HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150810
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 10, 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 - 710 & 720 E. Durant Ave., P&Z approval
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resoultion #80, Series of 2015 - Contract for Main and Maroon Pedestrian
Improvements
b) Resolution #74, Series of 2015 - Asphalt Trails Overlay Contract
c) Resolution #82, 83 and 84, Series of 2015 - Police Vehicles Purchase and
Equipping
d) Resolution #75, Series of 2015 - Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office
Improvements Contract
e) Minutes - July 27, 2015
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #28, Series of 2015 - 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
IX. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #76, Series of 2015 - Affordable Housing Credits Policy Direction
b) Ordinance #24, Series of 2015 - Castle Ridge Apartments 8040 Greenline
Review and Minor Planned Development Amendment Review
c) Ordinance #25, Series of 2015 - CC and C-1 Code Amendments
d) Ordinance #27, Series of 2015 - Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
X. Action Items
a) C.R.S. 24.6.402(4)(b)conference with attorney
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting August 24, 2015
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
• 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 Commercial Design for 710 & 720 E.
Durant Ave., P&Z Resolution #14, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
BACKGROUND: On July 21,
2015, the Planning & Zoning
Commission approved
Commercial Design Review for a
project at 710 & 720 E. Durant
Ave. The existing development on
the 16,500 square foot property is
two three-story buildings above
grade on a raised plaza, with a
combination of commercial and
residential uses. The existing
buildings vary in height but are
approximately 41 ft. tall in some
areas, which exceeds the height
limit in the NC zone district (28 ft., increasable to 32 ft. with Commercial Design Review).
The proposal is to replace the existing exterior timber frame and exterior materials. The overall
massing of the buildings and fenestrations will remain the same, with the exception of additional
parapet walls on the east building. The proposed materials include structural steel for the frame,
concrete masonry units (CMUs) for the base, and a combination of vertical aluminum siding and
horizontal composite siding.
Drawings representing the approval are attached as Exhibit A. 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 August 10th 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 August 10th 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 – 6/16/15 & 7/21/15
Exhibit C: P&Z Resolution #14, Series of 2015
P1
VI.a
EXHIBIT A
Existing alley view
Proposed alley view
P2
VI.a
Existing Durant view
Proposed Durant view
P3
VI.a
P4
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015
1
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, Spencer McNight and Brian McNellis.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan announced the commission’s newest appointed member, Spencer McNight, who will serve
as the second alternate.
Clerk’s note: As of July 13th, Jason Elliott has assumed a regular position on the commission and Jessie
Morris has assumed the first alternate position on the commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for July 7th, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion
passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts expressed.
710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) – Commercial Design Review –
Continued Public Hearing from July 7th
Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing from July 7th.
Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the earlier hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff.
Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. He
noted the initial hearing was on June 16th and was continued to July 7th and again to today’s meeting.
The applicant presented two design options at the June 16th meeting. The commissioners were
somewhat divided on their opinions of the two options. Some expressed concern regarding the
proposed additional parapets for option one and how they increase the perceived height and massing of
the building. Other commissioners were comfortable with the design as proposed with option one.
The applicant requested a continuance to work with Staff to come up with an option that was a blend of
the two options.
EXHIBIT BP5
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015
2
The applicant submitted a revised design on June 30th which was most similar to the previous option one
with a few minor changes.
1. The west building no longer has the proposed additional parapets.
2. A portion of the parapet on the east building is set back further from street as originally
proposed.
Mr. Barker also pointed out the proposal in the agenda packet included a tower element on the east
building originally had a parapet on it which would have required a variance if approved. The applicant
has since modified the proposed design to eliminate the parapet. Mr. Barker provided new drawings
demonstrating this as provided by the applicant. The new drawings are exhibit G.
Staff is supportive of the design as presented and recommends approval as stated in the draft resolution
included in the agenda packet on p. 14 with one modification eliminating condition two under section
one. He stated condition two it is no longer necessary. Mr. Barker also noted the drawings provided as
an exhibit in the resolution will also be replaced to eliminate the parapets around the tower.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Mr. Barker identified the drawings to be replaced as requested by Ms. Tygre.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Rob Sinclair, RGS Architecture, represents the applicant, the Durant Mall Condominium Association.
Mr. Sinclair provided summarized the completed project on the foundation of the building, the
building’s type of construction and their actions since the previous hearing to provide an updated
option. The skin of the building deteriorated over the past 40 years. They are looking at using a steel
superstructure and a combination of metal and composite siding.
He provided images of the current design showing the existing parapets on the east building. The height
will be reduced from 32 ft 4 in to 32 ft and closed in on the east-west direction.
The height of the parapet on the west building will be limited to the existing spring point of the pitched
roof.
As part of this application, they have also agreed to enhance all the public space including new
restaurant and public seating, new bike racks, new planters and public art to provide a more inviting
environment.
They will also clean up along the alley as part of this project as well.
He showed slides showing the building before and after the project. He brought examples of the siding
material for the commission to view if they wish.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There were none.
P6
VI.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015
3
Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There were none so the public comment portion of the
hearing was closed.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners.
Mr. McNight asked Staff about their concerns regarding the materials mentioned in the initial meeting.
Mr. Barker stated Staff wanted to ensure the commission had an opportunity to evaluate samples of the
materials themselves.
Ms. Tygre thanked the applicant for bringing in the samples, but she stated she has no comment on the
durability or color of the materials.
Mr. McNellis appreciates the applicant’s efforts to improve the public area next the City Market parking
lot, but he is not sure it will make it more inviting. He feels the environment should be shielded more
from the parking lot.
Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution 14, Series 2015 with a modification to Section One to remove
condition number two and renumbering condition number three to number two. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Goode.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes;
Mr. McNight, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing.
P7
VI.a
EXHIBIT C
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Justin Forman, P.E., Senior Project Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: August 3, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
RE: Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements: Construction Contract
SUMMARY: Staff recommends Council approve the Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements
contract with Excavation Services, Inc. for the amount of $62,881.39 including 5% contingency.
BACKGROUND MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
This project will enhance pedestrian safety on the Main Street corridor. The City of Aspen Pedestrian
and Traffic Safety committee endorsed this project and presented it to City Council on July 28, 2009.
Council directed staff to proceed. After further study by Staff and the Main Street Citizens Pedestrian
Safety Committee, refined treatments were again presented to Council. Council directed staff to enter
these projects into the budget process. After several meetings and analysis of pedestrian and traffic
data the group was able to unanimously recommend four intersections that could best utilize pedestrian
and traffic calming treatments. These intersections were identified as: 3rd Street, Garmisch Street,
Hunter Street, and the intersection of Original and Hopkins. The selection of each intersection was
selected based on: pedestrian counts, impact to the corridor as a whole, public usage, and lack of
signalization. Please note that 3rd Street was changed to 4th with the development of the Jewish
Community Center.
BACKGROUND MAROON CREEK IMPROVEMENTS:
Students, trail, ARC and Tiehack users all traverse this heavily used crossing. Various complaints
and at least one accident have occurred in the direct vicinity. Currently there are no formal
crossing markers nor any traffic calming in this area. Installing safety measures will greatly reduce
the potential for vehicle pedestrian conflict.
SCOPE OF WORK & SCHEDULE:
The current work to be performed will include the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) at the intersections of East Hopkins Avenue & South Original Street, 4th Street &
Main Street, and Maroon Creek Road at Aspen High School and ARC. At E. Hopkins Avenue and
South Original Street the existing RRFBs have reached their lifespan and need replaced. In
additional to the replacement, new permanent electric power will be installed replacing the existing
solar power to ensure the beacons will work at all times. New installation and permanent power
will be installed at 4th St. & Main St. and on Maroon Creek Road.
P13
VII.a
DISCUSSION:
The 2015 Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements is an additional scope of work for Excavation
Services Inc. to the 2015 Concrete Replacement Project. Excavation Services Inc. provided the same
unit prices that have been overall the lowest qualified bidder for capital improvement projects this
year. Excavation Services Inc. bid for this project is $ 59,887.03.
The City staff evaluated the bid in the best interests of the City of Aspen. In making that evaluation, total
price, key project staffing, project experience, specialty work experience, subcontractor’s experience and
criteria set forth in bidding documents were used to make a selection. Staff determined Excavation
Services, Inc. was responsive to the evaluation criteria and could complete the scope of work outlined for
this project.
Excavation Services, Inc. has experience in various City of Aspen, and other municipal, infrastructure
projects. Past performance associated with these projects has proven Excavation Services, Inc. to be a
conscientious and consummate professional. Staff recommends that it is in the City’s best interests to
award the final construction contract to this vendor.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding Allocated
Main Street Alternative Material Crosswalk Project (000.15.94111) $189,600.00
Moore and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements (000.15.94767) $28,310.00
2015 Expenditures Plus 5% Contingency
Main Street Alternative Material Crosswalk Project (000.15.94111) $41,506.22
Moore and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements (000.15.94767) $21,375.17
Total Funding Remaining
Main Street Alternative Material Crosswalk Project (000.15.94111) $148,093.78
Moore and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements (000.15.94767) $6,934.83
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the Main and Maroon Pedestrian
Improvements contract with Excavation Services, Inc. in the amount of $ 62,881.39 that includes 5%
contingency.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: Construction Contract – Excavation Services, Inc.
P14
VII.a
RESOLUTION # 80
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND EXCAVATION SERVICES INCORPORATED AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the
2015 Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements Project between the City of
Aspen and Excavation Services Incorporated, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for 2015 Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements, between the City of Aspen
and Excavation Services Incorporated, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
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, August 10, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P15
VII.a
P16
VII.a
P17
VII.a
P18
VII.a
P19
VII.a
P20
VII.a
P21
VII.a
P22
VII.a
P23
VII.a
P24
VII.a
P25
VII.a
P26
VII.a
P27
VII.a
P28
VII.a
P29
VII.a
P30
VII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Matt Kuhn, Trails Manager
THRU: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 20, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
RE: Aspen Trail Overlays Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parks Department is requesting approval of a contract with
Elam Construction for $65,430.00 for pedestrian trail overlays and repairs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In November of 2014, the 2015 Parks Department Budget
was approved which included $74,600 for trail overlays.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Parks Department maintains over 20 miles of pedestrian and
bike trails throughout the City. The majority of these trails are made of asphalt which require
periodic overlays to maintain a smooth and safe surface. Asphalt deteriorates over time due to
numerous factors including: freeze/thaw, snow removal, general use, tree root damage,
construction impacts and age. This deterioration shows up in the form of cracks, bumps, and
general rough surfaces that can pose a safety threat to trail users and can affect the overall trail
experience. It is critical that this maintenance occur each year to prevent serious safety issues
from developing. This is an ongoing capital maintenance need for trails and is budgeted
annually.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The overlay contract with Elam Construction is for
$65,430.00. This contract was awarded to Elam through a competitive Invitation to Bid process,
following the City of Aspen Purchasing procedures. The Parks Department 2015 budget has of
$74,600 for trail overlays.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Keeping the pedestrian trails in good shape encourages
alternative transportation and thus contributes to a reduction of air and noise pollution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks Staff recommends approval of the contract for asphalt
overlays with Elam Construction.
P31
VII.b
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to approve the contract in which case the trails
could remain as they are today. The main concern regarding non-approval of this contract is the
potential safety hazards that could appear on areas of the trails that are deteriorating.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # 74”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Contract with Elam Construction
P32
VII.b
RESOLUTION # 74
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Asphalt Trails Overlays, between the City of Aspen and Elam Construction, Inc., a
true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Asphalt Trails Overlays between the City of Aspen and Elam Construction
Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby
authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
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, August 10, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P33
VII.b
P34
VII.b
P35
VII.b
P36
VII.b
P37
VII.b
P38
VII.b
P39
VII.b
P40
VII.b
P41
VII.b
P42
VII.b
P43
VII.b
P44
VII.b
P45
VII.b
P46
VII.b
P47
VII.b
P48
VII.b
P49
VII.b
P50
VII.b
P51
VII.b
P52
VII.b
P53
VII.b
P54
VII.b
P55
VII.b
P56
VII.b
P57
VII.b
P58
VII.b
P59
VII.b
P60
VII.b
P61
VII.b
P62
VII.b
P63
VII.b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Linn
THRU: Richard Pryor
THRU: Jerry Nye
DATE OF MEMO: Aug. 4, 2015
MEETING DATE: Aug. 10, 2015
RE: Police Patrol Car selection
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Police Department is seeking approval for a contract to purchase 3 police patrol vehicles.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council approves all vehicle purchases.
BACKGROUND:
The Aspen Police Department purchased four Ford Explorer-based patrol cars in 2014, and
would replace the remaining three patrol cars which are slated for replacement.
DISCUSSION:
The Police Department actively researched police vehicles for more than a year, anticipating the
initial turnover of patrol cars in 2014, settling on the 4-wheel-drive Ford “Utility,” which is
based on the Explorer, but is a purpose-built police vehicle. For uniformity and recognition of
the police fleet we would like to replace the remaining Toyota Highlander patrol cars with three
more Utility vehicles. The Toyotas are 2008 model year autos and currently have about 75,000
miles per car. We were also budgeted to replace an unmarked car this year, but have chosen to
extend that vehicle service for another year. The unmarked cars have lower mileage, so this is a
useful cost-savings measure, and gives us more time to research the most appropriate unmarked
vehicle for our uses.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The City of Aspen budgeted for the replacement of Police Department vehicles and associated
equipment, as well as installation of the equipment, at a total budget of about $61,000 per
vehicle.
This cost is based on the following components:
Ford Utility (on state bid pricing) - $31,041
Technology (WSCA pricing for in-car video system, monitor, audio microphones) - $8,193
Police equipment and installation (light bars, sirens, wiring, controllers, etc) - $16,950
Decals and installation - $1,300
P64
VII.c
2
Decommission old vehicle $600
Shipping - $300 (from Denver metro area)
Approximate total per car - $56,391 * --- $58,384
*(These are approximations based on actual quotes or previous charges, but in application can be
billed at slightly different rates, such as the variances in shipping costs because of trucking fuel
costs.) Total estimated cost of purchasing and equipping three Fords is $175,152, about $8,000
under budget.
We will be recycling radio equipment in each vehicle for a savings of about $3,500 per vehicle,
as well as using other equipment already owned by the department that have been previously
purchased but remains serviceable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The 2015 Ford Utility EPA ratings are 16 / 21 mpg (in town / highway)
However, in real-world use, the vehicles are getting less than the desired fuel efficiency, with
efficiency averaging about 12 mpg.
City vehicles (gas, diesel, and other travel forms such as air travel) represent only 15% of the
GHG emissions generated by the COA. The remaining 85% are generated by building usage.
Canary staff proposed that the Police Department could more than offset fleet GHG increases in
construction of a more efficient police facility.
While researching the purchase of police vehicles, staff have recognized that the City of Aspen
fleet policy does not address the importance of reliability for police vehicles. The Police
Department is working with the Canary Initiative to write a policy that blends the desire for fuel
efficiency and low emissions with the need for effective police vehicles. We are reviewing the
possibility of using higher-efficiency vehicles for administrative vehicles, while considering the
requirement that the vehicles be available and capable for backup in the case of patrol vehicle
problems.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
We ask that Council approve the contract to purchase 3 Ford Police Utility vehicles and
associated equipment and installation.
ALTERNATIVES:
As presented in the discussion
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 82, 83, and 84 concerning the purchase of City of Aspen police vehicles.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” – Contract for vehicles purchase
Attachment “B” – Contract for purchase and installation of police equipment
P65
VII.c
3
Attachment “C” – Contract for purchase of vehicle technology
P66
VII.c
RESOLUTION #82
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND SPRADLEY BARR FORD LINCOLN OF GREELEY INC.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Ford Utility Police AWD Vehicles, between the City of Aspen and Spradley Barr
Ford Lincoln of Greeley Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Ford utility police AWD vehicles, between the City of Aspen and Spradley
Barr Ford Lincoln of Greeley Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
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 August 10, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P67
VII.c
P68
VII.c
P69
VII.c
P70
VII.c
P71
VII.c
P72
VII.c
P73
VII.c
P74
VII.c
P75
VII.c
RESOLUTION #83
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND WIRELESS ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS INC. AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
installation of police equipment in new vehicles, between the City of Aspen and
Wireless Advanced Communications Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for installation of police equipment in new vehicles, between the City of Aspen
and Wireless Advanced Communications Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto
and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
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 August 10, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P76
VII.c
P77
VII.c
P78
VII.c
P79
VII.c
P80
VII.c
P81
VII.c
P82
VII.c
P83
VII.c
P84
VII.c
P85
VII.c
P86
VII.c
P87
VII.c
P88
VII.c
P89
VII.c
P90
VII.c
P91
VII.c
RESOLUTION #82
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND CDW-G AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
high definition in-car video recording and display system between the City of
Aspen and CDW-G, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for high definition in-car video recording and display system, between the City of
Aspen and CDW-G a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf
of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
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 August 10, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P92
VII.c
P93
VII.c
P94
VII.c
P95
VII.c
P96
VII.c
P97
VII.c
P98
VII.c
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Project Manager
THRU: Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: August 3, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
RE: Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office improvements.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of the attached contract with R.A. Nelson
(RAN) for a total Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price (IGMP) contract sum of $2,713,102 along
with approval of $1,161,000 in additional budget authority to cover additions to the scope and an
increase in owner’s contingency to perform the work outlined in the Detailed Design drawings
dated June 1, 2015.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the contract with Charles Cunniffe
Architects to complete design work and construction drawings on the project. Staff and the
architect team presented schematic design at an April work session and Council directed staff to
move forward with detailed design and construction drawings. The already-approved budget in
2015 for the project is $3,154,000.
