHEN
103
DINING ROOM
105
LIVING ROOM
106
KITCHEN
107
ENTRY
108
BATH
111
STORAGE
109
CLOSET
110
GARAGE
112
N
2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-102
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
5
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
BEDROOM
203
CLOSET
202
BEDROOM
207HALL
201
BATH
204
BEDROOM
205
BEDROOM
206
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
G G
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
ATTIC
206
STAIR
202
HALL
202
HALL
208
MASTER BEDROOM
209
CLOSET
204
GUEST
MASTER
BEDROOM
203GUEST
MASTER
BATH
205
WC
203 SHOWER
203
MASTER BATH
210
SHOWER
210
WC 1
210
WC 2
210
MASTER
CLOSET
211
N
3X EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-103
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
6
X
.
a
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
G G
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
G G
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
N
4X EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-104
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
7
X
.
a
5 4 3 2 1
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2"
17
'
-
9
1/
2
"
22
'
-
7
1/
8
"
22
'
-
1
0
3/
8
"
23
'
-
1
7/
8
"
12
'
-
3
1/
8
"
12
'
-
3
1/
8
"
12
'
-
2
1/
2
"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 01/2"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
1.
2.
12
12
12
12
6.12
12
7.
12
12
4.3.5.
345 2 1
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
INTERPOLATED
SLOPE1/3 POINT
FROM EAVE TO
RIDGE
TOP OF STRUCTURE
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2"
22
'
-
8
3/
8
"
23
'
-
7
3/
4
"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 01/2"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
18.
8
12 12
8
18.
4
12 13.
PROPOSED RIDGE
125' - 61/4"
19.
5 4 3 2 1
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 101'- 2"
= 7897'-8"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 8"
1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1.1 PROPOSED NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1X EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-201
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
8
X
.
a
A B C D E F G
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
TOP-MOST PORTION
TOP-MOST PORTION
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2"
23
'
-
3
1/
2
"
23
'
-
3
1/
2
"
11
'
-
6
"
1
0
'
-
1
0
3/
8
"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 01/2"17.
12
12
17.
12
12 18.
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
12
2
19.
20.
12
1
C D E F G
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE
TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE
17
'
-
1
0
7/
8
"
22
'
-
1
0
3/
8
"
17
'
-
4
"
10
'
-
4
3/
8
"
11
'
-
5
"
1.12
12
12
12
6.
12
12
6.
9.12
12
11.12
1
10.12
1
A B C D E F G
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 101'- 2"
= 7897'-8"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 8"
2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2.1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
2X EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-202
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
2
9
9
X
.
a
1 2 3 4 5
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
SEE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION DRAWING
1.1 SHEET Z-201 FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 01/2"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
12
12
18.18.
12
12
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
1 2 3 4 5
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 101'- 2"
= 7897'-8"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 8"
3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
3X EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-203
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
3
0
0
X
.
a
G F E D C B A
12
'
-
3
1/
8
"
1/2 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
TOP OF TRELLIS
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
TOP MOST
PORTION OF
STRUCTURE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2"
20
'
-
1
1
7/
8
"
2
4
'
-
6
1/
2
"
2
4
'
-
0
1/
4
"
23
'
-
1
7/
8
"
2
3
'
-
3
1/
2
"
14
'
-
1
1/
4
"
11
'
-
1
1/
8
"
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 01/2"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
6
12
12
8
12
12
13.
14.
15.
12.
16.
7.12
12
8.
14.12
12
G F E D C B A
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 101'- 2"
= 7897'-8"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 8"
4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
4X EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-204
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
3
0
1
X
.
a
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
23'-31/2"23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"23'-31/2"
24'-61/2"
11'-11/8"
11'-6"
10'-103/8"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
G G
A A
B B
C C
3
3
23'-31/2"
24-01/4"
20'-117/8"
10'-43/8"
23'-17/8"
17'-91/2"22'-71/8"
22'-103/8"
22'-103/8"
14'-11/4"17'-4"
12'-31/8"
12'-31/8"12'-21/2"
11'-5"
23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"
1.2.