BACKGROUND: This project is the third and final phase of major renovation of the interior
of the building. The previous projects renovated the restaurant space that now houses Justice
Snow’s, retail space for Valley Fine Art, and the basement area offices in 2011. The next project
was complete renovation of the balcony in the auditorium, along with technology upgrades in
2013. This project will tie everything together and these improvements will enhance the theater
users’ experience from the moment they enter the building.
This phase of renovation includes replacement of the last remaining piece of HVAC equipment
from the 1980’s, a new HVAC control system for the entire building, and a necessary complete
reroofing of the building.
Through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, R.A. Nelson (RAN) was selected in
July by staff to be the General Contractor for this phase of the remodel. We received four
proposals from qualified contractors and the proposal amounts ranged from $2.5 million to $4.2
million. RAN was selected based on their approach to the project, knowledge and relevant work
experience in Aspen. The starting number for the proposed scope of work is $2,713,102. Staff
is working daily with CCA and RAN to finalize the remaining details in the design and scope.
We are using this Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price (IGMP) as a defined starting point to be
able to add the general contractor to the project team as we finalize design and cost estimating.
This provides us with the benefit of having contractor recommendations, subcontractor pricing
and value engineering input prior to converting to a Final Guaranteed Maximum Price (FGMP).
We will convert the final cost to the FGMP within approved budget authority once design and
scope are finalized.
P99
VII.d
Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSION: This project started under the supervision and direction of the previous
executive director of the Wheeler. His initial vision of the project was the genesis for the
original design and the current budget authority for the project. Upon his departure, design and
scope development became a collaborative effort including the City Manager’s office, the
Capital Asset department, Community Development department and Wheeler Board and staff.
The Wheeler Board of Directors has also provided valuable feedback throughout the design
process. During the collaboration on the design, the design team recognized some significant
improvements and opportunities that were not in the initial conceptual plan. These additions can
be broken down into four main areas:
1. Removal of the demising wall between the box office lobby and grand staircase to open
the space to better serve the public. Proposed additional costs: $102,000.
2. Enhanced remodel of the box office and entire grand staircase corridor along with a better
level of finish to all of the public areas of the building, with a focus on durability.
Proposed additional costs: $288,000.
3. A more robust A/V package to provide greater flexibility in the lobby for events that
require a higher level of theatrical and performance production. Proposed additional
costs: $120,000.
4. Life safety improvements required by the Fire Marshall and a new building control
system that integrates all aspects of the building’s HVAC system and boiler plant.
Proposed additional costs: $134,000.
Staff also recommends an increase from the standard 10% contingency for typical new
construction to a 25% contingency for a remodel of this magnitude in this historic building. The
number of unforeseen conditions that could arise from the structural demolition and associated
work in a 126 year old building is daunting. The project has to be completed in a very
compressed off-season time frame without sacrificing construction quality. The proposed
increase in the owner’s contingency makes up $517,000 of the additional budget authority
requested.
The project team has been working intensely over the past several months to finalize the interior
details of the project and make all the necessary selections of the finishes. The team is working
diligently with all the stakeholders to finalize design and cost estimating. Having the General
Contractor onboard now will help this effort be more accurate and timely with a smooth
transition into construction. The final dollar amount of the contract, Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP), will be agreed upon and executed as a change order to the IGMP within the next 30
days. Staff recommends proceeding with the project and beginning demolition as the final
details are being worked out. Upon Council approval, the plan going forward is to issue a
Notice to Proceed to RAN in order to expedite time-sensitive material purchases of long lead-
time items.
The building permit application was submitted to the Building Department in June so that the
project can begin on schedule with demolition and structural work commencing as soon as
possible. The project is scheduled to begin on Monday, August 31st and to be completed in early
December 2015. Performances and events are scheduled to return to the Wheeler by December
18.
P100
VII.d
Page 3 of 5
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2015 council-approved budget for the project is
$3,154,000. After project development, enhanced project scope, schematic design, detailed
design and preconstruction collaboration, the proposed budget for the project is now $4,315,000.
The additional requested funding is $1,161,000 with the 25% owners’ contingency making up
$757,000 of the revised budget total. The comparison of the preliminary budget and current
proposed budget is illustrated below.
Staff requests council approval of the additional $1,161,000 to come from the Wheeler Opera
House Fund Balance. Council approval will direct staff to add that amount to the next
supplemental appropriation ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends an increase of the total project budget
authority by $1,161,000 and approval of the attached contract with R. A. Nelson for an
IGMP/FGMP contract sum of $2,713,102 to perform the remodel and improvements in the
Wheeler Opera House Lobby and Box Office.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council could decide not to approve the additions to the project
and to proceed with the original scope, leaving the wall in box office intact, lowering the finish
level and reducing the contingency back to the lower amount.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The City Manager’s Office recommends approval of this
contract and proceeding with the revised budget for this project. This will complete renovations
of the entire building and set the Wheeler up for continued service to the community for many
years to come.
ATTACHMENTS: Renderings of the interior public spaces to be renovated through the project.
Design Contractor add
alternatives
Owner
Contingency
@10%
Permit/ Fees
/Misc
Owner's Rep/
Commissioning TOTALS
Preliminary
budget $375,000 $2,400,000 $0 $240,000 $65,000 $74,000 $3,154,000
Design Contractor add
alternatives
Owner
Contingency
@25%
Permit/ Fees
/Misc
Owner's Rep/
Commissioning TOTALS
Proposed
budget $375,000 $2,400,000 $644,000 $757,000 $65,000 $74,000 $4,315,000
P101
VII.d
Page 4 of 5
P102
VII.d
Page 5 of 5
P103
VII.d
P104
VII.d
P105
VII.d
P106
VII.d
P107
VII.d
P108
VII.d
P109
VII.d
P110
VII.d
P111
VII.d
P112
VII.d
P113
VII.d
P114
VII.d
P115
VII.d
P116
VII.d
P117
VII.d
P118
VII.d
P119
VII.d
P120
VII.d
P121
VII.d
P122
VII.d
P123
VII.d
P124
VII.d
P125
VII.d
P126
VII.d
P127
VII.d
P128
VII.d
P129
VII.d
P130
VII.d
P131
VII.d
P132
VII.d
P133
VII.d
P134
VII.d
P135
VII.d
P136
VII.d
P137
VII.d
P138
VII.d
P139
VII.d
P140
VII.d
P141
VII.d
P142
VII.d
P143
VII.d
P144
VII.d
P145
VII.d
P146
VII.d
P147
VII.d
P148
VII.d
P149
VII.d
P150
VII.d
P151
VII.d
P152
VII.d
P153
VII.d
P154
VII.d
P155
VII.d
P156
VII.d
P157
VII.d
P158
VII.d
P159
VII.d
P160
VII.d
P161
VII.d
P162
VII.d
P163
VII.d
P164
VII.d
P165
VII.d
P166
VII.d
P167
VII.d
P168
VII.d
P169
VII.d
P170
VII.d
P171
VII.d
P172
VII.d
P173
VII.d
P174
VII.d
P175
VII.d
P176
VII.d
P177
VII.d
P178
VII.d
P179
VII.d
P180
VII.d
P181
VII.d
P182
VII.d
P183
VII.d
P184
VII.d
P185
VII.d
P186
VII.d
P187
VII.d
P188
VII.d
P189
VII.d
P190
VII.d
P191
VII.d
P192
VII.d
P193
VII.d
P194
VII.d
P195
VII.d
P196
VII.d
P197
VII.d
P198
VII.d
P199
VII.d
P200
VII.d
P201
VII.d
P202
VII.d
P203
VII.d
P204
VII.d
P205
VII.d
P206
VII.d
P207
VII.d
P208
VII.d
P209
VII.d
P210
VII.d
P211
VII.d
P212
VII.d
P213
VII.d
P214
VII.d
P215
VII.d
P216
VII.d
P217
VII.d
P218
VII.d
P219
VII.d
P220
VII.d
P221
VII.d
P222
VII.d
P223
VII.d
P224
VII.d
P225
VII.d
P226
VII.d
P227
VII.d
P228
VII.d
P229
VII.d
P230
VII.d
P231
VII.d
P232
VII.d
P233
VII.d
P234
VII.d
P235
VII.d
P236
VII.d
P237
VII.d
P238
VII.d
P239
VII.d
P240
VII.d
P241
VII.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS .............................................................................................. 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
NOTICE OF CALL UPS .............................................................................................................................. 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #73, Series of 2015 – Waterline Replacement Design, Roaring Fork Rd .......................... 5
Resolution #77, Series of 2015 – 100 Percent Renewable Energy Contracts ....................................... 5
Council Board Appointments ................................................................................................................ 5
Minutes – July 13, 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 5
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment ................................ 5
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 - Aspen Historical society Lot Split ............................................... 6
RESOLUTION #78, SERIES OF 2015- Golden Horn Building Easement Request .................................... 6
P242
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Mullins,
Frisch and Myrin present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. Eden Vardy, executive director of Aspen Tree, said they are a local non-profit that focuses on
empowering youth through farm experiences and building community through healthy food
systems. He invited the community to their farm park facility at Cozy Park.
2. Ward Howenstein said in his many years of living here Aspen has always been challenged by
pressure by development. Aspen has remained a desired tourist destination and place to live
because city government has had the vision and courage to limit growth. He fears our
representatives have lost that vision and courage. From gathering signatures for the Base 2
petition, the majority of people in Aspen feel development should conform to existing codes and
zoning. Staff recommends development with variances and council accepts the lead of staff. The
citizens have made their voices known. Council did not honor the expressed direction of the
people and passed Base 2 with many variances. Council followed the belief of the city attorney
that referendum one did not apply to Base 2. There is another legal opinion that contradicts
staffs. Concerned citizens collected 1312 signatures of people who want council to honor the
codes and zonings without variances. He wants council to apply the terms of the charter
amendments passed by the people to all developments. He does not accept the assertion that
Aspen needs more lodging.
3. Bruce Etkin said the armory building was a community center from 1890 to 1957. The high
school basketball games were played here. He met with staff and community members with
positive feedback. He will miss the August 3 work session. If the decision to move the city to
one location is approved they will get it done.
4. James Morris said Council opposed referendum one. They refused to follow the spirit and
direction and approved Base 2. Council is out of sync with the majority of the electorate.
Council appears to be pro build at any cost to the community. Please get on board and apply
referendum one to all building permit proposals. Do not allow city staff to rewrite the zoning
codes to negate the intent of referendum one.
5. Ann Byers said the community has reached a bit of a tipping point in regards to an open door
development model that encourages speculative developers to submit their midnight applications
then beg concessions and ignore sensitive land use regulations. The current land use policy
supported by staff has little noble intent and is probably costly to the quality of life we cherish in
Aspen. She asked the Council as the voice of our community to respect the public input of
referendum one. Business as usual is no longer an option.
6. Phyllis Bronson said these people do not represent we the people. They represent a contingent of
people. This council is generally doing a great job of listening. Referendum one passed narrowly
with a small percentage of people voting. Aspen used to be about vitality and I think it is
becoming about NIMBYs who don’t want any vitality here and second and third home owners
who want to stop any noise from being in their community. I was at all the meetings last year
here and I never saw any of these people here. Base 1 is the first beautiful hotel development I
have seen in years. It answers a need that we have. This has become so divisive and contentious
and disrespectful to the very government we elected.
7. Doug Wilson said the Council and City Attorney have failed to recognize one of the ultimate
functions of law to carry out consensus.
8. Don Davidson thanked Council for their service. He agreed with Ward, Tim and Ann. He
believes that Council needs to follow the building code. If the code is not adequate the Council
needs to change it. Referendum one should to apply to all developments whether or not they
were submitted before the vote. He thinks Base 2 is a particularly bad proposal, mainly the
parking and size.
P243
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
3
9. Ziska Childs said there are always going to be complaints in this town. She hopes council
focuses on the land use code. She hopes the people who are showing up after the fact will show
up during the land use process. The name calling brings the community down.
10. Ivan Cassat said to stick to the code as it is. Base 2 should be built as long as it meet the present
code.
11. LJ Erspamer said one of the things he learned serving on P&Z is if it is not memorialized it is not
going to happen.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Myrin said one of the top ten goals that did not make the list was him not doing a
petition for the next two years and he is hoping that is still the case.
2. Councilman Frisch thanked everyone for speaking calmly, cool and thoughtfully. When asked
what projects specifically based on timing might not have to go to the voters he reached out to
Chris Bendon and Jim True. Legislative bodies are best judged by the longevity of their
decisions. On one hand we are asked not to give any variances which says the land use code is
exactly right. We are also hearing that the land use code needs to change. I believe it does need
to change to try to codify that what used to be a variance isn’t a variance any more. I assume
what is referendum one will stay in place for some time. During the campaign I was asked what
is the number one issue facing Aspen. I replied the land use code and AACP don’t match up.
Until we as a community figure out how to make the land use code more in line with the AACP
we will continue to struggle as a community and elected leaders as to what is the best way to
move forward. I don’t think the AACP ever needs to change.
3. Councilman Daily said he appreciated everyone who spoke and it doesn’t matter if he agrees or
disagrees. We are better informed when everyone speaks. We are aware the land use code needs
improvement and we are working on those matters as well as community development.
4. Mayor Skadron thanked Eden for talking about Aspen Tree. It is a fantastic experiment.
5. Mayor Skadron said Council had their retreat and went through their goal setting session. He
thanked staff and Barry Crook for guiding the sessions. Council will be pursing ten goals
including a goal to reconcile the land use code and the AACP so the land use code delivers what
the AACP aspires to.
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS
Staff recommended removing the executive session from the agenda.
BOARD REPORTS
1. Mayor Skadron will be attending the chamber meeting tomorrow.
2. Mayor Skadron welcomed the 200 neurologists attending their annual retreat in Aspen. They
have been coming to Aspen for 25 years.
NOTICE OF CALL UPS
411 E Hyman Avenue
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this was approved conceptually by HPC on June
10. The proposal is to demolish the existing two story building containing first floor commercial and free
market residential on the second. It will be rebuilt with a one story commercial space occupying the
entire lot. It was approved by HPC by a six to zero vote.
Councilwoman Mullins said the view plane issue was not questioned in the minutes and is surprising to
her. Mr. Barker said it was presented in the memo and by diagrams.
Councilwoman Mullins said the justification for allowing the variance is the building to the west is
already blocking the view plane. Mr. Barker replied correct and it is one of the criteria in the code that
allows the HPC the ability to exempt the review. Councilwoman Mullins asked if that building has a
P244
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
4
historic designation. Mr. Barker replied no. Councilwoman Mullins asked if it could come down and be
rebuilt. He replied it could. She asked Council to consider if they continue to infringe on the view plane
since there is another building that could possibly disappear that infringes on it. Once this development is
ok’s when the other building goes down it would be hard not to argue a new development there would
also be within the view plane. The view planes are important in town. She was disappointed it was not
mentioned by the HPC commissioners and does not want Council to be short sighted.
Councilman Frisch said the view plane is not one of the reasons something can be called up. He said
Councilwoman Mullins has hit the head on something that needs checked on. Councilwoman Mullins
said even if they can’t call this up maybe they need to revisit how view planes are dealt with in town.
Councilman Daily said the photo with the view plane line is pretty illuminating. Mr. Barker said the view
plane only clips the back of the property. Councilman Daily said he does not have any serious problems
with the proposal. All three buildings are in violation of the view plane. He asked if there were questions
of the view plane in the past. Mr. Barker said that is a question for Council and Staff going forward.
Councilman Myrin said he would like to take a closer look at the point Councilwoman Mullins brought
up about the actions or inactions of the other building. He would like Council to have a little more call up
authority on some HPC decisions sooner than later including affordable housing.
Councilman Frisch said he has no reason to call this up specifically. It passed six to zero.
Mayor Skadron said this is the second building where this is happening. A few years ago he voted
against an application for this very reason. This should be called up and it is a policy that should be made
public and we need to discuss it.
Jim True, city attorney, said it could be called up based on the overall application that HPC has
considered. The question is whether they could consider the exemption that was given for the view plane.
Council has grounds to call it up. Some of the review may be more limited than they may want based on
the provisions allowed for call up. They may not be able to justify the remand back to HPC.
Councilman Myrin said he would support the call up.
Councilwoman Mullins would like to review the project.
Mayor Skadron said one of the Council goals is communication with the public and if for no other reason
we are not putting the public in a place to be surprised.
Councilman Daily said he is comfortable with the call up.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 411 E Hyman Avenue; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #77 – 100 Percent Renewable Energy Contracts
Councilman Frisch said in principle he is all for it but on page 77 it mentions Castle Creek Hydro and he
asked for a comment if we are still working on it. Will Dolan, utilities, said there is a foot note that says
other hydro power project locations may be subject to board approval anticipating there might not be
support for this project. Councilman Frisch asked what is his departments view on the status of the Castle
Creek Hydro project. Mr. Dolan said it is in a state of suspended animation and the community has given
its opinion that it should not be pursued. The department is looking into other options for the equipment
that it owns and the department has no plans or intentions or activities ongoing for pursuing that project
P245
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
5
anymore or at this time. Councilman Frisch asked if that squares with what we have here and he is
reading more into this than he should be or should it not be included. Mr. Dolan said Exhibit B is a basic
agreement that is the standard agreement with MEAN. It gives the flexibility to pursue projects that we
don’t need to purchase through MEAN. Castle Creek Hydro is included because MEAN said that is the
installed capacity for that project and we are going to use that as the place holder for the size of any
project you may pursue in the future. If not Castle Creek Hydro, Aspen could pursue another project
somewhere else up to that size. Councilman Frisch said he fully supports what is in Resolution #77 and
we should be commended as a community. This is another instance of us being accused of the hydro
project not dying. Mr. Dolan said Staff could pursue an amendment to the exhibit that would make it
more generic and not specific to Castle Creek Hydro. Mayor Skadron suggested it be amended.
Councilman Daily said he agrees.
Mr. True said the best way to handle it is to pull this off the consent agenda and to vote on it separately.
• Resolution #73, Series of 2015 – Waterline Replacement Design, Roaring Fork Rd
• Resolution #77, Series of 2015 – 100 Percent Renewable Energy Contracts
• Council Board Appointments
• Minutes – July 13, 2015
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #73, Council Board Appoints and the minutes of July 13,
2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #77 as amended to remove Castle Creek Hydro but still
advocate a placeholder for allowance; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
Chris Bendon, community development, said staff routinely gets questions when applications are in for
review and someone wants to make changes and how it might affect their status when there were changes
to the land use code since it was submitted. There are also questions about projects that were approved
and the level of changes that can be made to an approved project. Staff has to answer these questions on a
one by one basis and feels it would be good to codify a position. Many changes an applicant might make
are very minor and Staffs position is it should not interrupt their status of being submitted under a
particular land use code. Some changes are required due to suggestions made by a particular board.
Councilman Daily said this is the kind of clarification and code updating we are trying to achieve.
Councilman Frisch stated he is supportive of where we are going and looks forward to the comments.
Councilman Myrin said this is somewhat new to him and there was a guest column in the paper on it. He
said he would like to see it as narrowly tailored as possible so vested rights favor the city rather than the
applicants. He would like more examples at second reading of things that can and can’t be added
regarding vested rights. This became a big issue at P&Z. The community expects to have an opportunity
to comment up until the last minute.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is a really good effort. She wants to make sure the definition between
major and minor is as clear as it can possibly be so the criteria is applied consistently. She also wants to
make sure the process for the second objective is crystal clear.
Mr. True said he spoke with the author of the commentary in the paper today last week on her concerns
and they are part of what we are trying to address with the clarifications. He said he believes we can
address those comments as well as Councils concerns moving forward to second reading.
Mayor Skadron stated he concurs with his fellow Council Members.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #27, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor except Councilman Myrin, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 27
(SERIES OF 2015)
P246
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
26.304 – COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 2015 on first reading; second by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins; yes, Frisch, yes; Myrin, no;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 - Aspen Historical society Lot Split
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to August 24, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #78, SERIES OF 2015- Golden Horn Building Easement Request
Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council the easement request is for 400 East Cooper.
The request is to accommodate circulation and access to the Golden Horn building redevelopment mostly
in Mill Street. The applicant is Golden Horn LLC represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. The
building is located on the corner of Cooper and Mill Street along the pedestrian mall. The property is
located in the Wheeler view plane. It was built in approximately 1958. Currently there are a number of
encroachments in the right of way. Some of the walls encroach into Cooper, Mill and the alley. The
circulation also encroaches into Mill via ramping, walkways and stairs with a revocable encroachment
license. The applicant is proposing to construct and expand the building. They would like to put new
improvements in the right of way inclusive of an elevator, vestibule, relocation of stairs and improvement
of existing entry to the Meatball Shack. Currently the encroachments are around 700 sq ft. The proposal
is to reduce the size by 162 sq ft. The easement grant is at Councils sole discretion and planning,
engineering, sanitation and parks do not support or have concerns with the encroachment request. The
circulation should be handled within the existing property lines and should not improve upon in the
pedestrian mall. The current improvements effect snow removal and parks is concerned about the
existing trees. The use of the right of way privatizes the mall and Staff feels it sets a bad precedent. Staff
is recommending denial. If Council recommends approval, Staff recommends the property be leased.
Benjamin Nazarian, owner, said the Golden Horn is old, tired and just ugly. The new design addresses its
flaws. He understands Staffs concerns of the use of public right of way for the buildings access and the
negative precedent for land owners. He pointed out the current access and ADA ramp is on the public
right of way. He said they are proposing a reduction of over 20 percent of the existing right of way while
improving access to the retail spaces, providing an elevator that is better than the current ADA ramp and
improving the appearance of the entire building. It is the ultimate win win.
Charles Cunniffe, architect, described the proposed changes to the retail spaces which include adding
more glass for increased visibility. He spoke about the changes in the stairs and the ADA access. The
overall encroachment will be reduced from 710 sq ft to 547 sq ft.
Councilman Daily asked where the new access to the bike shop will be. Mr. Cunniffe replied off the
ramp.
Mayor Skadron asked how much additional space will be built for the second floor office space and what
will happen there. Mr. Cunniffe said it will be a 900 sq ft expansion of office space and the deck will
remain. Mayor Skadron asked how he envisions the space will be used. Mr. Nazarian replied he has not
decided. It may be his family’s office space.
Councilman Frisch asked if it was not for the easement would Council be seeing this project. Ms. Phelan
said there is an HPC review and a development review committee. When there was unfavorable review
from other departments on the easement request the feedback was go to Council for that then you can go
to HPC. Councilman Frisch said there is a comment in the memo saying private development should be
on private property and the application says if it is for the community betterment we should keep the
easement. Mr. Cunniffe said it was built this way before the code’s existence. Councilman Frisch said a
P247
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
7
third of the building is being demolished and the view is keep the things outside. Mr. Nazarian said the
exterior is the only thing being remodeled with the exception of the office space.
Councilman Daily said if the encroachments were to be removed what are the impacts on the ground floor
tenants. Mr. Cunniffe said the Meatball Shack would have virtually no seating left. The sushi bar seating
would be eliminated by a quarter. Councilman Daily said he hears they are seeking to expand their net
usable square footage on the second floor by 900 sq ft and want to borrow 300 sq ft from the public. Mr.
Cunniffe said currently they are not borrowing anything from the public.
Councilman Frisch asked what happens if the building stays as is or if the easement is granted and a
future Council decides to revoke it. Mr. True said the way the easement is proposed is similar as to what
was done with the Dancing Bear tunnel. This is requesting there be a showing by the City we need the
space to return to public use and they have a year to remove it once we show we needed it to return to
public use.
Councilman Frisch asked how many more situations like this are in the mall. Chris Bendon, community
development, replied there are a series of buildings that were built over a hundred years ago that were
several inches over. There are some like Justice Snow’s where the stairs are over. This building is
probably the largest.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Ziska Childs said she worked in that kitchen in high school. She commented on the second
stairwell on the east side of the building but did not see a readily accessible entrance from the
street itself. If the elevator is the only way up and down the second floor access needs addressed
in case of fire. From a public point of view, in the summer, it is encroaching on all of it. It is
great for business and vitality but just as many people think it is terrible. If you want to deny this
300 feet you are saying keep it the way it is or do a complete demo.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mayor Skadron asked if the encroachments are lost the retail occupants will be lost because the space will
no longer be sufficient to support them. Mr. Nazarian replied if they were to not get the public right of
way providing the ADA would so severely impact the retail spaces.
Councilman Frisch said if there is an option for the community that the building stays the status quo and
the encroachments are staying he is fine with that. Getting into redevelopment issues open this up to
losing the encroachments. The tenants have the legal ability to stay there as long as their leases are alive.
Councilman Frisch asked if the applicant has interest in paying for use of the space. Mr. Nazarian said
the rates that were mentioned are not economically viable. The rates are ten time or more than what his
tenants are using for the same space in the summer. There are cheaper alternatives for the elevator but he
does not think they are right for the building. He said he is trying to do what is best for the property.
Councilman Myrin said there was push back when we tried to put a building in Wagner park a few feet
from this building. The community values the community space and we have so little of it. He is not
supportive of continuing this. The building owners will do what is best for the building over time. He
said he supports Staff’s recommendation.
Councilwoman Mullins said there is not a lot of public space down town and the pedestrian mall is one of
the most important public spaces we have. Even with the reduction of the encroachments it would be a
mistake to memorialize those. She is not convinced this is the only solution. She takes the Staff
recommendations very seriously and would not support this.
Councilman Daily stated he likes the proposal esthetically but he is really uncomfortable with the
continued use of encroachments in the public rights of way with the redevelopment of commercial
buildings. Now is the time to clean it up. If it is not feasible maybe this proposal is not the right one.
This is a significant increase in the commercial space on the second floor and the real benefit of the
redevelopment. There is a significant use of public property for private benefit. We are sending the
wrong message and incentivizing the wrong kind of redevelopment. Staff has proposed an alternative and
he would be willing to discuss lease rates. There has to be a cost to the developer to continue using public
space for their own development. If a reasonable appropriate rental rate can’t be worked out he cannot
support the proposal.
Mayor Skadron said one person’s old, tired and ugly is another person’s charming, historic and quaint.
He said he is in the same camp as his fellow Council Members.
P248
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2015
8
Councilman Frisch moved to deny Resolution #78, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All
in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:15p.m.; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion
carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P249
VII.e
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
July 31, 2015
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
First Reading of Ordinance #28, Series of 2015
Second Reading is scheduled for September 14, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
APPLICANT:
City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services, INC.
LOCATION & PARCEL ID::
540 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611.
2737-073-24-003. The lot is a parcel of land
within the East Aspen Townsite Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
The zoning for this property is
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI),
Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core
(CC). The City of Aspen Parking
Department operates on the lot.
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
The Applicant proposes to rezone the
property to Public (PUB) Zone District.
There is no proposed use change.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests to rezone the property
to the Public (PUB) Zone District.
Redevelopment is not being considered in the
Application; however, as a City asset, the
PUB Zone District is an appropriate one and
clears up the mix of zone districts. The
property is designated historic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to
rezone the subject property to the Public
(PUB) Zone District.
Figure A. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
Figure B. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
facing south towards Aspen Mountain
P250
VIII.a
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
July 31, 2015
Page 2 of 5
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
• Rezoning – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.060, Rezoning – Procedure for
Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with determining if the
application meets the standards for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and
to provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
540 E. Main St. is located just north of the Commercial Core between Main St. and Rio Grande
Pl. The parcel measures approximately 27,000 square feet/0.6 acres in size and the City Parking
Department is located on the property.
Figure C. Project Location & Vicinity. Subject property is indicated by a white boarder and star.
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within
the Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District, while the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts do allow for Public use on the ground floor. The City Parking
Department office is located on the front portion of the property in the former residence within
the CC Zone District.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022.A, Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One Zone
District; when a proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed
P251
VIII.a
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
July 31, 2015
Page 3 of 5
on land in which it is a permitted use. As shown in Figure D, the Parking Department office
building falls within the CC Zone District. The accessory building to the rear, which is located in
the SCI Zone District, is used by the Parking Department for storage of department cars and
appurtenances. The accessory building is considered an accessory use to the Parking Department
office and is permitted as a use in the SCI Zone District. To bring the entire lot into conformance
and to allow for the future expansion of City facilities, the Applicant is initiating an amendment
to zone districts of the subject property from CC, C-1, and SCI to Public (PUB).
Figure D. Subject Property Site Programming
At this time, no development is proposed on the subject property; however, the parcel is being
considered for expansion of future City facilities. The PUB Zone District requires a Planned
Development when development occurs on the property; however, a Planned Development is not
proposed at this time. The dimensional characteristics of the parcel will be determined through
the Planned Development Review process. At this time, the Applicant does not wish to pursue a
Planned Development designation on the Official Zone District Map. Should the property be
redeveloped with new City facilities; the Official Zone District Map shall be amended to reflect a
Planned Development designation upon approval of an Ordinance approving the Planned
Development review, pursuant to Section 26.445.100, Planned Development Designation on
Official Zone District Map
The subject property received historic designation in Ordinance 34, Series of 1992. At that time the
property was addressed as 600 E. Bleeker St. The property received the designation because of three
19th century cabins, known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins, located on the southern portion of
P252
VIII.a
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
July 31, 2015
Page 4 of 5
the property; shown in Figure E and Figure F. Should a Planned Development review be pursued
by the Applicant, the Historic Preservation review process may be combined with the review.
Figure E. Historic photo of the site, date unknown Figure F. One of the historic outbuildings today
STAFF COMMENTS:
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some parking
for the City Police Department. As shown on Figure C, the adjacent County property to the west
of the subject property is zoned PUB. The surrounding uses to the west of the property include
the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1 and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development
(PD). Both Concept 600 and Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses
and providing various services. Public zoning of the subject property will allow necessary civic
functions in a central location near other government facilities and is consistent with the current
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The site is being considered for future expansion of City facilities; however, no development is
proposed as part of this Application. Impacts created by new development to public facilities
such as transportation, utilities and the natural environment shall be evaluated in the Planned
Development application process.
A memo was provided to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on June 10th, 2015 to
inform them of the Application and to solicit comments. This memo can be found in Exhibit A.
The Application received a positive endorsement from HPC. A small amount of public comment
was received and comments generally regarded concern for how the property may be developed.
Public comments may be found in Exhibit B.
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 and in Exhibit C. Staff is recommending approval
of this request.
PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION:
A public hearing was held during a special meeting on June 30, 2015. The Planning and Zoning
Commission expressed some concern regarding the future development of the property. No
public comment was received during the hearing. The minutes from the hearing can be found in
P253
VIII.a
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
July 31, 2015
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit D. Resolution No. 12, Series 2015 providing a recommendation that City Council
approve the rezoning was approved with a six to zero (6-0) vote and is included as Exhibit E.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to make a recommendation of approval to City Council for the rezoning of 540 E. Main
St. from Service Commercial Industrial, Commercial Core and Commercial to Public as noted in
Ordinance 28, Series of 2015.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – HPC Memo
EXHIBIT B – Public Comment
EXHIBIT C – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT D – P&Z June 30, 2015 Meeting Minutes
EXHIBIT E – P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series 2015
EXHIBIT F – P&Z Hearing Public Notice Materials
EXHIBIT G – Survey
EXHIBIT H – Application
P254
VIII.a
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 28
(SERIES OF 2015)
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
REZONING OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 540 E. MAIN ST.,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-24-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The
City of Aspen Capital Asset Department (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman, requesting
the City Council approve a Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street, legally described in Exhibit A of
this Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the property at 540 E. Main. Street is currently zoned Service Commercial
Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC), and Commercial (C-1); and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 540 E Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmarks and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, Rezoning shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the Application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
zoning proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation for the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing.; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 30th, 2015, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series 2015, by a six to zero (6-0) vote,
recommending the Aspen City Council approve Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the rezoning application 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 September 14, 2015; and,
P255
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Rezoning
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street to Public (PUB).