5.
4.
3.
6.7.
8.9.10.
11.
18.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1212
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
12
1
12
1
12
6
12
8
12 18.12
12 12
12
14.12
12
12
12
19.2
12
20.
1
12
Height Over Topography
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Elevation Label Most Restrictive
1 7895'-2 ¼”7895'-2 ¼”Natural 7912'-11 ¾”17'-9 ½”
2 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural
3 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural
4 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural
5 7895'-1”7895'-1”Natural 7907'-3 ½”12'-2 ½”
6 7895'-5 ¼”7895'-5 ¼”Natural
7 7895'1 ¼”7895'1 ¼”Natural
8 7895'-4”7895'-4”Natural 7909'-5 ¼”14'-1 ¼”
9 7895'-5 ¾”7895'-5 ¾”Natural 7912'-9 ¾”17'-4”
10 7895'-5 ¾”7895'-5 ¾”Natural 7907'-0 ¼”11'-6 ½”
11 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural
12 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural
13 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural 7919'-3”23'-4 ¾”
14 7896'-1 ¾”7896'-1 ¾”Natural 7918'-10”22'-8 ¼”
15 7896'-1 ¾”7896'-1 ¾”Natural
16 7896'-0”7895'-0”Natural 7907'-6”11'-6”
17 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural
18 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural
19 7895'-8 ½”7895'-8 ½”Natural 7907'-2 ½”11'-6”
Elevation of Natural
Grade
Elevation of Proposed
Grade
Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
7917'-71/8”22'-7 1/8”
7907'-31/8”12'-31/8”
7907'-31/8”12'-31/8”
7918'-35/8”22'-103/8”
7918'-31/8”23'-1 7/8”
7906'-25/8”10'-4 3/8”
7916'-101/8”20'-11 7/8”
7919'-103/8”23'-8 5/8”
7918'-5 5/8”22'-5 5/8”
7918'-8 3/8”22'-8 3/8”N
1 PROPOSED ROOF TOPOGRAPHY 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-206
HEIGHT OVER
TOPOGRAPHY
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
3
0
2
X
.
a
EXISTING ROUND SAWN SHINGLE
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO
BE PAINTED WHITE
PROPOSED HORIZONTAL CEDAR
SIDING
EXISTING ASPHALT ROOF MATERIAL
TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED FAUX SLATE ROOF
MATERIAL
PROPOSED MACHINE SAWN CEDAR
SHINGLE
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
ADDITION
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
HISTORIC RESOURCE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO
BE PAINTED WHITE
EXISTING FOUNDATION MATERIAL
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED FOUNDATION VENEER
MATERIAL
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-207
MATERIALS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
3
0
3
X
.
a
E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING SOUTH
E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING NORTH
ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING NORTH
ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING SOUTH
PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
5/7/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-208
STREETSCAPE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
P
3
0
4
X
.
a
J
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION
AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 223 E. HALLAM, LOT 2, 223
E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #16, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-008
WHEREAS, the applicant, 223 LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architects, -has requested
approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. For review
of benefits, such as a floor area bonus and setback variances, HPC must determine conformance
with Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a
decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for Relocation, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated
Property; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances according to Section 26.415.110; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated May 13, 2015, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards. Staff recommended in favor of the Conceptual Major
Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 13, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria,with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variance approval with the
following conditions:
RECEPTION#: 620223, 05128/2015 at
11:08:09 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
i
P305
X.a
I. The final design for the restored porches on the northeast and southeast of the Victorian
will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor after these areas are exposed to view
during the construction process.
2. HPC hereby grants a 10' combined sideyard and a 5' rear yard setback. HPC grants a 500
square foot floor area bonus.
3. For Final Review, restudy the interior staircase proposed to be adjacent to the front bay
window and consider moving it.
4. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house
can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a
bond, letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe
relocation.
5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
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, 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: 223 E. Hallam, Lot 2,
223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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.
P306
X.a
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.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
1) year of May 13, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure
to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval
of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its
sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration
date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a
written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular me on the 13th day of May,2015.
Willis Pember, Chair
Aproved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
rt-4
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P307
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
1
223 E. Hallam St. – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavit of postings are in order and the applicant can
proceed – Exhibit I
Amy said this is a landmark, 6,000 square foot lot with a Victorian house on
it. This building is a nicely detailed high style Victorian house. The Berko
family bought the property in 1957. There was a one-story added to the
front porch which is not original and that will be demolished and the front
porch brought back. There is also a garage that doesn’t appear on the
Sanborne map and staff feels that is not contributing. The addition that fills
in the rear porch will also be removed. The proposal is to pick the Victorian
up, move it forward on the lot and put it on a new basement and do an
addition. Staff supports the revision dated May 7 th . This proposal shifts the
construction more toward the rear and has a one-story connector. The scale
and roof forms are appropriate and staff supports conceptual approval of this
project. There are two setback variances on the table; one is a combined and
they need a five foot variance. Because the addition is moved back they are
in the rear yard setback and are requesting a five foot setback. The applicant
is also asking for the 500 square foot floor area bonus and we feel that is
warranted due to the amount of restoration work that will be done including
the front porch. There are no photographs of the appearance of the front of
the house historically. Reconstruction of the front porch will be difficult.
Once evidence is uncovered when they tear the front off we will look at it to
make sure the porch on the front and back are restored accurately. The
applicant is also proposing to construct a stair case that is facing the front
bay window. HPC generally does not approve interiors but something done
on the inside that interferes with the exterior of the building could be a
concern. The applicant cannot find a way to avoid the impact. Seeing the
stringer through the front bay seems unfortunate. All of the Victorian
fencing will be salvaged and brought onto this side and then it transitions
into a wood privacy fence in the back. The Berko studio will be back six
feet from the street and in front of the Victorian next door by a few feet.
The front steps will not need a railing because the building will be dropped 7
inches into the ground.
P308
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
2
Sallie said if the house is dropped you will lose more of the foundation and
maybe something can be worked out with the Building Dept. and get relief
from the railing. The stairs are very graceful coming up to the house.
Steev Wilson, Forum Phi
Steev said this house and the Berko studio will be moved forward. We are
trying to make the Victorian have a street presence. We will research on the
porch and make sure it is reconstructed back to the original. We have the
historic building, connector and the two story element. The rear porch will
also be restored. The connector is ten feet long and 9 feet tall. We have
tried to pull the volume off the historic resource as much as we could. We
meet all the side yard variances. The entire mass is behind the rear of the
historic structure. We will hold the stairs back from the window but as far
as the space layout of the interior the stair in its location is the best solution
for us. The stair gains access to the guest area upstairs. The stringer will be
moved back to the center of the stair so that it is not visible. It is not a direct
application to the glass. We don’t know what the material of the tread will
be on the stairs, possibly acrylic. There will be grass over the front lawn.
We have also talked to Parks about the tree removal by the garage.
Steev said they had tried a number of different stair opportunities and it was
our intent to use the space best. The stairs access the attic space. We did not
look at a circular stair.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Mirte Berko – Exhibit II
Mirte said the applicant has incorporated a lot of their suggestions and we
have been in close dialogue. Our goal is two legacy preservation projects
that honor and respect each other. They have respected the garage five yard
setback. We don’t support the plan presented today which is moving the
massing east which staff supports. The re-distribution of mass is a detriment
to the historic preservation goals of our project. We desire to showcase the
geometric structures. The preservation strategy of tucking the new mass
behind the Victorian would be appropriate in the majority of cases and if
only viewed from the front entrance of the Victorian; however, to the west is
the AspenModern building. The new additions peaked roof visibly
protrudes from the modern studio’s roof line thereby breaking the
architectural integrity preservation efforts of the geometric structure.
P309
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
3
Howie Mallory entered a letter from Nora Berko – Exhibit III
Nora stated that the Victorian house needs renovations. Nora said she feels
the relationship between the Berko studio and the Victorian are important.
Placing the staircase on the street front façade is inconsistent with the best
preservation. The staircase has a visual distraction seen from the street. The
upstairs windows seem to have a different form and arrangement than the
existing original windows. The foundation should be retained as part of the
good restoration effort. Howie said the community expects preservation to
the highest standard. With the input from staff and HPC we have ended up
with a better AspenModern program next door.
Steev said the top of the building will be dwarfed by the two story structure
that will be erected next door. The structure is so far back that I don’t think
the two will be seen together. Regarding the windows that Nora mentioned,
we are not changing the windows. We will reuse the stone from the base of
the building.
Scott Rider, owner
Scott said one of the comments we got back was to save the second level
within the Victorian. Initially we did not desire to do that. By doing that
required the stairs which also access the basement so they have to work
together. The steps provide natural light for the downstairs living area. We
have brought back the steps and we don’t feel they will be visible. We have
left room in the bay window for the curtains. The roof is set back at least 40
feet from the Berko studio. The second story of their building also impacts
the views and we aren’t complaining about that. We have supported their
application from the beginning.
Willis identified the issues:
Relocation
Setback variances
500 square foot bonus
Dropping the resource 7 inches in the ground
Stairs at the bay window
Willis brought up a site design study especially when you are next door to an
AspenModern project. Instead of an L shaped plan it could have been
mirrored. The ground work on how to develop this property is not part of
this presentation. The bonus is achievable and the setbacks are OK. The
stair with the central stringer and floating treads that is pushed back two feet
P310
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
4
from the glazing is fine. If the 7 inch drop eliminates the handrails I am all
for that.
Bob said the new rendering is no more of a problem then the addition to the
Berko studio. The addition to the studio is more apparent than what this
proposal is. Regarding the staircase I question HPC getting involved with
certain aspects of the interior. I can accept the new proposal of the stair
case.
John said he is OK with the stairs and this is a good project. There is a little
concern about restoration of the front façade because we do not know what it
looked like. It wouldn’t be an exact restoration so I cannot approve all of
the bonus. Everything else is well thought out.
Gretchen said she liked the idea of rethinking the site plan. They did a good
job by pushing the addition back and pulling the Victorian forward. The
addition overwhelms the Victorian and the entire development overwhelms
the AspenModern experience. If you are going to relocate the Victorian
perhaps there is an opportunity to allow the AspenModern to have space
around it. A site plan could have been studied in greater detail to enhance
both properties. There is a lot of development going on the site and in terms
of restoration I couldn’t support a 500 square foot bonus because you are
putting in a basement under the entire property which is going to preclude
the ability to screen the addition on any side. The addition needs scaled
down some.
Patrick said he like the mass and scale and the openness of the trellis and
deck to the north of the connector. The pitched roofs separate from the
AspenModern which has flat roofs. The project is well done. If there is a
way to reduce the square footage to the addition I would be in favor of that.
Sallie said she agrees with staff on their comments. At some point looking
from the street at the Berko Studio you will see the back drop of whatever
addition gets in the back I do like the mass and scale and how it is laid out.
I agree with Nora on the staircase not being in the entryway. There is a
standard that living rooms should look like living rooms when you walk by
the street and you are taking that away. I do support the 500 square foot
bonus.
P311
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
5
Eric said this is a great presentation and the diagram is clear. The addition in
the back of the Berko studio is also imposing. The Victorian is closer to its
original position than the Berko studio. The stair location is OK.
Amy pointed out that the Berko project is the first time we had someone
reviewing different variations for the position of the studio which was
appropriate for their very unique situation. We would not encourage an
applicant to come in saying they can move it north/south east/west etc. We
send the message that you have to stay as close to the original location as
you can.