Section2: Placement on Official Zone District Map
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Community Development Director shall place the amendment on the City’s Official Zone
District Map.
Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: 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 5:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14th day of September, 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 6: 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 7:
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.
P256
VIII.a
Page 3 of 2
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 10th of August, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of September.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P257
VIII.a
Ordinance No. 28, Series 2015
Exhibit A
540 E. Main St. Legal Description
Page 4 of 2
PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 108453, DITCH BOOK
2A AT PAGE 252 OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
MAYOR'S DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 109112 DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
FOR EAST MAIN STREET BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 20 EAST
ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 383 AND
PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 442; THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 97.60 FEET
ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR EAST MAIN STREET TO A
POINT WHICH BEARS S75°09'11E A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N 14°50'49" E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET ALONG A LINE
7.5 FEET EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N14°50'57”E A DISTANCE OF 20.39 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" A DISTANCE OF W 10.10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 9 TO AN ANGLE POINT OF LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY
CENTER SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 93, PAGE 57; THENCE
N14°50'49"E A DISTANCE OF 188.06 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY SUBDIVISION TO AN ANGLE POINT IN
SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF
OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 57;
THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES S
57°25'00" E A DISTANCE OF 24.94 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID
OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY; THENCE S 19°49'00” E A DISTANCE
OF 138.72 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS
BOUNDARY; THENCE S 04°08'00” W A DISTANCE OF 67.55 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY, ALSO BEING THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 20, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SAID CONCEPT 600
CONDOMINIUMS ; THENCE S 14°50'49" W A DISTANCE OF 120.39 FEET ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.607 ACRES MORE OR LESS;
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 540 E. MAIN ST.
P258
VIII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE OF MEMO: June 4, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 10, 2015
RE: 540 E. Main St. (A.K.A Zupancis) Rezoning
________________________
SUMMARY: 540 E. Main St., which is also known as the Zupancis Property, currently lies within
three zone districts, Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial
(SCI). Three 19th century cabins, known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins, are located on the
southern portion of the property. The property is designated historic. The City Parking Department,
a parking garage, and surface parking are located on the property. The property and existing
overlying zone districts are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Current Zupancis Zoning
P259
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within
the Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District, while the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts do allow for Public use on the ground floor.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022.A; which pertains to lands within more than one zone
district, where a proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed
on land in which it is a permitted use. The Parking Department falls within both the CC and SCI
Zone Districts; therefore, the existing use of the property as the City Parking Department is a
non-conformity.
To bring the existing use into conformance, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is
initiating an amendment to zone districts of the Zupancis property from CC, C-1, and SCI to
Public (PUB).
The subject parcel is approximately 27,000SF in size. At this time, no development is proposed
on the subject property; however, the parcel has been considered for future City facilities. The
Public Zone District requires a Planned Development; however, one is not proposed at this time.
The dimensional characteristics of the parcel will be determined through the Planned
Development Review process.
PROPOSAL: Alan Richman, of Alan Richman Planning Services LLC, and Charles Cunniffe
Architects, on behalf of the Applicant, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department; have
submitted an application to rezone the subject property to the Public Zone District. This
application seeks to bring the existing use into compliance and allow for potential redevelopment
for City facilities.
SUMMARY: The intent of this Memo to the Historic Preservation Commission is to inform the
Commission of the Application to Rezone the Zupancis Property to the Public Zone District.
Additionally, Staff seeks to receive comment from the Commission regarding the proposal.
P260
VIII.a
Exhibit B Public Comment 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Date Name Contact Comment Reply Follow-up
2015 June 16 Susan Welch na
Wanted to know what rezoning to PUB implies. Noted there is
lumber/wood being stored on the back of the property and had
concerns that there may be a fire hazard.
Explained that it cleans up the existing zoning City Parking Department.
Emailed Jeff Pendarvis (2015 June 17) regarding the wood.
Conducted a site vist on
2015 June 18). The wood
stored on the property are
boards from the historic
structure.
2015 June 16
Jerome
Simecek 924.6060
Manager of Obermeyer HOA inquiring about the land use
application Returned call and left message (2015 June 16, June 24)na
2015 June 24
Claire
Wilson 300.2040
concerned as to how the space will be redeveloped. She was also
was concerned that while she would receive a letter as part of the
public notice process, she may miss the correspondence as she
travels often.
Explained that the property is being considered for additional civic space
needs; however, the land use application does not contain any development
proposals. Asked Jeff Pendarvis, Jack Wheeler and Mitzi Rapkin if there are
there any websites/public outreach materials I may direct the public to.
Additionally, I asked if there were any email newsletters regarding the
project.
Forwarded the Civic
Space Relocation project
on the City website.
Currently there is not an
email newsletter but they
can develop one when as
the City is closer to
building the project. I
provided her with Jack
Wheeler's contact
information. Jack will
reach out to her
personally to set up a
meeting.
P
2
6
1
V
I
I
I
.
a
1
Exhibit A
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 from Service
Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) to Public (PUB).
As shown on Figure C in the Staff Memo, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned PUB. As part of a recent application submitted for the Pitkin
County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zone district were adjusted to coincide
with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the subject
property PUB would be congruent with the zoning of the adjacent County property.
The surrounding uses to the west of the property include the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1
and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development (PD). Both Concept 600 and
Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses and providing various
services.
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some
parking for the City Police Department. Both of these public uses are allowed uses in the PUB
zone district. Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions in a central
location near other government facilities.
The rezoning of the subject property is consistent and compatible with surrounding zone
districts and uses. Staff finds this criterion 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.
Rezoning the property to Public will allow for community-serving public use of this property.
No development is proposed as a part of this application. Expansion of the facilities may place
demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation, water supply
and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public service.
Development in the PUB Zone District requires a Planned Development (PD) review. A PD
Application will provide the opportunity to evaluate impacts and the ability to ensure
development impacts are appropriately mitigated by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion
met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
P262
VIII.a
2
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 zone the
property with a more appropriate zone district for its use. 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.
Staff response: The rezoning of the parcel to the PUB Zone District would be consistent and
compatible with adjacent Civic uses. The rezoning to PUB would allow the parcel to continue
to serve the community and provide a future location for essential public facilities. 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.
P263
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jesse Morris, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, and Ryan
Walterscheid.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick, Chris Bendon and Jessica
Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. McNicholas asked if Council has made a decision regarding the SCI zoning for Obermeyer Place. Ms.
Phelan replied the first reading is scheduled in July.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for April 21st, seconded by Mr. Morris. All in favor, motion
passed.
The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. A couple of corrections were requested by Ms.
McNicholas. Mr. Morris moved to approve the minutes pending the requested corrections and was
seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed.
Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for June 16th and seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor,
motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts expressed.
540 E Main St – Rezoning – Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn
replied it appeared notice had been appropriately provided.
Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, reviewed of the application. The City of
Aspen, Capital Asset Department is requesting to rezone the subject property. The property is currently
zoned Service Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core (CC) and they are
requesting it be zoned as Public (PUB). As a City asset, the Public zoned district is an appropriate one and
clears up the mix of zoned districts. The property is also designated as Historic due to three cabins
located on the northern portion of the property. The property is approximately 27,000 sf and the City
1
P264
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Parking Department is currently located on the property. There is no proposed change in use at this
time.
The City Parking Department is considered a public use and is not allowed in within the SCI zoned
district. The C-1 and CC allow for public use on the ground floor only. She displayed a map to show
where the property is located and the location of the current single story Parking Department structure
located on the CC zoned portion of the property. There is an accessory use building located on the SCI
portion of the property which are allowed within the SCI zoned district. She also pointed out the
location of the historic structures.
She added no development is being proposed at this time, but the parcel is being considered for the
future expansion of City facilities. Nothing has been approved at this time for any future development.
The PUB zoned district would require a Planned Development (PD) review when any development is
proposed for the property. With the PUB zoned district there are no dimensional requirements and
would be set in the PD review. Should a development be proposed in the future, a Historic Preservation
review would be combined with the PD review.
The PUB rezoning as would consistent with zoning of adjacent properties which provide public uses. To
the west is Pitkin County Courthouse, Plaza and Jail. Further west is the Pitkin County Library and to the
north is the Rio Grande Park.
Staff recommends P&Z provide a referral to City Council by adopting Resolution 12, series 2015 to
approve the request to rezone the subject property to the PUB zoned district.
She showed photos of the existing property including the existing structures.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Ms. Tygre wanted to know if the same result could be obtained by changing SCI to allow public use. Ms.
Seminick stated it wouldn’t address the issue with the property currently being in three different zoned
districts. To change the SCI zoned district would require a change to the code. Ms. Phelan stated the
project would also be subject to the dimensional requirements of the SCI zoned district. She added
when you have a property with multiple zoned districts, you must stick to the allowed uses on the
specifically defined areas.
Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Morris asked if had been proposed previously and why not. Ms. Phelan asked Mr.
Richman, representing the City, when the property was purchased by the City at which he answered in
2002. Mr. Richman added the property was previously a private property and zoned as such. He feels
this is a housekeeping issue in that the property has been owned by the City for 13 years and the
rezoning will allow for current and future public uses. He does not believe the City plans to sell the
property.
Ms. Tygre asked if zoned PUB, it would have no dimensional requirements. Ms. Phelan stated she was
correct and added and it would have to go through a PD review for any proposed development which
includes review criteria regarding mass, scale and context.
2
P265
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to confirm the review process for a proposed development application.
Ms. Phelan stated it would be reviewed by HPC for mass, scale and historic resources and then to City
Council for review and ordinance approval and then back to HPC for the final skin approval.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Inc, represents the City of Aspen as the applicant.
With him was Jack Wheeler, City of Aspen Capital Asset Manager, and Scott Smith, the project architect.
Mr. Richman feels this is more of a housekeeping option. The property was purchased in 2002 to serve
as a public function and was considered for the new fire station. More recently it has been considered to
meet the long term office needs of the City or possibly a site for the Police Department. No uses are
being proposed at the meeting.
He added having a site trisected by three different zoning districts is a confusing situation. All the
current zoned districts are all high density and high intensity commercial zones which would anticipate a
big building. He does not feel this would be upzoning the property. Rezoning the property will ensure
the uses are conforming.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Ms. Tygre asked at what point in the planning process will the public have a chance to weigh in on the
uses they feel are appropriate for the property. Mr. Richman feels it will happen in two phases. One
being during the public discussions going on right now to identify uses in the building replacement
projects. The second phase will be during the project review phase to go over the use and mass.
Mr. Wheeler stated public outreach started a year ago including several open houses presenting
concepts to the public. The City has also reached out to stakeholders and neighbors and have received a
lot of feedback on what they think is appropriate for the site. They are currently going through a
rigorous process internally, with Council, the public and stakeholders. They plan to go to Council later in
July to discuss the conceptual designs. He added the City is going through the inventory of all City
properties and rezoning property over the next year where appropriate to eliminate zoning issues.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment at which there were none so he closed that portion of
the meeting.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commission members.
Ms. McNicholas feels it is an appropriate change to make and is in line with the uses of adjacent
properties to the west. Mr. Goode, Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow agreed.
Ms. Tygre stated on the surface it seems to be a reasonable request and it makes sense to have the
public adjacent to County Courthouse. She is concerned is what happens down the road. Although this is
a housekeeping measure, she feels we’ve been burned by housekeeping measures before because once
you allow step one to happen, then step two, which you didn’t anticipate, winds up being a 70,000 sf
building. She wants to make sure we are not going down that road especially since there has been a lot
of concern expressed by a lot of people including herself about the potential size of some the buildings
to be constructed for public use and what types of public use.
3
P266
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Mesirow agreed you could be setting the environment where that could be possible based on the
needs the City states it has for public uses. He feels a building for the expressed public uses will be built
somewhere and is this an appropriate location for a public entity. He feels the community will have an
opportunity to say what they do and do not want in regards to the building to be proposed.
Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 12, Series 2015 recommending the approval of the rezoning
for 540 E Main St. Ms. McNicholas seconded the motion.
Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call to vote: Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes;
Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
Work Program Check-In – Other Business
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff for the work program check in with Mr. Bendon and Ms.
Garrow.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff wanted to touch base with P&Z on the department’s work program. They will
be meeting with Council in late July to update them on the items they were asked to pursue. They also
want to update Council on items that have come out of HPC, P&Z and things from the community plan
that should be added to the work program. The meeting will also allow Council to clarify what they want
Staff to work on. He said tonight is an opportunity for P&Z to ask questions on any of the items
identified in the agenda packet.
Mr. Morris asked in regards to transportation the two items currently on the work program include the
Rethink the Street and the Off-Street Parking Requirements. Ms. Garrow confirmed those are the two
transportation related items. He agrees both items should be on the work plan and feels Rethink the
Street is number one. When looking at the community plan and how the community is performing on
the sustainability front, he feels transportation is the weakest in terms of congestion. He feels the Off-
Street Parking item could be key in transforming Aspen. He recommended conducting a study similar to
on conducted for the city of Fort Collins by Donald Shoup, known as a parking guru. He added it could
be used as a case study to help other cities.
Mr. Morris asked for an update on the Rethink the Street item. Mr. Bendon stated with street related
projects, typically the City will study, budget, plan and build without obtaining outside input. Now they
are trying to engage people with experimental projects. One project is the bulb-outs near City Hall and
another one with the new island with flexible curbing on N. Mill St. They would like to experiment more
and make more changes. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the feedback they have received on the
experiments. Mr. Bendon replied about two thirds (2/3) or stronger responding like the City Hall
experiment. The major pushback is on aesthetics for the one near City Hall. Folks who do not like it are
pretty adamant about it. Others have stated it is more dangerous for bikes by pushing them more into
traffic.
4
P267
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they plan to do experiments it in other areas. Mr. Bendon stated they would
like to but the City departments involved with helping including Parks and Streets are at operational
capacity now with the summer season.
Ms. McNicholas asked it the experiments are limited to the core currently and Mr. Bendon confirmed it
is right now. There are not necessarily limits for future projects. Mr. Walterscheid asked about
experimenting with Main St and Mr. Bendon stated they will probably not occur on Main St because it is
a State Highway and would involve other agencies. He added there are continuing discussions with
Engineering to address the barriers in crossing Main St.
Mr. Bendon stated the City is also looking into utilizing a text based service to allow the public to easily
respond to the experiments. Currently the public can utilize a Quick Response (QR) code to take them to
a site for a response and they are using a chalkboard.
Ms. McNicholas asked if they are considering any experiments for the pedestrian malls. Mr. Bendon
stated they are not right now, but they will probably started a process next year to re-imagine the malls.
There is a need to update some major infrastructure for the malls. There are also some significant
development projects stacking up. The City may try to leverage some of its improvements at the same
time the development will be occurring. Mr. Goode asked when the malls were built at which Mr.
Bendon replied the 70’s and it was a grassroots effort to close off the streets for a year to obtain
feedback.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a plan to put together a comprehensive transportation plan. Ms.
Garrow stated it is broadly covered within the transportation chapter of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The Transportation Department completed some internal planning related to busses but there is
no overall transportation master plan. The City has strived to implement it by targeting specific areas
including policy. In 2012, one of Councils top goals was a mitigation system for development to ensure
any addition trips generated are mitigated. This is now a new requirement for all development
applications and it has been incredibly successful. The Parking item on the plan is a next step in the
mitigation plan.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the Lift One neighborhood fits in any type of master plan or vision. Mr. Bendon
stated there has been a lot or recent activity in the area. The townhomes are in for a building permit and
should start construction by the end of the year. The Lift One Lodge was recently purchased and they
just started conversations with the new owner who they anticipated will be in the next month or two
with a development application. There is plenty of opportunity for the City to step in to organize a plan
for the area. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a plan to retain the area as residential or become a
gondola plaza west and include commercial. Mr. Bendon stated previous planning involved re-
invigorating the area as a portal. Currently it is three percent or less of the uplift traffic and largely
because it takes too long to get from Dean St up the mountain to the current lift. Right now as part of
the Lift One Lodge approvals there would be a historical museum run by the Historical Society focused
on skiing. Improvements to Dean St to include pedestrian access to connect to the gondola as well as a
platter pole lift to move skiers up to a redeveloped Lift One A. There have been recent efforts to
encourage the owners of the properties work together. The Lift One Lodge has lodging with a timeshare
ownership and a restaurant. There are plans for 50 public parking spaces in the lodge as well. Ms.
McNicholas feels it should be a priority for the City to engage to ensure the parts become cohesive for
the town. Mr. Bendon feels with the two remaining parcels there is a scenario for a positive or negative
outcome and feels it is important how the two projects relate to each other.
5
P268
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Mesirow feels he shared his opinions during the Next Generation meeting. The four priority items
identified by the Next Generation Board included Housing Credits, Rethink the Streets, and the Uphill
Economy in conjunction with looking at the SCI rezoning. He felt the overall list is pretty impressive.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the status for the lodging code improvements. Ms. Garrow stated there
are a few more items to move forward on. In December, Council approved a policy resolution as the first
step in code amendment listing a number of priorities. The first one was helping small lodges. The next
one was looking at the condominium bed base which makes up 40% of the bed base. They also want to
look at timeshares and multi-family replacements. In June, Council passed a small lodge preservation
program including incentives for small lodges for the 12 identified lodges including planning assistance,
energy efficiency related rebates, reductions in building permits and other general assistance with
general code compliance. They have obtained feedback from P&Z related to condos and timeshares and
want to confirm with Council this is still a priority.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is any prioritization of items with the recent passing of Referendum 1.
Mr. Bendon stated there has been some amendments to integrate it into the code language. They are
trying to make people fully aware of what triggers a vote. Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow stated there will
be some code cleanups in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code section which includes Hallam
Lake, 8040 greenline reviews, stream margin reviews, and view planes. The view plane language has not
been updated since the 70’s. There are some confusing areas regarding exemptions from view planes.
Mr. Bendon explained currently there is a process for P&Z and HPC to exempt a project from view plan
limitations if it is behind a building that already blocks the view. Now this exemption would trigger a
Referendum 1 vote which highlights the need to cleanup the code. There are similar little items that
need to be addressed. As an example, Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Alps would have never thought they
were in a view plane, but it submitted an application and discovered it is in the Cooper St view plane.
The application was submitted prior to Referendum 1 so it is not subject to a vote. Ms. Garrow stated
they asked City Council to adopt a map to identify the zone districts identified as of the date specified by
Referendum 1 (Resolution 69, Series 2015). Staff is working on compiling additional information to help
out everyone.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any way to adjust zoning to address the ‘Zone it like you mean it’
statement. Mr. Bendon stated they haven’t had the opportunity yet to discuss it but feels it will come
out in the upcoming retreat. The trick is getting past the sound bite and figuring out the definition of
mean it” or “fix it”. He feels there needs to be a good and thorough conversation to determine the
destination prior to amending any code. The Council retreat is scheduled for July 23rd - 24th.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when the housing credit item goes before Council. Ms. Garrow replied it has
been stalled with the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) because there has not been a
quorum at the last two meetings. Ms. Garrow anticipates it will be presented to Council in August.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when the residential mitigation would go before Council. Mr. Bendon stated the
first reading is scheduled for the end of July. He added APCHA is still working on the cash-in-lieu rates.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff could hold a meeting for calculations and measurements similar to the
residential design standards update meeting held earlier in the day. Mr. Bendon stated it was possible.
6
P269
VIII.a
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked it the permit process change and standardized building subdivision items were
Council directives or just items within the department. Mr. Bendon stated they are identified because
they require a big effort on the part of Staff to update and maintain. Mr. Walterscheid thought it would
be beneficial to standardize as much as possible and Mr. Bendon agreed.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they are seeking any 3D models from architects in town who may have
generated them in the last five years. Ms. Garrow stated they just recently resolved an issue converting
some of the GIS data in SketchUp. She anticipates reaching out to local firms for completed models. Mr.
Bendon stated they have temporary help dedicated to the project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there
would be a surveyor provided actual heights on items and contours. Ms. Garrow stated they are
requesting new data on the next flyover when the information is collected. She stated all the building
heights should be accurate as it relates to topography. She added having the entire town surveyed is
cost prohibitive.
Mr. Morris asked if Staff had updated P&Z on the housing credit policy changes. Ms. Garrow stated P&Z
had been updated and she is still waiting on formal feedback from the APCHA Board. The APCHA Staff is
recommending is similar to the City’s Staff recommendation except the APCHA Staff is recommending
allowance of credits to be available for housing created anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr.
Walterscheid asked about the fee. Mr. Bendon stated they are still evaluating cash-in-lieu
methodologies APCHA should use.
Mr. Goode would like to add an item to address interior lighting code.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
7
P270
VIII.a
P271
VIII.a
P272
VIII.a
P273
VIII.a
P274
VIII.a
P275
VIII.a
P276
VIII.a
P277
VIII.a
P278
VIII.a
P279
VIII.a
P280
VIII.a
P281
VIII.a
P282
VIII.a
P283
VIII.a
P284
VIII.a
P
2
8
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: June 30, 2015
RE: Community Development Department work program
SUMMARY : Staff meets with City Council periodically to review the Community Development work
program. In advance of that, staff is meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic
Preservation Commission, and NextGen Commission to get feedback on their priorities. Staff requests
comments from P&Z on the work program items listed below, as well as any other ideas the board
would like to discuss.
CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS : Beyond the general planning
services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc), community
development staff is working on the following items.
Rethink the Street (Council Goal #1). One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals is to assess the
city’s streets in an effort to prioritize pedestrian access and safety while ensuring they result in a
walkable city.” This effort has been dubbed “Rethink the Street.” There are a number of
departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department.
The inter-departmental team is focusing on potential test projects to demonstrate longer-term
changes that could be implemented to improve walkability and connectivity. Staff: Justin
Barker.
Uphill Economy (Council Goal #4). One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals focuses on creating
a framework for encouraging industry, events, and other economic activities tied to the “Uphill
Economy." The effort would build on the popularity of this outdoor movement by attracting
events and businesses to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley that can provide economic
development that is not tied to the built environment. In February 2015 the City hosted a
successful uphill event and expo that coincided with the Power of Four race. Staff proposes to
continue to build on this effort by continuing outreach with uphill businesses, with an ultimate
goal of creating incubator space or an “Uphill Innovations Center.” Staff: Chris Bendon.
SCI / North Mill Planning (Council Goal #4). This effort focuses on the properties along
North Mill, as well as a rework of the SCI Zone District. The SCI properties along North Mill
Street are likely redevelopment candidates due to their age and location. The City has previously
explored rezoning options to adjust the types of allowable businesses in SCI, but this effort was
met with significant concern about the effects on existing businesses. The City recently
completed a substantial street and storm water improvement project connected to the work on
John Denver Sanctuary. The North Mill SCI properties received minimal attention this past year
P52
VII.A. P286
VIII.a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 2 of 6
as part of the business goal (BYY #4). A deeper effort focused on these properties could
produce an incubator-type property for a wider range of businesses. The effort could be
expanded to include the properties along the river. The river properties could be repurposed and
relate better to the new park. This effort needs more attention if progress is expected. This is
likely an extensive work program item, but could get underway in late 2015 with anticipated
completion in 2016. Staff: Chris Bendon and Sara Nadolny.
Lodging Code Amendments. As part of AACP implementation and previous Council Top Ten
Goals, Council directed staff to study lodging and engage the lodging community in a discussion
related to the future of our lodging product. City Council recently approved the “Small Lodge
Preservation Program” that target’s Aspen’s twelve (12) remaining small lodges and provides
incentives to help them continue operating as lodges. Council has also given staff direction to
work on code amendments that would address other portions of the bed base, including
condominium development and timeshare development. Condos make up over 40% of the city’s
bed base. Staff anticipates presenting Council with draft code amendments related to
condominiums, timeshares, and vacation rentals in the fall or winter 2015. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Code Amendment. Staff is working on an update to
the ESA chapter of the Land Use Code. This section requires a heightened review for any
project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near
Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. This code amendment
requires extensive work with other city departments and the development community, which has
been ongoing for two (2) years. Mapping work and other consultant work may be required to
bring the update to a conclusion. Staff had an initial check-in with the Planning & Zoning
Commission in the fall of 2014, and anticipates another check-in as well as additional public
outreach in late summer to early fall of 2015. Staff anticipates the code amendment will be
ready for public hearings in late 2015. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Residential Mitigation. The project proposes to update the basis for impact mitigation and the
fee-in-lieu requirements for residential development. The proposal would eliminate the ADU
option consistent with the AACP and previous Council and APCHA direction. The project is
related to fee-in-lieu methodology work being performed by the Housing Authority. Staff has
conducted outreach on this item and has completed a new study quantifying the impacts of
residential growth. City Council recently adopted a policy resolution and code amendments
should be ready for consideration by August. Staff anticipates the work will be completed by the
end of the year. Staff: Chris Bendon.
Residential Design Standards Update. The City has Residential Design Standards in place that
address all single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. These standards have not been
updated since their initial creation roughly fifteen (15) years ago. Staff is currently working with
a Boulder-based consultant as well as a local committee of architects to update the standards.
Staff anticipates completion in the fall of 2015. Staff: Justin Barker.
AspenModern Website. Historic Preservation staff worked on a website dedicated to Aspen’s
Post-WWII era properties. The website was completed in April 2014 and includes information
P53
VII.A. P287
VIII.a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 3 of 6
on each style of architecture and each architect modern properties ( http://www.aspenmod.com/ )
Staff continues to update the website as new properties are designated. Staff: Amy Simon.
AspenVictorian Website. Historic Preservation staff worked on a website dedicated to Aspen’s
Victorian era properties ( http://aspenvictorian.com/ ). The website went live in September 2014,
and continues to be updated with information. Staff: Amy Simon.
Lift One Stabilization. The City continues to work on addressing repair needs at the historic
Lift 1 site. An initial assessment by an Architectural Conservator and a Structural Engineer was
completed last fall, and staff is awaiting construction documents for immediate repair work that
will be implemented this summer. New interpretive information will be added to the site. Staff:
Amy Simon.
Permit Process Change. The Community Development Department is working on a complete
overhaul of the building permitting process, from initial pre-planning inquiries through the
issuance of a CO. This also involves conversion to a new software system and digital plans
review. This is a significant effort and involves all Community Development staff and multiple
review agencies of the City. Efforts will be ongoing though the end of the year and possibly into
2016. Staff: All of Community Development.
Standardized Building Submission – Model B-Sheets. Based on staff’s experience with the
Model Z-Sheets (Model Zoning Permit Submissions), staff is working on a standard format for
building submittals. (A similar effort is being pursued within Engineering.) This has been
budgeted from department savings. Staff: Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray.
CC and C-1 Zone District Amendments. Recently a number of owners from the Concept 600
Building approached the Community Development Department about their status as a non-
conforming use. The Concept 600 Building is located in the C-1 Zone District and includes
commercial uses on the ground floor and free-market residential uses on the upper floors. In
2012, City Council amended the CC and C-1 zone districts to prohibit free-market residential
uses. Any existing free-market residential uses became non-conforming. The Concept 600
owners have found it difficult to find financing for normal upkeep or remodeling of the units
because they are technically no longer allowed in the zone district. Because these units, as well
as other existing free-market residential units, are unlikely to go away, staff suggests an
amendment to the zone districts that would legalize existing free-market residential units while
prohibiting them from expanding. New free-market residential units would continue to be
prohibited. Staff has scheduled Council Review for a Policy Resolution in late June and public
hearings in early August to jump-start this effort. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Housing Credits Update. The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in
2010 and has seen a number of successful private sector housing developments as a result. To
date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs has been created through the program. While the program has
been a success, there are improvements and clarifications to be made. Staff has met with the
Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Housing Board to get feedback on specific
policy changes. Staff anticipates meeting with City Council in August / September to review
code changes. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
P54
VII.A. P288
VIII.a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 4 of 6
Vested Rights Update. When a project is approved, state statute requires a vesting period of at
least three-years. During this period the project is “protected” from any changes to the land use
code. Often projects will apply for amendments during their vested period. Staff is working on
a code amendment to codify existing city policy related to how projects that are part of a multi-
step process or that are requesting an amendment during their vested rights period are addressed.
Under this change, minor amendments (for instance, changing of building materials or landscape
features) would continue to be vested under the original land use code, while major amendments
for instance, changing the project from lodging to affordable housing) would be subject to the
land use code in effect at the time of the amendment application. Staff recently met with the
Planning and Zoning Commission on this code amendment, and they strongly supported the
direction. Staff has scheduled a Policy Resolution on this amendment in July. Staff: Jessica
Garrow.
3D Model of Aspen. The City of Aspen began creation of a 3D massing model using SketchUp
in 2008. Since then the downtown and certain areas along Main Street have been modeled. The
city recently hired a temporary Special Projects Planner to assist with completion of the model.
Staff anticipates an updated model will be complete by the end of the year. Staff: Jessica Garrow
and Sarah Rosenberg.
Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Throughout the year, staff keeps a “redline” version of the
code that identifies areas of the code that are confusing, contradictory, or do not address
emerging issues. These primarily focus on the calculations and measurement section of the code
that is, how buildings, fences, etc are measured for height, floor area, net leasable/livable, and
setbacks. The most recent update was completed at the end of 2014. Staff has begun compiling
a list of potential changes and anticipates bringing a code amendment forward in early 2016.
Staff: Justin Barker.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUGGESTIONS : Community Development staff suggests the
following work program items be discussed as potential additions to the department’s work program.
Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. The city’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have
not been updated since 2000. A general update is recommended to address emerging issues such
as landscaping and to ensure the guidelines result in development that respects Aspen’s historic
buildings and districts. Staff has begun an initial review of the guidelines and would work with
HPC on the update.
City-Owned Property AspenModern Designations. In 2010 City Council approved the
AspenModern program, which allows for voluntary designation of Aspen’s post-war historic
resources. The program requires review by the HPC and City Council, with applicants able to
request various benefits in exchange for designating their property. The City owns a number of
AspenModern eligible properties, but to date has not done extensive planning or investigation to
determine if the properties should go through the designation process. The AspenModern
Ordinance included language stating that the City would initiate AspenModern designation on
the eligible City-owned properties. Staff proposes that the City Asset and Community
P55
VII.A. P289
VIII.a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 5 of 6
Development Departments work together to investigate and potentially bring forward these
designations.
Update Historic TDR Review Criteria. The Review Criteria for the City’s TDR program are
based on a mathematical formula – if there is additional available floor area on the lot, that floor
area is eligible to be severed as a TDR. The Review Criteria do not address such things as if the
creation of TDRs will benefit the historic property or represent an important preservation effort.
Staff proposes an update to the Review Criteria to include some additional context-specific
criteria. Staff has scheduled Council Review for a Policy Resolution in late July to jump-start
this effort. Staff: Sara Adams.
Off-Street Parking Requirements. Staff proposes a complete rewrite of the city's off-street
parking requirements. These are the parking requirements for development and are not related to
street parking or other parking managed by the City. The City’s parking code requires a
minimum number of parking spaces, meaning a new development is required to provide a base
number of parking, but can optionally provide as much parking as they would like. Staff
questions if unlimited parking associated with a development helps promote Aspen’s goals of
reducing traffic, congestion, greenhouse gases, and improving air quality. In addition, the City’s
minimum standards may be “over parking” some projects, further reducing unneeded traffic.
A comprehensive study are parking needs for different land uses may be beneficial, given the
section has not been updated in approximately 10 years. There are new trends related to land use
review of parking, including establishing a maximum parking requirement rather than a
minimum parking requirement (in an effort to encourage use of alternative transportation
modes). In addition, staff believes this is a worthwhile “next step” related to the year-old
transportation mitigation system. Staff anticipates this effort would take 12 – 18 months and
would require consultant work to complete.
Commercial Elevators. Currently there are no building or land use code requirements related to
elevator access in commercial buildings. Staff proposes an amendment that would require
elevator access to all building floors in a commercial or mixed-use building. This ensures ADA
access to all commercial units in a building, and provides more usable commercial spaces. This
work could be completed with the yearly miscellaneous code amendments, or as a stand-alone
item later this summer.
Lift 1 Neighborhood. The Lift 1 neighborhood is Aspen’s second portal to the mountain, and is
the location of world class skiing events. The neighborhood includes a mix of vacant parcels,
free-market condominium development, parks, and an approved lodge. With the FIS coming in
2017, the recent purchase of the Lift 1 Lodge, and a potential development application for the
uppermost parcel, staff suggests the time is ripe for a community discussion on the goals for this
area. This should occur relatively quickly, as development applications may come in over the
next few months, and as the Aspen Skiing Company determines if and how to update the existing
lift. Potential work could include a community survey, an interactive website, focus group
meetings, interactive boards in the area, and clicker meetings. If Council is interested in moving
forward with this, additional funding and potential outside help would be required.