Gretchen said given that this is a new program, perhaps the AspenModern
needed more space and this house could move over.
Amy said they are doing a nice job attaching lightly to the back of the house.
MOTION: Sallie made the motion to approve resolution #16 as written by
staff for conceptual approval and incorporation the 500 square foot bonus
and restudy the staircase in the front and moving it; second by Patrick.
Willis made the friendly amendment to add more separation between the
resource and the western side yard and to look at the sideyard setback
variance request.
Sallie did not accept the friendly amendment.
Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; John, no; Bob, yes; Sallie, yes;
Eric, yes; Willis, no. Motion carried 4-3.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor,
motion carried.
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P312
X.a
ARCHITECTURE
|
INTERIORS
|
PLANNING
715
W
Main
Street
|
Suite
204
|
Aspen,
CO
81611
|
970.279.4157
Ms. Amy Simon Re: 223 E Hallam Street
Senior Planner, City of Aspen City Council Call Up
130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
June 12, 2015
Dear Amy,
The following is a summary of our efforts to renovate 223 E Hallam Street in an exemplary fashion. We have worked
with Staff extensively and made 4 formal submittals (and uncounted informal efforts) with changes geared to win
Staff approval: January 2, 2015; March 24, 2015; May 6, 2015; May 7, 2015. We have reached out to all of the
neighbors and worked extensively with the Berko heirs (as the two buildings were formally part of one estate) to
present the best possible historic renovation to the community.
This project earned Staff recommendation and HPC approval in its first Conceptual meeting. We are proud to win
this kind of support and believe it speaks to the quality and thoroughness of our proposal. We believe this is a
demonstration of a successful collaborative process with Staff and HPC that resulted in a design that restores, the
currently non-‐conforming and blighted presence of the resource along Hallam Street, and it provides an appropriate
and functional addition that doesn’t compete with the resource, but rather compliments it in style and location. We
greatly appreciate staff’s help in the process.
NEIGHBORING RESOURCE -‐ Berko Aspen Modern: We purchased 223 E Hallam Street from the Berko heirs
and have been working closely with the family (immediate neighbors to the west) on design from the onset with the
goal to present these wonderful resources to the community as best as possible. The Berko/Mallory Conceptual
plans were not formally approved by this Council until after our Conceptual plans were approved by HPC.
Facts about the two projects: We have both supported each other’s relocation plans throughout
the process.
Resource: Victorian -‐223 Hallam Studio -‐ 211 Hallam
Owner 223 Hallam by Scott Writer Berko Mallory’s
Lot Size 6,000 sf 6,000 sf
Use Single Family Duplex
FAR – Above Grade 3,708.4 SF ~4,100 SF
Relocation 9’-‐1” forward 50+’ from back SW corner to front NE corner of lot
5’ Side yard set back Comply 2’ into east yard
Garage size 2 car 4 cars – Two Units
Relief around Resource Large front yard, no front
yard set back variance and
“connector” in back, not
visible to street.
No front yard, and the plan required a front yard
set back variance that was granted and a
“connector” on the side visible to street.
P313
X.a
ARCHITECTURE
|
INTERIORS
|
PLANNING
715
W
Main
Street
|
Suite
204
|
Aspen,
CO
81611
|
970.279.4157
RELOCATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE
We worked with staff exhaustively before proposing to move the existing home 9’-‐1” forward on the lot.
The issues from staff on moving a historic resource, and our answers, are:
1) How does it fit in with the other historic homes on the block? – Answer: there are no other existing
historic homes so there is no natural location for the façade.
2) Can the relocation of the resource help to create a more prominent location on the lot? – Answer: by
moving this home 9’-‐1” feet to the front it gives us a better opportunity to separate the historic asset from
the addition and allow it to stand “proud” of the addition.