P56
VII.A. P290
VIII.a
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 6 of 6
Renewable Energy Allowances. The Aspen Area Community Plan focuses on encouraging
renewable energy sources as a way to decrease the city's carbon footprint. The policies and goals
in the AACP are also supported by the City's Canary Initiative. While the city has focused on
ways to increase the amount of renewable energy in its electric portfolio as well as focusing on
ways to generally reduce dependence on non-renewable sources, there has not been a focus on
making individual alternative energy sources easier to construct (i.e individual solar panels on a
home). The Land Use Code allows for alternative energy production equipment, but often
requires a review process with the Planning & Zoning Commission, which can be a deterrent for
homeowners. Staff proposes implementing the AACP Action Items that focus on removing
barriers to individual renewable energy development, such as solar panels in a back yard or on
retaining walls. Staff anticipates this work could be conducted in house and would take
approximately six months to complete, including public outreach.
Local Food Production. The Lifelong Aspenite Chapter of the AACP includes a goal to
promote and provide access to organic and sustainable and regional food production." Staff
suggests that the Land Use code be examined for potential barriers to local food production. For
instance, certain rooftop or backyard garden structures are not allowed under floor area or height
requirements. Exemptions for the production of local food could be added. Staff anticipates this
work would take 8-10 months, including public outreach and could be completed in house.
Additional funding may be needed if consultant work were required.
Multi-Family Replacement Updates. One of the items identified by City Council during the
lodging discussions is a need to update the city’s Multi-Family Replacement requirements. This
includes an examination of the “look back” for the program – currently any property that has
ever housed a local working resident is subject to the requirements – as well as an examination
of the general requirements. The ability for AH Credits to be used to meet replacement
requirements should also be examined. Staff anticipates this work would take 4-6 months, and
could be completed in house. Additional funding may be needed if consultant work were
required.
P57
VII.A. P291
VIII.a
5.
2
2
.
1
5
P292VIII.a
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
May 1, 2015
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
970-920-1125
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: REZONING APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST MAIN STREET (A/KIA "THE
ZUPANCIS PROPERTY")
Dear Hillary,
This is an application requesting rezoning of the Zupancis property, located at 540 East
Main Street. The property's Parcel ID# is 273707324003.
The subject property is owned by the City of Aspen. Proof of the ownership of the property
is provided in the form of a letter from the City Attorney (see Exhibit #1). The City
(hereinafter, "the applicant") has designated Alan Richman Planning Services and Charles
Cunniffe Architects as its representatives for this application. The letter authorizing
submission of this application is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.
An improvement survey of the property has recently been completed and accompanies
this application. It demonstrates that the subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of
land that is approximately 27,000 square feet in size. The property is surrounded by
prominent buildings on its east and west sides. The Courthouse Plaza Building and the
Pitkin County Jail are located to the west/northwest of the property. The Concept 600
Building and the Obermeyer Complex are located to the east/northeast of the property,
The property is improved with five (5) small structures. The southern portion of the
property contains an older residential structure that is currently being occupied by the
City's Parking Department. There is also a small garage located behind this structure.
The northern portion of the property contains a small cabin and two small outbuildings, all
of which are designated as historic resources.
P293
VIII.a
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Two
As shown on the attached current zoning exhibit, today the property is subject to three
distinct zone district designations. The southern portion of the property is zoned
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) while the northern portion of the property is
designated as Service Commercial Industrial (SCI). The boundary between the northerly
and southerly portions of the property generally follows the centerline of the alley that has
been vacated through this property.
For the past several years the property has provided a temporary home for the City's
Parking Department. The back of the property has been used to park some of the City's
police car fleet. These uses are considered to be public uses. A public use is allowed on
the ground floor in the CC and C-1 zones, but is not an allowed use in the SCI zone
district. Therefore, the applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to the Public
(PUB) zone district to ensure that the current public use of the property is conforming.
Furthermore, as you know, the City has been engaged for some time in a planning effort to
evaluate space needs for its municipal administrative functions. The subject property was
purchased by the City for the purpose of accommodating necessary public functions. As
part of the space needs analysis this site has been determined to be the appropriate
location for a new building for the City's Police Department. Therefore, this rezoning
application can be considered to be a first step towards re-development of the property
with a new Police Department Building. Of course, a full PUD development application will
need to be prepared and reviewed in a public hearing process before any determination
can be made as to the appropriateness of this site for that type of project.
I discussed this rezoning proposal with you and you issued a pre-application summary,
attached as Exhibit #3. This document lists the following land use approvals that must be
obtained by the applicant:
Sec. 26.310 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning).
Following below are the applicant's responses to the standards of this section of the Aspen
Land Use Code.
Responses to Standards for Rezoning
Section 26.310.090 of the Code provides the standards of review for an amendment to
the City's Official Zone District Map. These standards and the applicant's responses to
the standards follow below.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
P294
VIII.a
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Three
Response: The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts.
As shown on the Existing Zoning Map, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned Public (PUB). As part of a recent application submitted for the
Pitkin County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zoning were adjusted to
coincide with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the
subject property as Public would complement the zoning of the adjacent County
property.
Zoning the property as Public would also be consistent with the current use of the
property. The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department in the
former Zupancis residence. The area behind this structure is used as parking by the
City Police Department. Both of these public uses should be located in the Public zone.
As the Map also shows, surrounding uses to the west of the property represent a dense
urban scale of development, including the Obermeyer PUD and Concept 600 Building.
Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions to be located there, in
an appropriate location right near the center of the urban fabric.
Rezoning of the property to Public (PUB) will also require all development of the property
to proceed through the City's PUD process. This means that the development will be
subject to Project Review by the P&Z and City Council and then Detailed Review by the
P&Z. This extensive type of public review process will provide another means to ensure
that the development will be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses.
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.
Response: The property's current commercial zoning would support a relatively
intense, commercial form of development such as is present on the adjacent
Obermeyer property or the newly developed 625 East Main Street commercial building
across from this site. Rezoning the property to Public will instead allow for a
community-serving public use of this property. While any public use will most likely
place demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation,
water supply and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public
service. The PUD application will provide the community with the opportunity to
evaluate the nature of those impacts and the ability to ensure that all such impacts are
appropriately mitigated by the applicant.
P295
VIII.a
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Four
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed rezoning will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural
environment. The subject property is a developed site located in the middle of the City's
urban fabric. It is an appropriate place for re-development to occur, in that it is not
limited by any mapped environmental constraints such as floodplains, steep slopes or
geologic hazards and does not impact open space or other natural features. The
natural environment would be well served by the kind of infill development that would be
allowed by the requested rezoning.
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.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with
Aspen's community character and would serve the public interest. This location, which
is adjacent to the City core, is an appropriate location in which to extend the
community's Civic campus. It is adjacent to the Jail and the Courthouse complex,
including the site where the County intends to relocate the Sheriff. It is also proximate
to City Hall as well as to other sites identified in the space needs study as being where
the City's administrative functions could be housed in the future. It would provide a
central, visible, accessible home for the City's Police Department and is entirely
appropriate for rezoning to Public, if for no other reason than to make its current use by
the Parking Department conforming to underlying zoning.
Conclusion
The above responses and the attached documents provide all of the information requested
by staff to process this application. We look forward to the public review of this application.
If there is any other material I can provide to you or any other questions I can answer
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
Al,~
Alan Richman, AICP
P296
VIII.a
EXHIBITS
P297
VIII.a
March 20, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Bendon:
EXHIBIT #1
The OilY olDspen
OilY llnorney's omce
I have been asked by Jeff Pendarvis of the City of Aspen Asset Management Department
to provide an opinion regarding the ownership of property known as the Zupancis parcel at 540
E. Main St., upon which the City seeks development approval and/or a building permit for
proposed construction. I have reviewed the documents associated with the acquisition and
ownership of the subject property. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Colorado.
The Zupancis parcel was acquired by the City in 2002 from general funds pursuant to a
deed from Louis J. Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis, recorded on October 1, 2002 at Reception
No. 472856. Thus, it is my opinion that this property is owned by the City of Aspen, and that
there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the
parcel or other encumbrances that would prevent the work proposed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Electronic copy: Original Signed by James R. True
James R. True
City Attorney
P298
VIII.a
EXHIBIT#2
Ms. Hillary Semlnlck, Planning Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND USE APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST
MAIN STREET (ZUPANCIS PROPERTY)
Dear Hillary,
The City of Aspen is the owner of the property located at 540 East Main Street In Aspen,
commonly known as the Zupancis property. We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning
SeNices, Inc. and Charles Cunniffe Architects, Inc. to submit a land use application to
rezone the property to Public (PUB). Mr. Richman and Mr. Cunniffe are authorized to
submit said application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with City of Aspen
staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council conceming said appHcatlon.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this
application please do so through Alan or Charles, or you may contact me directly.
s~(r~
Steve Barwick, City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
P299
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #3
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Hillary Seminick, 970.429.27 41
PROJECT: 540 East Main Street, AKA Zupancis
REPRESENTATIVE : Alan Richmond
REQUEST: Rezoning
DESCRIPTION:
Proposal :
DATE: April 16, 2015
540 E. Main St., which is also known as the Zupancis Property, currently lies within three zone districts,
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI). Three 19th century cabins ,
known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins , are located on the southern portion of the property. The property is
designated historic . The City Parking Department, a parking garage and surface parking is located on the
property .
Rio Grande Area
I
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within the
Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District. Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) allows public
use on the ground floor.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022 .A ; which pertains to lands within more than one zone district, where a
proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed on land in which it is a
permitted use . The Parking Department falls within both the CC and SCI Zone Districts; therefore, the existing
use of the property is a non-conformity.
To bring the existing use into conformance, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is initiating an
amendment to zone districts of the Zupancis property from CC, C-1 , and SCI to Public (PUB).
ASLU
Rezoning
540 E. Main St. (Zupancis)
273707324003
1
P300
VIII.a
Review Process:
Rezoning is required to amend the current zone districts. Application contents shall include all materials
outlined in Section 26.310.080. A rezoning land use review is a two-step review process with public hearings
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/O/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%201and%20use%20a
pp%20form.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Applicable Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304
26.304.060
26.310.060
26.310.080
26.310.090
26.310.100
26.310.110
26.310.120
26.710.140
26.710.150
26.710.160
26.710.250
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Common Development Review Procedures
Modification of Review Procedures
Rezoning -Procedure for Amendment
Rezoning -Application Contents
Rezoning -Standards of Review
Notation on Official Zone Map
Recordation of Designation (pending approval)
Placement on the City's Official Zone District Map (pending approval)
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI)
Public (PUB)
Staff for complete application
Staff for recommendation
Referrals: Engineering
Community Development Director for approval
Planning and Zoning,
Neighborhood Outreach: Yes
Planning Fees:
Referral Fees:
Total Deposit:
$7 ,800.00 for 24 hours of staff time.
Engineering (per hour, billed with planning case) -$275
$8075 (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 (apply to both options unless otherwise noted):
D Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
D Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
2
P301
VIII.a
D 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.
D 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.
D HOA Compliance form (Attached)
D 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. Building elevations, plans and
renderings are required.
D 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.
D Written responses to applicable review criteria.
D An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
D 1 Complete Hard Copy.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff. the following items will then need to be submitted:
D TBD Additional, Complete Hard Copies.
D Total deposit for review of the application.
D 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.
3
P302
VIII.a
c
Q)
Q.
(/')
<(
...
+-
(/')
c ·-0
~
+-
(/')
0 w
0
"" Ll)
c
Q
Q.
"' <!o
IS l/ltv S
P303
VIII.a
P304
VIII.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Housing Credits Code Amendment
Resolution 76, Series of 2015
DATE: August 10, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines policy direction for amendments to the City’s land use code
regarding Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Amendments focus primarily on the
applicability of the chapter to different types of development.
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 City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEs1.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
1 Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
P305
IX.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
Page 2 of 5
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash-in-lieu payment
or building their own affordable housing units.
Only development within the City of Aspen can use these credits, as no sister program has been
created in surrounding jurisdictions.
OVERVIEW:
Staff is proposing a number of code amendments to the Housing Credits chapter. These are
intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on experiences over the past 2-3
years. Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Housing Board. Summaries of their comments are included under each policy area.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for-profit private sector individuals
for certificates. Planning staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this
policy issue.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z agreed with the recommendation to limit the creation of
housing credits to projects that are brought forward from the private sector. They felt that
projects that use public dollars should not be eligible to create housing credits, as the
creation of housing is part of the mission of public entities and the program was intended
to provide an incentive for the private sector to provide more affordable housing.
APCHA Board: The Board also agreed that the program should be limited to private
sector entities.
Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical
affordable housing does. While dorm style units provide an important housing option for
seasonal employees ,they do not generally represent a long-term housing solution for full-time
employees, Because the credits program is used to mitigate full time employee generation from
development in the City of Aspen, planning staff is recommending dormitory units not be
eligible for credits.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt strongly that dormitory units should not be eligible for
Housing Credits. While they support dorm-style units, they felt only full sized units that
provide units likely to result in housing for longer term employees should be eligible for
the creation of Housing Credits.
APCHA Board: The Board also agreed that the program should exclude dorm units.
While there is a need for dorm units, the Board felt they should be excluded until the
occupancy and unit size standards are addressed.
P306
IX.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
Page 3 of 5
Sales Limitations: Planning staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits
be limited to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market
development. This will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory,
particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Planning staff suggests
that units in an entirely affordable housing building be able to be for sale or rent.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt that housing units constructed for the purpose of
creating housing credits in a commercial or mixed-use building should be limited to for-
sale in order to ensure those are in the inventory in perpetuity. They felt that other units
that are part of a purely residential development should be allowed to be rentals, but only
with a development agreement ensuring they continue to be available as a permanent unit
in the inventory.
APCHA Board: The Board recommended that units should be limited to for-sale, unless
it is a 100% affordable housing project.
Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their
development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, a developer may have a
requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom
unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs. The land use code is unclear as to
if that 0.10 FTE overage is eligible to be turned into a Housing Credit.
This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a
full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Planning
staff believes the P&Z’s approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing
Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it.
Staff’s main concern about granting fractional credits is related to ensuring the unit is
permanently affordable. If a sales limitation requirement discussed above is in place to ensure
any credit is part of a permanently deed restricted unit, staff could be more comfortable with the
idea of granting fractional credits.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on-
site unit to be turned into a Housing Credit. They agreed with comments Peter Fornell
has made that allowing a developer to create a credit for the fractional overage might
provide them with an incentive to actually build an affordable housing unit for their
mitigation requirement, rather than trying to pay cash-in-lieu.
APCHA Board: The Board supported staff’s recommendation that the program be
limited full units.
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash-in-lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines.
Currently, there are no cash-in-lieu options for Categories 5 or higher. The land use code is
P307
IX.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
Page 4 of 5
silent on which Categories new Housing Credits can be. Planning staff has, however, taken the
position that they can only be created as a Category 4 or lower because that coincides with the
cash-in-lieu provisions of the Housing Guidelines. There is no way to convert a credit certificate
to or from Category 5 or higher because there are no cash-in-lieu figures for those higher
Categories. Therefore, planning staff recommends codifying that the credit program is limited to
Category 4 or lower.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported limiting Housing Credits to units that are deed
restricted at Category 4 and lower. They supported this mainly to ensure the program can
be properly administered, as there are no cash-in-lieu numbers for Categories 5 and
higher to tie the Housing Credit conversions to. Some members of the P&Z requested
that the APCHA Board consider creating cash-in-lieu numbers for the higher categories
so developers have an incentive to build higher categories. These particular P&Z
members feel there is a demand for higher category units.
APCHA Board: The Board felt strongly that the program be limited to Category 4 and
lower, as those Categories represent the largest need.
Location Limitations: The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the
home jurisdiction (in this case, the City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City’s
Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in
Pitkin County does not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR, and vice versa.
In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the
construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City
Council approved the request. Planning staff questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt,
Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County, Eagle County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible
to establish Credits, as they can only be used to mitigate FTEs generated by development within
the City of Aspen. Planning staff recommends the program be limited to the City of Aspen to
ensure development impacts in Aspen are not pushed to other jurisdictions.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supports the construction of affordable housing wherever it
can be located, but felt strongly that City of Aspen Housing Credits should only be
created from housing within the City of Aspen limits. Because the City of Aspen is the
only jurisdiction where these credits can be created and used, the Commission felt it
would be unfair to allow credits to be created from housing outside the city. They felt
that would continue to push Aspen’s housing needs further down valley, creating
additional sprawl and transportation demands. Since Housing Credits are used to
mitigate development in Aspen, they felt strongly that those credits should only be
created from housing created within the City of Aspen.