3) If moving the asset move it as little as possible and generally only move it vertically backwards or forwards
and not sideways on the lot? – Answer: after establishing that it was appropriate/desirable to move we
followed staff direction on this issue and moved it forward without any shift from side to side.
4) Would a relocation of the resource improve the separation between the resource and the addition? –
Answer: This relocation will give the resource not only a better presence to the street , it also allows us
the space to create relief between the resource and addition by both an appropriate linking element and
the room to pull the addional back behind (towards the alley) the resource. The front 53’-‐8” of the lot are
exclusively historic Victorian and a front yard to accent it.
CONCLUSION: From both a micro and macro level moving the home is both appropriate and
beneficial overall.
DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITION
In order to receive Staff and HPC Approval, we have made many significant design changes to our original plan
submitted January 2, 2015.
Major changes in plan to win staff and HPC support:
Condition of Staff Approval: Do not remove interior 2nd level in Victorian. RESULTS on applicant:
• Caused disruption of key style concept: In analyzing the project our first goal was to make the
inside of the historic Victorian as important as the outside. Our first and best choice to do this was to
remove the second floor in the resource and open it up to make dramatic high ceilings in the entry living
and dining areas. The square footage removed from the resource would go into the addition.
• Required stairs to be added to entry living area: Leaving the second floor also made for
challenges to access that level with stairs that don’t disrupt or rob us of key living square footage.
Condition of Staff Approval: Reduce the size of the linking element to one story, RESULTS on applicant:
P314
X.a
ARCHITECTURE
|
INTERIORS
|
PLANNING
715
W
Main
Street
|
Suite
204
|
Aspen,
CO
81611
|
970.279.4157
• Caused a change in stair location. With the linking element as a one-‐story element there is no
ability to put stairs in that form, the most logical and convenient location for the design.
• Requires redundant stairs. We now have two sets of stairs (instead of one) to access the 2nd level of
both the resource and new addition.
Condition of Staff Approval: Relocate a portion of the area of the upper level that was visible from Hallam Street to
directly behind the resource, concealing it more appropriately from the Hallam RESULTS on applicant:
• Pushed the new addition back in the lot and west “behind” the historic resource.
• Reduced living area in family kitchen area on the main floor.
• S hifted the 2nd floor West towards the Berkos. The roof form moved approximately 10’ over to
the west (still within the minimum side yard setback).
• Lost of wonderful sunny deck on the SW corner.
• Lost of deck on front of addition facing Hallam.
• Lost of space for a separate office upstairs.
• Significant loss of area for on grade south facing patio off kitchen.
Additional changes in plan to win staff and HPC support:
• Agreed to restudy interior element: stair location accessing saved 2nd level in the Victorian.
• Adjusted roof pitches to be more complimentary to the historic resource.
• Relocated some of the mass of the addition to the rear of the resource per suggestions from staff resulted
in the extension of the addition past the Rear Yard Setback, but still respecting the 5’ Rear Yard setback for
Secondary Structures.
• Removed all non-‐historic additions to the resource, which extend beyond current setbacks.
• Restored the original porches. We fully support the requirement by staff that during the demolition of the
additions, we investigate what is remaining of the historic structure and use those findings as a basis for
the restoration of the porches.
• Lowered the resource enough to prevent requirement for non-‐historic railing to front and back porches.
The result of these collaborative re-‐designs is what we, staff, and HPC consider the exemplary
restoration of the Historic Victorian resource on the lot and a beautiful addition that is
complimentary to, not competitive with, the r esource. Please contact us with any comments or
questions regarding our considerations of the process and proposal described above for the City Council Call Up on
June 22, 2015.
Sincerely,
Steev Wilson, AIA Scott Writer
Principal Owner & Applicant
P315
X.a
1
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: James R. True, City Attorney and Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: July 6, 2015
RE: Annexation of 705 West Hopkins Avenue Property
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Attached for your consideration is a resolution which, if adopted, would initiate annexation
proceedings for what is known as the 705 West Hopkins Annexation. The Petitioners, Starford
Investments LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation and Westchester Investments, Inc., signed and filed
an annexation petition with the City Clerk on June 26, 2015, followed by an Amended Petition filed
July 6, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Petition”). The 705 West Hopkins Avenue
property includes three parcels:
Parcel 1: Lot 1, Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision (100% owned by Starford
Investments LLC);
Parcel 2: Lot 2, Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision (100% owned by Shadow
Mountain Corporation); and
Parcel 3: a portion, consisting of approximately 3.35 acres, of the “Adjusted” Gramiger Parcel
(100% owned by Westchester Investments, Inc.);
all as more fully described in the Petition, a copy of which is attached. The property to be annexed is
currently within the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. Annexation would allow the above described
property, approximately 6.609 acres, to be within the City’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner has had
preliminary discussions with Community Development and has submitted an informational package
with the Petition summarizing what the zoning and land use requests will be. A copy of this package
is also attached.
Since annexation is a multistep process, we thought that it would be prudent to briefly outline the
process.
The proposed Resolution No. 71 is the first step in the annexation process. This step involves a
determination of Council as to whether the petition for annexation is in substantial compliance with
the requirements set forth in C.R.S. §31-12-107(1)(c) and (d). Subsection (c) requires the petition to
state the following:
P316
X.b
2
(I) An allegation that it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the
municipality;
(II) An allegation that the requirements of sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 exist or
have been met;
(III) An allegation that the signers of the petition comprise more than fifty percent of
the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent of the area proposed to
be annexed, excluding public streets and alleys and any land owned by the annexing
municipality;
(IV) A request that the annexing municipality approve the annexation of the area
proposed to be annexed;
(V) The signatures of such landowners;
(VI) The mailing address of each such signer;
(VII) The legal description of the land owned by such signer;
(VIII) The date of signing of each signature; and
(IX) The affidavit of each circulator of such petition, whether consisting of one or
more sheets, that each signature therein is the signature of the person whose name it
purports to be.
Subsection (d) requires the petition to be accompanied by an annexation map, containing the
following:
(I) A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed;
(II) A map showing the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed;
(III) Within the annexation boundary map, a showing of the location of each
ownership tract in unplatted land and, if part or all of the area is platted, the
boundaries and the plat numbers of plots or of lots and blocks;
(IV) Next to the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed, a drawing of the
contiguous boundary of the annexing municipality and the contiguous boundary of
any other municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed.
Pursuant to C.R.S. §31-12-107(g) if the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with the
requirements set forth above, then the procedures set forth in §§31-12-108 through 110 shall be
followed. Otherwise, no further action shall be taken.
This office, the Engineering Department and the Community Development Department have
determined that the Petition substantially complies with the technical requirements for a petition and
annexation maps pursuant to state annexation laws.
According to state law, the next step in the annexation process is for Council to conduct a public
hearing to determine if the annexation complies with C.R.S. §§31-12-104 and 31-12-105. The date
of the hearing may be set in the resolution finding substantial compliance of the annexation petition
and shall be no less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after the effective date of the resolution setting
the date for the public hearing. The attached resolution sets the date for the public hearing on August
24, 2015, which assuming the resolution is passed on July 13, 2015, is the only regular council
meeting that falls within that time frame.
P317
X.b
3
C.R.S. §31-12-104 requires:
(a) That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous
with the annexing municipality. ...
and
(b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future;
and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing
municipality. ...
C.R.S. §31-12-105 sets forth certain limitations upon annexations. None of the limitations in the
statute currently appear to disqualify this annexation (limitations on dividing land held in identical
ownership without owner’s consent, commencement of annexation proceedings for annexation to
other municipalities, detachment of area from a school district, prohibition against extending city
limits beyond three miles in a single year, requirement of a plan for area to be annexed within the
three miles, and requirement that entire widths of streets be made a part of the annexed area).
Nevertheless, a hearing must be scheduled so Council can make those specific findings.