APCHA Board: The Board supported limiting the City of Aspen Housing Credits
program to units only built within City Limits.
OUTREACH:
P308
IX.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
Page 5 of 5
Staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Housing Board to discuss the potential
changes to the Housing Credits Program. Both groups were supportive of the changes. The
Housing Board agreed with all of staff’s recommended changes (Exhibit B). The Planning and
Zoning Commission agreed with all of staff’s recommended changes except for the fractional
unit requirement (Exhibit C). They felt fractional unit should be eligible for the creation of
Housing Credits.
In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown and Peter Fornell, the main
developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects (Exhibit D). They were also supportive of
staff’s proposed changes, with the exception that Peter Fornell felt fractional unit should be
eligible for the creation of Housing Credits. Outreach through the department’s newsletter
reached more than 600 subscribers, with no comments received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
Affordable Housing Credits.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Housing Board Recommendation Memo
Exhibit C – P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit D – Comments from Peter Fornell and Matt Brown
P309
IX.a
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code; 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 August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a __-__ 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
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits;
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4;
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing-based non-profits cannot create Housing Credits);
P310
IX.a
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for-sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen.
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
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
P311
IX.a
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution – 8/10/2015
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:
The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in 2010 and has seen a number of
successful private sector housing developments as a result. To date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs
has been created through the program. While the program has been a success, there are
improvements and clarifications to be made. These include specifying what types of units
qualify for the creation of Housing Credits, as well as limiting the program to private-sector
entities. Staff believes the clarifications in the attached Policy Resolution will ensure the
program remains viable well into the future. 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 calls for ensuring the rules for affordable housing are
clear (Housing Policy V.1), and that all affordable housing should be within the UGB (Housing
Policy IV.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to the creation of affordable
housing credits, and ensures that new housing for credits is located with the City of Aspen. 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 the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits;
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4;
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector
and housing-based non-profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits
must be for-sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen.
Staff finds that this objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of Title 26.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P312
IX.a
P313
IX.a
P314
IX.a
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD – Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD – Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory-type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD – Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z – Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on-site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD – Rental units should not be approved in mixed-use projects, only
ownership-type units.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
P315
IX.a
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
• Category Limitations:
o CDD – Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD – The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits – The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units – Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits – The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation – The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for-sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations – The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations – Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
P316
IX.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business – Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight’s meeting.
Elevators in Commercial / Mixed-Use Buildings
Ms. Garrow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add a requirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or mixed-use
building. Currently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a requirement for separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap building as an example of item a). The elevator does not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commented the elevator in the Gap building does reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space which eliminated access to the elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement for storage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access provided to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to avoid situations requiring retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for a building.
Ms. Tygre noted there are existing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode feels requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The commission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questioned
the requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council’s previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non-profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
P317
IX.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow’s
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
P318
IX.a
From: Peter Fornell [mailto:p.fornell@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Housing Credits code amendment check-in
Thanks Jessica and I do support your ideas for those changes generally speaking. If the developer needs
to mitigate 1.8 and they build a 2 bedroom which is 2.25 I believe they should be entitled to a credit
worth .45 which would be saleable. This might increase the likelihood of an on-site mitigation. I might be
misunderstanding you but that was what I thought I'd come out of the last conversation which I would
also support.
Thanks,
Peter
From: Matt L. Brown [mailto:mbrown@merchantserviceshq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: Housing Credits code amendment check-in
Hi Jessica, my comments are below next to topics…
Summary of potential changes:
• Prohibit public sector and non-profit entities (i.e. the City or APCHA) from creating
credits. Makes sense to me, if the City’s program is to encourage private enterprise
development of affordable units. Would be unfair for City to compete and would probably
dissuade private developers from creating units.
• Prohibit the creation of credits from dormitory units and units deed restricted at Category 5
and above. I think Dorm units have some merit for seasonal workforce and transitional housing,
but if the City doesn’t, that’s understandable. Some people suggested a lower Credit generation
for that type of housing.
• Only allow credits to be created from an entire unit, not a fractional unit. We often see
commercial or lodge developers providing mitigation for slightly more FTEs than their
development generates, and this would clarify that that slight overage is not eligible for the
creation of a Housing Credit. This makes sense to me.
• Require units that are used to create Housing Credits to be for sale when they are in a mixed-
use, commercial, or lodge development. A stand-alone housing project could be for sale or for
rent. So, this would create credits from a for rent project on a 100% residential site? I think the
city/apcha would like some for rent units and this would be helpful to incent developers to build
it.
• Limit the creation of housing credits to projects within the City of Aspen boundaries. So, no
more Airport units? I thought this was the rule already. Works for me.
Thanks, Matt Brown
215-266-5211
P319
IX.a
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
RE: 1175 Doolittle Circle – Planned Development Minor Project Review
& 8040 Greenline Review - Second 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 for multi-family housing.
SUMMARY: The applicant is interested in
demolishing two small, existing storage
sheds with accompanying decks and fencing
and replacing them with one larger shed in
approximately the same location. The
current sheds are substandard in size for
meeting the maintenance storage needs of the
housing development.
There is no site-specific approval for the
Castle Ridge Apts. property. According to
Sec.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 dimensions of the Planned Development.
The addition of a 988 sq. ft. storage shed will
require an amendment to the Planned
Development for a floor area increase. Any
new development on this site is also subject to
8040 Greenline Review.
Approving the requested floor area increase for
the proposed maintenance shed will allow
Castle Ridge Apartments the needed on-site
storage for maintenance equipment and
vehicles.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the
application to meet all of the relevant review
criteria for 8040 Greenline and Minor
Amendment to a Project Review. The
applicant has demonstrated the need for a shed
structure that adequately stores all necessary
maintenance
equipment for
the property,
and Staff
recommends
approval of
this request.
Figure A:
Image of
current sheds
on site,
surrounded by
fence.
P320
IX.b
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. The Planning
& Zoning Commission is typically the final review board in this matter. However,
pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1, when a land use case requires reviews by multiple
boards the reviews may be combined at the discretion of the Community Development
Director, so long as all reviews are properly noticed. In this case the 8040 Greenline
Review has been consolidated with the
review for a Minor Amendment, and
therefore the City Council will be the
only and 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, and is therefore considered to be within an
environmentally sensitive area. All new development on the site must meet the criteria of the
8040 Greenline Review.
Staff has found no site-specific 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.
P321
IX.b
Page 3 of 5
Figure D: Location of existing sheds
Figure E: Location of proposed shed
CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant has indicated a need for a larger on-site shed to store all
equipment necessary for the maintenance of
the Castle Ridge Apartment grounds. The
applicant is interested in demolishing the two
existing sheds and decks and replacing these
structures with a 988 sq. ft. maintenance
building to house 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: The existing sheds are located towards the rear of the property, on generally
level 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
P322
IX.b
Page 4 of 5
Staff and Engineering have reviewed the applicant’s request against the criteria for a Minor
Amendment to a Project Review approval and 8040 Greenline review and note the following:
1) Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval. These review criteria focus on
the general concept for the development, such as land suitability and compatibility of
development, and any variations from the allowances of the underlying zone district.
Both Planning and Engineering staff find the proposed shed’s location to be suitable for
the site. The ground is generally flat and level in this location and the proposed shed
does not interfere with the sloped ground at the rear of the parcel. There are no known
man-made or natural hazards at the location where the development is planned. 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. During site visits Staff
has noted equipment, such as a riding lawn mower and other larger items, stored outside
of the sheds’ fenced area. By providing additional floor area for the planned
development, specifically for a structure that will meet the storage needs for
maintaining the property, the area will appear cleaner and safer.
Proposed building materials include rustic cedar wood siding which will be painted a
dark brown color to match the neighboring residential buildings. The shed will be one-
story with a gabled roof, and will be subordinate to the residences on the site.
Engineering’s review of the application has not revealed any major concerns. As is
typical for new development, 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.
2) 8040 Greenline Review: These review criteria focus on reducing impacts on the
natural watershed and surface runoff, minimizing air pollution, reducing the potential
for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslides, ensuring the availability of
utilities and access to development, and minimizing disturbance to existing terrain and
natural land features.
The proposed site of the shed is compatible with the terrain and suitable for
development as it is primarily level, asphalt paved, and currently developed with two
small structures. The proposed development does not encroach into the sloped area to
the south, and does not contribute to the possibility of rockfalls or avalanche danger.
The current water runoff needs for this area have been met with an existing drainage
swale. As mentioned previously, the applicant will be required to submit a Drainage
Report prior to receipt of building permit to indicate whether drainage patterns are
P323
IX.b
Page 5 of 5
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.
Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, soil
erosion or water pollution as a result of this proposal, nor will the shed cause any
detriment 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. The development plans do not require
retaining walls and so 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.
Entry to 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 Circle. Adequate access will be maintained for fire protection and snow
removal equipment.
RECOMMENDEDATION: 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 second reading.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Site Plan
EXHIBIT B – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Application
P324
IX.b
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 Castle
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,
P325
IX.b
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, with the following
conditions:
1. 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.
2. The applicant is required to create an updated plat for the Castle Ridge
Apartments Planned Development area to legitimize the floor area increase for the
new maintenance equipment shed and record this document with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days from the date of 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.
P326
IX.b
Ordinance No.24, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
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.
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
ATTEST:
___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10th day of August, 2015.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_________________________ _________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P327
IX.b
Exhibit A
Site Plan
A
P
3
2
8
I
X
.
b
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:
P329
IX.b
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.
P330
IX.b
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.
P331
IX.b
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.
P332
IX.b
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.
P333
IX.b
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)
P334
IX.b
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
P335
IX.b
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:
Title: ____ City Use:
Fees Due: $___________ Received: $____________
January, 2013 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
P336
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.
P337
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: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P338
IX.b
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
P339
IX.b
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.
P340
IX.b
P341
IX.b
P342
IX.b
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
P343
IX.b
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: _________________________
P344
IX.b
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.
P345
IX.b
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
P346
IX.b
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.
P347
IX.b
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.
P348
IX.b
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.
P349
IX.b
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
P350
IX.b
P
3
5
1
I
X
.
b
P
3
5
2
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
3
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
4
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
5
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
6
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
7
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
8
I
X
.
b
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
3
5
9
I
X
.
b
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
3
6
0
I
X
.
b
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
2nd Reading – 8/10/ 2015
Page 1 of 4
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: 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.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the second 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 third 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.
P361
IX.c
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
2nd Reading – 8/10/ 2015
Page 2 of 4
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. 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 expansions to floor area or total net livable area. 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.
Council had a number of questions during first reading regarding “expansion” of units compared
to “improvements” to units. Staff has broken these questions out by topic below:
Floor Area: Floor Area is the measurement of the total square footage in a building.
Regulations on Floor Area limit on how much bulk and mass may be built on any given property.
For this code amendment, staff is proposing that floor area for free-market residential units be
limited to what exists today. In addition, the code amendment includes language stating that any
future decreases in Floor Area for residential units would permanently result in that lower Floor
Area being the new limit for the property. No new Floor Area could be added to residential
units. Staff proposes Staff believes this is consistent with the original intent when City Council
passed the prohibition on free-market residential units.
Floor Area Exemptions: The Land Use Code includes a number of exclusions to the floor area
calculation. For instance, storage areas of up to thirty-two (32) square feet are not included in
the calculation of floor area. This allows each residential unit the opportunity for some basic
storage. Similarly, front porches are exempt from floor area as a way to encourage a building
element that creates a more inviting pedestrian experience. Decks in all zone districts are subject
to certain exemptions as well. The intent is to allow some usable outdoor space for residential,
lodge, and commercial units. In the CC and C-1 zone districts, decks are 100% exempt in mixed-
use buildings. For the Concept 600 building, this means that any new decks would technically
be exempt from Floor Area. There are three options for City Council to consider as it related to
Floor Area Exemptions and this code amendment:
1. Allow all free-market units in CC and C-1 to take advantage of all Floor Area
Exemptions in the Land Use Code. This would include exemptions for deck space,
storage area, garages, and at-grade patios.
2. Allow all free-market units in CC and C-1 to take advantage of some of Floor Area
Exemptions in the Land Use Code. If Council chooses this option, staff recommends the
exemptions be limited to decks and at-grade patios, as these spaces are not enclosed and
have less of an impact on the bulk and mass of a building than other exempt areas that are
fully enclosed (garages and storage areas).
P362
IX.c
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
2nd Reading – 8/10/ 2015
Page 3 of 4
3. Allow all free-market units only in C-1 to take advantage of all or some of Floor Area
Exemptions in the Land Use Code.
4. Prohibit all free-market units in CC and C-1 from using any of the Floor Area
Exemptions in the Land Use Code. For this code amendment, staff suggests this
approach is most appropriate. While not technically expanding Floor Area, staff believes
these changes constitutes expansion of the units.
Net Livable Area: Net Livable Area is the measurement of the square footage in an individual
residential unit. It differs from Floor Area in that is only focuses on the actual living space of a
unit, rather than the entire size of a building. All multi-family units in town are subject to unit
size caps of between 2,000 sq ft and 2,500 sq ft, depending on their location and zone district.
All commercial zones include a limit of 2,000 sq ft, which can be expanded to 2,500 sq ft
through the landing of an historic TDR (each TDR is worth 500 sq ft of net livable space). It
should be noted that when TDRs are landed for unit size it does not increase the size of the
overall building; it only increases the size of an individual unit.
Staff has included language in the code amendment that reintroduces the 2,000 sq ft unit size cap
in the CC and C-1 zone district. Staff requests direction from Council regarding the ability to
expand units up 2,500 sq ft through the landing of an historic TDR. While staff supports having
more locations for landing TDRs, particularly ways that do not result in increases to Floor Area,
and has included this language in the code amendment, staff questions if it is consistent with the
philosophy of the original Council Ordinance to limit free-market residential units.
General Applicability: The changes proposed in the code amendment would apply equally to
all properties in the CC and C-1 zone district. There are almost 200 free-market residential units
in both zone districts1. Exhibit E is a map showing the parcels that include free-market
residential units. Staff has attempted to balance the fact that free-market residential units face
obstacles in doing basic improvements, such as remodeling a kitchen or bathroom, with the
stated desire of the original Council Ordinance to curb free-market residential development in
the downtown due to its negative impacts on commercial uses. The code amendment would
allow for general improvements, as well as interior expansions, but would not allow any exterior
expansions. Because this amendment applies broadly to all properties in the CC and C-1 zone
districts, staff is concerned that allowing any exterior expansions will result in further erosion of
the existing commercial uses in favor of residential uses. This is in direct conflict with the
original intent of the 2012 downtown zoning changes.
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. Public comment received through
1 Approximately 124 in CC and 75 in C-1. It should be noted that this number includes the 17 units at the
Prospector in the CC zone that are typically used as lodging accommodations.
P363
IX.c
Code Amendment – CC and C-1
2nd Reading – 8/10/ 2015
Page 4 of 4
July 22 is attached as Exhibit F. Additional public comment received before the hearing will be
entered into the record at the August 10th meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2015.”
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
Exhibit E – Map of Free-Market Residential Units in the CC and C-1 zones
Exhibit F – Public Comments received through July 22, 2015
P364
IX.c
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
P365
IX.c
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:
P366
IX.c
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.
P367
IX.c
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.
P368
IX.c
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
P369
IX.c
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
CC and C-1, 2nd Reading – 8/10/2015
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed amendment 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.
P370
IX.c
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, legally established 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 its 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
P371
IX.c
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 26.575.060Chapter 12.06.
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
P372
IX.c
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. Free-market residential units shall not be
able to utilize any exemptions to floor area outlined in Section 26.575.020(D),
Measuring 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 area for a building or project 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
P373
IX.c
Exhibit B – Land Use Code Redlines, CC & C-1 zones
Page 4 of 8
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:
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 or the use.
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.
P374
IX.c
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 its 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):
P375
IX.c
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 26.575.060Chapter 12.06.
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.
P376
IX.c
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. Free-market residential units shall not be able
to utilize any exemptions to floor area outlined in Section 26.575.020(D), Measuring
Floor Area.
P377
IX.c
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 area for a building or project 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 or the use.
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.
P378
IX.c
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
P379
IX.c
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
P380
IX.c
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
P381
IX.c
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
P382
IX.c
P383IX.c
From:dick@bulkeleys.net
To:Steve Skadron; Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins ; Art Daily; Bert Myrin ; Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Subject:Concept 600 Building
Date:Friday, July 10, 2015 1:47:05 PM
Aspen City Council members-
On Monday, July 13, you are going to review the status of the Concept 600 Building and
the effects that Ordnance 25 had.