At the public hearing evidence from the staff and the public may be presented addressing the
substance of these provisions. The action of Council will be by resolution.
If it is determine that the application does not comply with the requirements of these provisions, then
the annexation process stops. If, however, Council finds that the application complies with these
provisions then the Council may annex the area proposed. Such annexation must be by ordinance.
If the Council adopts an ordinance of annexation, underlying zoning must be established within ninety
(90) days after the effective date of the annexation. The process may be instituted any time after the
petition has been found to be valid, per state law. The attached resolution includes a section
authorizing the City Manager to initiate the process.
Adoption of the attached resolution will cause staff to continue working on the above described steps
and provide notice of the required hearing. It is currently anticipated that a land use application will
be made and will work its way through the land use process, conditioned throughout upon finalizing
the annexation. A pre-annexation agreement is also contemplated. As noted above, eventually, two
ordinances will be presented to Council, the first to formally annex the area into the City and, the
second, no later than within ninety days of the effective date of the first, to give the property its initial
zoning in the City.
REQUESTED ACTION: A motion to adopt Resolution No. 71, Series of 2015.
P318
X.b
1
RESOLUTION NO. 71
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE "705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ANNEXATION;" FINDING
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A
DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING
PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED.
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2015, Eduardo L. Hernandez, on behalf of Starford Investments
LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation, and Westchester Investments, Inc., the owners of the property
proposed to be annexed, (“Petitioners”), did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition
for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A"
appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2015, Eduardo L. Hernandez, on behalf of Petitioners, did file with
the City Clerk of the City of Aspen an Amended Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of
Aspen (The Petition and the Amended Petition are hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“Petition”); and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid Petition as a
communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the Petition is substantially
in compliance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the Petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to substantially
comply with the technical submission requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection
(1) of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., as set forth in the staff memorandum dated July 6, 2015; and
P319
X.b
2
WHEREAS, Westchester Development, Inc., owner of Parcel 3 as described in Exhibit A of
the Petition, has consented in writing to the division of Westchester’s property by the proposed
boundary for the annexation, as required by C.R.S. §31-12-105(1)(a); and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners own one hundred percent (100%) of the affected property and
have signed the Petition; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. §31-12-107(1)(g) mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation
proceedings in accordance with §§31-12-108 to 31-12-110, C.R.S., whenever a petition is filed and
found to be in substantial compliance with subsection 31-12-107(1); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and
determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of C.R.S. §31-12-
107.
Section 2
That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to determine if the
proposed annexation complies with C.R.S. §§31-12-104 and 31-12-105, and to establish whether or
not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado’s Municipal Annexation Act of 1965,
C.R.S. §§31-12-101 et seq., as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 24th day of August, 2015 in Council Chambers
at City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
P320
X.b
3
Section 3
That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall
constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the
City Council shall hold a hearing of the City of Aspen for the purpose of determining and finding
whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of §§31-12-104 and 31-
12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week
for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed.
The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The
proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the
certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall
be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail
by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of
Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such
hearing.
Section 4
That pursuant to Section §31-12-115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate
appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
13th day of July, 2015.
__________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
P321
X.b
4
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
__________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P322
X.b
P323
X.b
P324
X.b
P325
X.b
P326
X.b
P327
X.b
P328
X.b
P329
X.b
P330
X.b
P331
X.b
P332
X.b
P333
X.b
P334
X.b
P335
X.b
P336
X.b
P337
X.b
P338
X.b
P339
X.b
P340
X.b
P341
X.b
P342
X.b
P343
X.b
P344
X.b
P345
X.b
P346
X.b
P347
X.b
P348
X.b
P349
X.b
P350
X.b
P351
X.b
P352
X.b
P353
X.b
P354
X.b
P355
X.b
P356
X.b
P357
X.b
P358
X.b
P359
X.b
P360
X.b
P361
X.b
P362
X.b
P363
X.b
P364
X.b