One of your concerns is the addition of balcony covers over the exposed, 4th floor
balconies.
Julie and Dick Bulkeley, in 2000, were permitted by the city to cover our West and South
balconies.
Before this, our balconies in Condo 401, were un-usable in either summer or winter.
We feel strongly that the other owners, on the 4th floor, should be permitted to do the
same.
Thank you for your concern on this whole Concept 600 situation.
Sincerely,
Dick Bulkeley
P384
IX.c
From:lepallet@sbcglobal.net
To:Steve Skadron; Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins ; Art Daily; Bert Myrin ; Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Cc:Jim Smith
Subject:concept 600 porch update
Date:Friday, July 10, 2015 12:41:28 PM
City of Aspen,
I am an owner of a corner unit within Concept 600 and I performed a renovation of the
outdoor porch and balcony in 2012. This permitted me to connect my southern and
eastern porch which were previously not connected and where a closet existed for
outdoor storage. The permit allowed me to totally change improve and expand my
patio options in this city of views. I even convinced the HOA of improvements in the
railings and floor types that would greatly enhance the use and value of our property.
I implore you to help us continue to bring our building into the modern era and
improve our usage potential with our exposed balconies.
Larry LeBarre, unit 210
P385
IX.c
P386
IX.c
P387
IX.c
P
3
8
8
I
X
.
c
From:David Grimes
To:Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins ; Art Daily; Bert Myrin ; Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Subject:Concept 600
Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 10:00:52 AM
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
> I am a relatively new owner of a condo at Concept 600. I am 79 years old and hope to be an owner
here for at least another 8-10 years. Then, upon facing the task of selling, I hope the value of my
condo increases, if only slightly.
>
> However, with the new “rules” occasioned by the ordinance 25, taking from us property rights that
existed prior to my purchase, the value may well decline.
>
> There are a few things that are now prohibited, such as the ability to improve the condos and the
ability to combine two units into one. The owners on the 4th floor want to put a roof over their very
small patios. That would make both summer and winter use of the patios “workable”. As it is now, the
patios are too hot in the summer and covered with snow in the winter, making snow removal difficult
and dangerous in that the wooden beams supporting the patios rot due to snow melting. Imagine a
patio collapsing as one did recently in Washington State due to rotten support beams.
>
> Expanding patios from side to side is another feature that is presently prohibited due to Ord. 25.
>
> Please thoughtfully consider restoring property rights to us that existed prior to Ord. 25.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Grimes Condo 301
P389
IX.c
From:Adam Frisch
To:Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Subject:Fwd: Deck (as opposed to patio) expansions and coverings
Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 2:38:12 PM
I don't think this came to you.
I appreciate the memo for tonight, but it would be helpful to know areas we arebeing preceded we are not going far enough as I assume what memo proposes isshort by 600 owners. I understand might not be normal procedure to lay out
possible concerns, but they seem to be very uniform and numerous.
Anyway, see you tonight
---------------------------------------------------adam b. frischcouncil member
the city of aspen
130 s. galena street
aspen, co 81611-1975p.970.925.5199f. 970.920.5119adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sent from my aspen taxpayer supported ipad
Begin forwarded message:
From: jimlindsaysmith@aol.comDate: July 12, 2015 at 7:26:45 PM MDTTo: adam.frisch@cityofaspen.comSubject: Deck (as opposed to patio) expansions and coverings
Hi, Adam,
Guess you have left the wilds of Africa for the wildness of Aspen City Council. Is there
much difference?
Here's some info on land use codes pertaining to decks and patio (ground-level)
coverings. I could find nothing on deck (above-ground level) coverings.
One of the questions that we believe came from the discussions on Resolution 64 in the
Council meeting on June 22 was whether existing, free-market residential units in the CC
and C1 zones would be able to expand their balconies/decks. Those of us from Concept
600 believe that was a pre-existing right that we would like to have restored.
Barring any other changes to the proposed Ordinance 25 ( 2015), the ability to expand
decks would become a restored property right under existing code as shown below.
The Land Use Code at 26.575.020 D. 4. states, in part:
Decks, balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed use,
P390
IX.c
commercial, or lodge building located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District, Mixed Use (MU) Zone District, the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, or
the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area
calculations.
Since balconies are not included in the FAR calculation, then there is no increase in the
FAR if the balconies are expanded. Therefore, an expanded balcony would be in
compliance with the proposed language of Ordinance 25 (2015). We don’t know if
Community Development shares this opinion.
Another question from the June 22 nd meeting was the status of roofs over the Concept
600 4 th floor porches. Again, Community Development does not take a position on this
issue in their agenda documents. However, in our email interaction with Jessica Garrow
on this topic, Community Development takes the position that the maximum size of a roof
overhang on a porch is 4 feet, regardless of the porch level. Their supporting
documentation from the code is:
26.575.010 D.6. which states:
Patios. Patios developed at or within six inches of finished grade shall not be
counted towards Floor Area. These features may be covered by roof overhangs
or similar architectural projections of up to four feet, as measured from the face
of the building, and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. When roof
overhangs or similar architectural projections exceed four feet, the entire
feature counts toward Floor Area.
This code is specific to ground level patios, but Community Development is contending it
broadly applies to all balconies/decks, regardless of level.
In examining 10 to 15 buildings in the CC, C1, CL and L zones, there were numerous
examples on new and old buildings of overhangs on upper level balconies/porches that
vastly exceeded 4'. At the very least, there is significant inconsistency in the application
of the 4' rule for upper level balconies.
I look forward to haring about your adventures and seeing you in the Council meeting
tomorrow night.
Sincerely,
Jim
P391
IX.c
From:Alaine
To:Steve Skadron; Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins ; Art Daily; Bert Myrin
Cc:Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Subject:Ordinance 25 (2012 & 2015)
Date:Friday, July 10, 2015 3:56:43 PM
July 10, 2015
Re: Ordinance 25 (2012 & 2015) – Concept 600 – Safety Concerns
Dear Mayor Skadron and City Council Members:
I acquired Unit 409 at Concept 600 over 15 years ago, and my brother owned the unit for years prior to
that.
After retiring from ranching in Wyoming, I’m at a stage in life where my family, friends and I can use
the unit on a continuous basis throughout the year. Thus, it’s time to make some needed
improvements.
My first priority is to make the balcony/deck safer and usable by ensuring it does not have a failure like
the ones we’ve recently seen in the news.
My particular balcony can be strengthened by extending it 4’ 4” to the existing wing wall, giving it
additional support to supplement the cantilever design. Other balconies at Concept 600 already have
this feature, and it makes good sense to allow others to do the same with their balconies. As a diligent
owner, last year I hired a structural engineer to design these enhancements, and I also obtained
construction bids. However, after this effort and expense on my part, I discovered that these particular
deck improvements are no longer allowable under Ordinance 25 (2012). Because of the inability to
expand my deck, I’m also unable to strengthen it and provide a safer deck environment. I can only
assume that this was an inadvertent, unintended consequence of that ordinance and that you will make
every effort to correct it in Ordinance 25 (2015).
My final concern is that I may not be able to cover my 4th floor deck. It needs an overhang to protect
it from the snow, rain and extreme heat. The continuous effects of these weather elements will weaken
the integrity of other parts of the deck. Therefore, I also paid for a structural engineering design and
obtained bids for this safety enhancement project, which is likewise now on hold.
I’m counting on you, Mr. Mayor and Council members, to restore the long-standing rights we had prior
to Ordinance 25 (2012).
Thank you,
Alaine Lessing
Unit 409, Concept 600
P392
IX.c
From:Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Hicks
To:Steve Skadron; Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins ; Art Daily; Bert Myrin ; Chris Bendon ; Jessica Garrow
Cc:Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Hicks ; Mr. & Mrs. Jim Smith
Subject:Ordinance 25 (2012): Impact on Concept 600
Date:Saturday, July 11, 2015 2:53:40 AM
Community Development
To: Members of City Council
Members of Community Development
WHO ARE WE: Mr./Mrs. Gilbert W. Hicks
I am Patsy Hicks, a former President of C-600 Homeowners Assn. We live in Hawaii
and have owned Unit #209 for 27 years. During that time, I have been responsible for some of the extensive renovations to the building and our own condo.
WE DO NOT WANT AN ASPEN THAT LOOKS LIKE VAIL
Concept 600 seeks to preserve the majesty and age of our pine trees and prominent location on Main St. We fill the need for housing to accommodate visitors for
seasonal events. We have made our unit available for these events, usually
reserving the off seasons for our personal use. The Music School would suffer
greatly without our units.
LEARN FROM WISE PLANNING IN HAWAII
We have many examples of outstanding planning to preserve the beauty of our Islands. The best of the best are areas where planners have considered owners that maintain their properties with upgrades and responsible maintenance. Hawaii has
the same needs as Aspen and we solve our problems best when city planners have
made choices that have a vision of the future.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO COMMUNITY
P393
IX.c
Sherman Capital 600 Main Street, 404 Aspen, Colorado 86111 July 12, 15 As owners of Concept 600, # 404, we are requesting that all property rights previously held by Concept 600 owners be restored. These property rights allowed owners to improve, remodel, and renovate our building units, to install roofs over the 4th floor balconies (where sun and snow destroy them since they are not protected), to enlarge porches and to combine units. . These rights are currently denied to Concept 600 and other free market residential units in C-1 and Commercial Core zones, but continue to be available to most zones surrounding downtown Aspen. This is discriminatory and unfair. Additionally, improvements on balconies are vital for safety issues. This is one of Aspen’s oldest condos and it is prominent on the Main Street of town so improvements would benefit the town as well as the owners. We would like to “keep up with the times” and not look like the “tired old dog” of the downtown, so please restore our previous property rights so we can make some much needed improvements. Sincerely, Arlie Sherman
P394
IX.c
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Second Reading – 8/10/2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
Ordinance 27, Series of 2015
DATE: August 10, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance would amend 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This is the second reading of proposed code amendments related to which land use code a project
may rely on when part of a multi-step process or when amending a previous approval. Pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should 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 (attached as Exhibit D). A copy of the approved Policy Resolution is
attached as Exhibit E.
Since first reading, staff reworked language to use the term Site-Specific Development Plan.
This is a term used in State Statute and in the City’s land use code and its use here, instead of
“project,” is much clearer. Staff also included language regarding multiple step applications,
such as “conceptual” and “final.” The City’s position has always been that an application for
P395
IX.d
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Second Reading – 8/10/2015
Page 2 of 3
an approval of a site specific development plan shall be reviewed based on the laws in effect at the
time of the application for the first step, typically conceptual approval and those laws apply
throughout the process, unless there is a substanti al amendment. There has been recent
discussion of this practice, highlighting the need for clarity.
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.
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 be able to rely on the code i n place at the time of the
application for subdivision when it applied for a subsequent separate application for
Commercial Design Review.
P396
IX.d
Code Amendment - Land Use Code Reliance
Second Reading – 8/10/2015
Page 3 of 3
REFERRALS & OUTREACH:
A meeting was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain feedback on the
proposed code amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission strongly supported the code
amendment as proposed by staff to ensure a fairer and clearer review process. A copy of their
meeting minutes is attached as Exhibit B. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the
suggested approach and supports staff’s recommendation. In addition, copies of the existing
policy were sent to land use planners when it was issued. Additional outreach through the
Community Development Department’s newsletter is also being conducted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 27, 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
Exhibit D – Proposed Code Language
Exhibit E – Approved Policy Resolution
P397
IX.d
Code Amendment – Land Use Code Reliance
First Reading Ordinance 27, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE No. 27
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.304 – COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, 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 related 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, 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 July 13, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 72, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5
– 0) 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, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.304 – Common
Development Review Procedures; 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 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, shall be amended as
follows:
[No Changes to Sections 26.304.010 through 26.304.060]
26.304.070 Applicability of Land Use Code Amendments.
P398
IX.d
Code Amendment – Land Use Code Reliance
First Reading Ordinance 27, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
Applications for a site-specific development plan shall be reviewed according to the land use
code in effect on the date the application was determined by the City to be complete. The
application shall continue to be reviewed according to the provisions of the land use code in
effect upon such date throughout the application’s period of pendency.
Applications for a site-specific development plan which require multiple steps, such as
“conceptual review” and “final review” or “project review” and “detailed review,” shall be
reviewed according to the land use code in effect on the date the application for the initial step
was determined by the City to be complete. The application shall continue to be reviewed
according to the provisions of the land use code in effect upon such date throughout the
application’s period of pendency.
During the period of pendency, insubstantial amendments initiated by the applicant and
amendments to an application proposed as a means to achieve compliance with city standards,
review criteria, or requirements of reviewing agencies shall not cause a new submission date or
interrupt the applicability of the land use code to the project.
Substantial amendments to an application proposed during the period of pendency which are
initiated by the applicant independent of a code requirement shall be subject to the land use code
in effect upon amendment submission. The entirety of the application shall be subject to all
aspects of the land use code in effect at the time of the amendment submission, not only the
amended elements. No aspect of the application shall be considered immune from compliance.
Unless otherwise stated in the Development Order, insubstantial amendments to an approved
site-specific development plan shall continue to be reviewed according to the land use code
under which the plan was approved for the period of statutory vested rights, as may be extended.
Approved amendments to a previously issued Development Order shall cause issuance of a
revised Development Order pursuant to Section 26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a new
expiration date of the Development Order.
Unless otherwise stated in the Development Order, substantial amendments to an approved site-
specific development plan shall be subject to the land use code in effect upon amendment
submission. Approved amendments to a previously issued Development Order shall cause
issuance of a revised Development Order pursuant to Section 26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a
new expiration date of the Development Order.
Amendments to an approved site-specific development plan accepted by the City after the period
of statutory vested rights has expired shall be reviewed according to the land use code in effect
on the date the application was determined by the City to be complete.
For the purposes of this section, insubstantial 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 an inconsequential manner. All other amendments shall be considered
substantial.
[Subsequent sections in the Chapter shall be renumbered as follows:
P399
IX.d
Code Amendment – Land Use Code Reliance
First Reading Ordinance 27, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
26.304.080 – Development Orders (no change to text of section)
26.304.090 – Building Permit (no change to text of section)]
Section 2:
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 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: 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 5: 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 6:
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
P400
IX.d
Code Amendment – Land Use Code Reliance
First Reading Ordinance 27, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P401
IX.d
Land Use Code Reliance Policy Direction; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portion of Title 26. It clarifies
how land use applications are reviewed by specifying when certain codes are used.
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:
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 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.
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.
P402
IX.d
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
P403
IX.d
P404
IX.d
P405
IX.d
Exhibit D, Proposed Code Language
Land Use Code Reliance, 1st Reading 7/27/2015
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D: Proposed Code Language
26.304.070 Applicability of Land Use Code Amendments.
Applications for land use approval shall be reviewed according to the land use code in effect on the date
the application was determined by the City to be complete. The application shall continue to be
reviewed according to the provisions of the land use code in effect upon such date throughout the
application’s period of pendency.
Amendments to a project during the period of pendency proposed as a means to achieve compliance
with the land use code shall not interrupt the applicability of the land use code to the project.
Insubstantial amendments to a project proposed during the period of pendency which are initiated by the
applicant independent of a code requirement shall not interrupt the applicability of the land use code to
the project.
Substantial amendments to a project proposed during the period of pendency which are initiated by the
applicant independent of a code requirement shall be subject to the land use code in effect upon
amendment submission. The entirety of the application shall be subject to all aspects of the land use
code in effect at the time of the amendment submission, not only the amended elements of the project.
No aspect of the project shall be considered immune from compliance.
Unless otherwise stated in the Development Order, insubstantial amendments to an approved project
shall continue to be reviewed according to the land use code under which the project was approved for
the period of statutory vested rights, as may be extended. Approved amendments to a previously issued
Development Order shall cause issuance of a revised Development Order pursuant to Section
26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a new expiration date of the Development Order.
Unless otherwise stated in the Development Order, substantial amendments to an approved project shall
be subject to the land use code in effect upon amendment submission. Approved amendments to a
previously issued Development Order shall cause issuance of a revised Development Order pursuant to
Section 26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a new expiration date of the Development Order.
Amendments to an approved project accepted by the City after the period of statutory vested rights has
expired shall be reviewed according to the land use code in effect on the date the application was
determined by the City to be complete.
For the purposes of this section, insubstantial 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 shall be considered substantial.
Subsequent sections in the Chapter shall be renumbered as follows:
26.304.080 – Development Orders (no change to text of section)
26.304.090 – Building Permit (no change to text of section)
P406
IX.d
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. 72, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 – 0) 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:
P407
IX.d
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 13th day of July, 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P408
IX.d